St James Forum vs The Re-development

This was just on my Facebook feed and found it very surprising that there allegedly has been no discussion between club and forum on such a delicate proposal!!

http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-City-s-Julian-Tagg-calls-talks-St-James/story-29357077-detail/story.html


The club seem keen to sort this out as they are in the middle of the two parties, yelverton and the forum.

The suggestion that no one really knows who is leading the forum is difficult to fathom.

Anyone make sense of this all??

For all the blather & bluster, the simple fact of the matter is that judicial review is a perfectly legitimate course of action for the Forum to pursue.

Here's why: neighbourhood plans were set up to carry a certain power with respect to local planning. The St James Forum has always been quite clear: it supports the redevelopment of the football ground, but it is committed to entrenching a cap on the ratio of student dwellings relative to family dwellings, a principle endorsed by the Council.

The plans for redeveloping the ground will contravene both the Neighbourhood Plan & the principle implementated by the Council.

It is anomalous, given the commitments embodied in the principles underpinning neighbourhood plans, & given the commitment of the Council to certain balances in home occupancy in the area, that both of these principles should have been ignored in the waving through of the ground redevelopment plans.

This anomaly is itself a perfectly sound basis on which to seek judicial review.

Tagg may not like it. But spouting nonsense like: "I would prefer it if the forum would just say openly that they put their own concerns and their issues with the city council ahead of any interests of the club" is, at the very best, disingenuous.

This is a complicated matter, & seeking to reduce it to simplistic platitudes is going to help nobody.

Just read the exercpts from the NPG letter and I have to say I don't really believe there's much substance to the complaints. That said as is mentioned above its far from surprising that they have taken this course of action in view of the circumstances.

A JR as I believe others have pointed out on other threads is to challenge the process by which the decision has been made. The unfortunate aspect of all of this is the uncertainty created by all this and inevitable delay. Sad really that the risk wasn't mitigated...

The reason tagg said what he did, is that the forum started claiming that the club could do without the old grandstand, and that loss of parking would mean they couldn't host large fa cup games. Both of these are false , and so imo they should instead admit it's the student building they are really against.

I think there is quite possibly a vested interest as well with landlords who current rent properties to students fearing losing them to a purpose built facility. I also wonder if they felt a judicial review was called for why they didn't suggest that straight after the planners voted instead of delaying matters by involving the Secretary of State.

The forum is basically NIMBYism of the highest order, but at the same time is equally too stupid to realise that its NIMBYism will lead to a worse scenario to that which they are complaining about.

richard_portland said:

I think there is quite possibly a vested interest as well with landlords who current rent properties to students fearing losing them to a purpose built facility.

Click to expand...

Rentier landlords are conspicuously absent from the Forum!

Antony Moxey said:

The forum is basically NIMBYism of the highest order, but at the same time is equally too stupid to realise that its NIMBYism will lead to a worse scenario to that which they are complaining about.

Click to expand...

Anton - sometimes, it would behove you well to familiarise yourself with some basic facts before you spout ill-informed cack.

The Forum is seeking to uphold a principle introduced by the City Council.

Unlike the Football Club, which, despite all its hot air about the Community Trust, has shown no genuine interest in working with its local community, the St James Forum is absolutely committed to seeking a way forward that strikes the best possible balance between the interests of local residents, interests of the Football Club, & interests of students & their rentier landlords.

Of course, that sort of ecumenical ethos may not find a natural affinity with your own monochrome certitudes.

Not sure why Julian Tagg is discussing this in the paper ?. There is a resolution to grant planning, in fact there is a consent as the legal agreement is signed, and the Secretary of State has not called it in. Let them seek their JR if they must, they are dealt with a lot quicker than they were a couple of years ago, nothing in life is certain but I think the developer / club / council have the strong ground as things stand, and I think a JR will just cost the forum money. The Council will have anticipated this, their people would have looked extremely carefully at process and policy before making a decision, as they know these are the JR areas. It does really annoy me that the Forum are pushing the dates to seek this to the boundaries as very much seems to me they think even if they lose Yelverton may walk if they create maximum delay (very common and dull tactic), but I don't think they will.......

grecianred said:

Just read the exercpts from the NPG letter and I have to say I don't really believe there's much substance to the complaints. That said as is mentioned above its far from surprising that they have taken this course of action in view of the circumstances.

A JR as I believe others have pointed out on other threads is to challenge the process by which the decision has been made. The unfortunate aspect of all of this is the uncertainty created by all this and inevitable delay. Sad really that the risk wasn't mitigated...

Click to expand...

Which is, of course, the tactic. Delay. Personally I don't think that the SJF have a case for a Judicial Review and are unlikely to have the resources to fight such a cause. The delay resulting from all the preparatory shenanigans however could be quite damaging, even terminally, to the new grandstand. This is because (a) a situation could arise where our prospective developer could get fed up and walk away; (b) other student accommodation with permissions elsewhere could be started and take up the slack, making the one linked to our application unviable or (c) there might be further negotiation resulting in a reduction in the size of the proposed student block, thereby reducing the financial benefit to the club and making the grandstand unviable, although I think (c) is the least likely.

A corollary to this is that, should the SJF ever get to the point of forcing a Judicial Review, it would be against the City Council who would then have to fight the action at considerable expense which would fall on all of the council tax payers in the city and not just St. James residents.

Mouth of the Exe said:

Anton - sometimes, it would behove you well to familiarise yourself with some basic facts before you spout ill-informed cack.

The Forum is seeking to uphold a principle introduced by the City Council.

Unlike the Football Club, which, despite all its hot air about the Community Trust, has shown no genuine interest in working with its local community, the St James Forum is absolutely committed to seeking a way forward that strikes the best possible balance between the interests of local residents, interests of the Football Club, & interests of students & their rentier landlords.

Of course, that sort of ecumenical ethos may not find a natural affinity with your own monochrome certitudes.

Click to expand...

How long did spend with a thesaurus in order to try and sound intelligent and superior? Sadly, it was wasted as you know as well as anyone else that the Forum is interested in upholding nothing more than its own self interests.