The Ashton Vale village green area marked, top, and Bristol City FC's Ashton gate stadium
A High Court judge has allowed a second person to pursue a judicial review over the plan to create a town green at Ashton Vale.
A letter from the court in London, seen by Bristol24-7 this morning, confirms the legal battle has not been derailed, after it emerged on Monday that the original applicant had withdrawn.
Read the High Court decision in full here…
Judicial reviews normally have to be submitted within three months of the decision which is being disputed. But Judge Anthony Thornton has allowed the second review to take place.
Bristol City Council has reacted with shock to the news, after proclaiming earlier this week the end to the legal wrangle that has lasted since the summer.
In a statement, the council said: “Clearly this astonishing turn of events is deeply frustrating. Our legal representatives were not invited to be present, or even made aware, that the courts were due to make this decision on a new judicial review by another anonymous person.
“We shall be seeking to reverse this decision in the strongest terms next week when it is reviewed by the courts.”
On Monday, we reported how there was still a huge gulf between campaigners and Bristol City Council over the current legal position.
Earlier in the day, the deputy leader of the council said the judicial review application had been dropped and the original decision to split the site would be enforced.
Bristol City Council had claimed the row over the land was “at an end” when the first application was withdrawn. “The sole named applicant has discontinued the application to the High Court, and that this now marks the end of the litigation,” a statement from the council read.
But campaign spokesman Peter Crispin told Bristol24-7 the bid had not been withdrawn. “All that has happened is that a poor, elderly gentleman was put in a position where he felt he couldn’t carry on,” he said.
The decision to split the Ashton Vale site, made last summer, allowed for the creation of a town green in the southern area of the site while leaving Bristol City FC free to build their new stadium in the northern half – a stadium for which they were granted planning permission in 2009. But a campaign to save the entire site for a town green was launched soon afterwards.
In a statement this morning, Bristol City FC said: “The club is aware of recent and on-going developments in claims to challenge Bristol City Council’s decision to register land at Ashton Vale as a Town and Village Green.
“This is a complex legal case between an individual claimant, Bristol City Council and the landowners. Bristol City Football Club is not a party to this legal process, although we clearly have a huge interest in the outcome.
“Bristol City Football Club will make no further comment on this matter for the time being.”
What greenbelt? There is development adjacent to the site. This site isn't in the middle of a national park. Whoever owns the land should be able to do whatever they choose as long as planning permission has been granted, which it has…
No shame in asking for a JR of the process.
Plenty of people want to see fair play, unlike some of the commenters here and on the EP.
Bad luck if you don't like the system.
That's about the size of it. A very small selfish Minority led by an old man who used to be a councillor is preventing the project from goiing ahead at some considerable cost to us. They don't care to compromise, they just want to stop the project entirely and to hell with the requirements of Bristol and it's residents.
Shame on you Peter Crispin and your entire group.
Oh alan – don't be so ridiculous. There is a perfectly good stadium at Ashton Gate and you have planning permission to turn it into a 30,000 stadium.
Bristol and its residents do not require the greenbelt to be concreted over. And many of them would quite like to keep the greenbelt.
On behalf of myself – I am happy to clarify the situation as I know see it.
The application for a Judicial Review into the Council's decision not to award Town and Village Green status to the Northern half of the Ashton Vale site, was in the name of one local man – whose anonymity had been protected by order of the Courts. It was alleged that this one man had voluntarily waived his right to anonymity and written to the Council and to the Courts formally withdrawing his legal action, causing some in the council to believe that the legal action was at an end.
Just because the Bristol City Council or other opponents to the TVG application may not know exactly what is going on and were not invited to be present when the High Court Granted a new JR doesn't change the facts. The case has not been withdrawn, and continues. It is therefore my legal opinion that the legal challenge is not at an end, but is rather, just getting very interesting indeed!.
This matter has divided opinions locally with some strongly in favour of preserving the whole site as green space, and others wanting to see a stadium built. As far as the Council is concerned the period of uncertainty will carry on for a while longer, and the Stadium vs TVG saga can proceed in the normal way.
Let me get this right…
A small minority of residents (in ashton vale, let alone bristol) are preventing a stadium, that the majority want, on land they dont even own or dont even use.
They got half to themselves, but werent happy the stadium was still happening – even though, they dont own or use the land.
on the basis the council did'nt send the evidence back to be "tested" by the green activist inspector – they ask for a JR – even though the evidence was from Environment Agency records.
Even though, there is no requirement, to send back to green activist inspector, they are granted a JR – just to make sure the tiny minority are not cheated – still ignoring the majority and their wishes.
Then, the individual pulls out – all looks good to go. Then six months after the original decision, the minority are granted another JR, on claims of harassment.
So, they are granted a JR, despite being out of the 90 days, on the basis that official records havent been "tested", even though they dont have to be – on a piece of land, these people do not own or use…. to stop a stadium being built, which the majority want in AV and Bristol, stopping 90m quid of investment , during a time where people are losing their jobs and the economy are on its needs.
All for something like 20 odd residents (6000 residents in AV)
COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY
Hey Riaz – What about "Game over"
Number of residents in Ashton Vale is nearer 1,600 by the way.
Thank god that "in this country" we have independent Judges who will look at the facts and not the media hysteria. You are right though – if this was a fascist state and the fascists supported BCFC, then the stadium would have been built already.
Dont count your chickens just yet. The council werent at the high court to put their case. There is a 2nd letter which confirms the individual never has any pressure from pro-stadium supporters, but he was in fact pressured by the village greeners…
The council will produce this letter in their appeal of the decision.
As for the 1600 residents – the figure of 6000, was one used by anthony butcher – apparently thats how many people are against the stadium. But you and me both know, a tiny minority are against the stadium. The real figure does not get near 4 figures – where as the pros have tens of thousands…
Can you tell me though, out of interest. How with the residents will be adversely affected by a stadium – other than a little more traffic once a fortnight??
Does ANYONE know the grounds for this decision? It all seems abit of a mystery.
I presume its the fact the original applicant was "harassed"
If so, the council will be able to present the 2nd letter at the appeal, which blows that claim out of the water.
The council can appeal apparently – they werent represented when this decision was made. They have a strong case…. fortunately.
The Grounds for the decision are:
1. this is a representative action
2. the judge saw the unblacked out version of the letter
3. the judge allowed a new representative of the applicant group