Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


oxo last won the day on December 26 2021

oxo had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

oxo's Achievements


Member (3/5)



  1. Just a quick update to my special friends here - mr Punter was spot on as mr Nasty got to his senses and withdrew from JR. We are building again. Any advice on how to (legally) annoy mr Nasty after everything he put us through - would be really appreciated keeping count of virtual Champagne credits 🤩
  2. maybe this will help - Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant Order by Maggie XXX, Planning Court Lawyer (in exercise of powers delegated by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division pursuant to CPR Part 54.1A) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 1. The Claimant shall file Form N208PC (Planning Court Statutory Review Claim Form) in substitution for the N461PC Judicial Review Claim Form within 7 days of receipt of this Order. 2. The Claimant shall pay the balance of fee in the sum of £415 due in respect of this application for Statutory Review within 7 days of receipt of this Order (fee payable for Statutory Review being £569). 3. The Claimant shall show the Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities as the 1st Defendant in place of The Planning Inspectorate; The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham as the 2nd Defendant; and oxo as the 3rd Defendants. 4. The Claimant shall serve a copy of Form N208PC and a copy of the bundle of documentation in support on the 1st Defendant at Government Legal Department, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9GL and on the 2nd Defendant at the address of the Council’s Legal Department. 5. The Claimant shall serve a copy of the Form N208PC on the 3rd Defendants, oxo, within 14 days of receipt of this order in substitution for any judicial review claim form served on them together with the documentation in support.
  3. but you are right - we were not asked to stop the build, just thinking why our planner thinks we must wait - will investigate further
  4. Actually the council refused us, so they will probably be pleased to see JR thinking "I told you so oxo" We got planning on appeal by the Secretary of State's Inspector decision - which came quicker than we thought and where all council's objections were listed as 'unconvincing' - inspector wasn't mincing her words against mr evil's objections either Secretary of State are the 1st defendant now, council is now 2nd (not sure why they would bother with it at all but as Temp here says it's because they must enforce our appeal - they may choose to participate in defence, but I wouldn't count on them as reliable dendendant - they rejected our permission) We became 3rd defendant through court order (claimant only listed us as interested party) - effectively we were 'upgraded' by the JR's lawyer from interested party to defendant probably because they know that council won't bother and the Secretary Of State - we are told - don't like to litigate and they would rather agree to their decision being quashed and go to re-run our appeal with yet another inspector (whilst addressing whatever unknown mistakes they may have made) we are looking for many months delay here and if we eventually lose properly (i.e. appeal/application will be quashed completely) - all that we built now (according to the planner's view) - may be asked to be demolished. however insane this may sound as Adsibob says. basically we are stuck by the sound of it and need to wait for 2 weeks to see what the procedural grounds mr Evil is relying on ? just when I started to plan a beauty parade of drainage beauticians ?
  5. interesting thought thank you but what would we be requesting and from who - from the LA who refused planning or the Inspector who allowed planning?
  6. just had a consultation with the planning advisor who got our appeal through - he's no wiser what the basis of the order from the claimant side and we just have to wait for 2 weeks to receive all his papers ? apparently due to the fact that the order reached us and mentioned "to remedy procedural defect" of not addressing the right defendants in the first place - we are not able to throw it out but we are going to have a more legally minded mind to consider the background for now. more costs unavoidable it seems ? but I was so much more prepared for this call thanks to all your comments and learning - this is like a university here, loving it, more virtual Champagne to you all ? maybe one day the real stuff too ??
  7. Yey thank you - I know it from an hour ago ? he served it on 4.2, which is 6 weeks to the day from 24.12 and they sent to us today which is 3 days later
  8. It says in the order he had to pay some ÂŁ600 fee to register it. But if it all goes to hearing - there must be few more thousands I would think?
  9. He did it right on the day of 6-week expiry. He is a property developer and well versed in planning objections etc
  10. I am surprised the council is named defendant. Council refused us planning on the basis of neighbour’s 90-page objection letter so the only defendant here should be the Inspector who dismissed all council’s and neighbour’s objections as unconvincing and granted us the permission. Why would council be asked to defend appeal if they were against permission in the first place? Unless the issue is something procedural that they have done something which allowed our appeal to succeed without them planning on it? Thank you for all the links, very helpful and another twist and turn on our poor wee hours and more research hours and probably bills ?
  11. I just dug out some numbers (love numbers) - only 2.5% of JRs are won by claimants (2018).. that's a high bar - wonder what he's thinking - bluff is already costing him in fees - he must know something we don't ?
  12. In the High Court of Justice CO Ref: Queen’s Bench Division CO/415/2022 Planning Court Administrative Court In the matter of an application for Statutory Review pursuant to s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 PAUL EVIL OBJECTING NEIGHBOUR versus (1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING UP, HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES (2) LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM (3) OXO On the Court making an order of its own initiative – CPR part 3.3(4 The Claimant shall file Form N208PC (Planning Court Statutory Review Claim Form) in substitution for the N461PC Judicial Review Claim Form within 7 days of receipt of this Order Reasons: The Claimant acting in person has lodged this claim by way of judicial review on 04 February 2022. However, the only means by which the validity of a decision made on appeal under s.78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may be challenged is by way of statutory review under s.288 of the 1990 Act. By Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 8C, paragraph 4.1, the defendants are the minister of the appropriate government department and the authority directly concerned with the decision. The Claimant has named The Planning Inspectorate as the 1st Defendant and oxo as Interested Parties. However, the Planning Inspectorate is an executive agency of the Ministry of Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities and there is no provision for “interested parties” to be joined to claims brought under CPR Part 8. In this case, the correct defendants are the Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and OXO. This Order is made to remedy the procedural defects.
  13. hello old friends - here we are back with some update ? the neighbour who objected to our planning application (which we got approved on appeal and about to start our build) - is now taking his claim to the High Court to review the appeal's decision. any thought what that means for our finances and our project to get a home we've been waiting (to start) for 3 years now?
  14. merry Christmas old friends! Just wanted to update that today we heard we won on our planning appeal against LBHF, and decision could not read as more helpful and supportive - all planners' arguments were dismissed as 'unconvincing' and both extensions can now go ahead ! Wanted to thank everybody for offering constructive and useful advice - probably would not have had the conviction to face the appeal route without you here - THANK YOU! Now on to the next challenge - to build it (without breaking the bank) ? Will be checking back in for more useful knowledge sending virtual Champagne to everyone (if it's your thing)
  • Create New...