Any barristers or someone who knows one?

Nitefly said:
First, the A38 = ****ing old road.
Click to expand...

Yup it is.

It is also limited in its ability and capacity due to geographical features and housing. No matter what "improvements" they make it still has to bottleneck down to single file in multiple places.

The plans dont include changes at some of the most critical bottlenecks.

And the projected benefits are laughable, non rush hour traffic will be moving slower and travel taking longer, and by 2040, it will improve travel times by a whole 3 minutes during rush hour in 1 direction.

For years the people living here have been begging for a new modern "western bypass" to be built around the town, that would actually resolve the issues. To which WCC have refused.

Put bluntly the whole project is an absolute farse, a waste of tax payers money and causing massive environmental damage for no significant tangible benefit except lining the pockets of the contractors.

Nitefly said:
I doubt any of that was particularly helpful, but consider what the aim / desirable goals of taking this further is; if you’re happy with rattling cages then great, but I doubt they will abandon the whole thing if it’s part of wider schemes (including improvements necessary for housing etc.)
Click to expand...

The project will go ahead regardless. However we have already secured major consessions and changes to the plans (such as making sure replanting takes place where the trees were removed rather than 20 miles down the road), dangerous propsals being scrapped, unpopular plans removed etc.

Its about holding the council and the police to account. The consultations for example didnt mention tree felling in the thousands, it just mentioned "minor felling" and "earthworks". And the police should not be acting as private security to the council.

Nitefly said:
Whilst typing I’ve also just seen @ubersonic’s post re: M42/M5 - it’s possible these A38 works are considered ‘reasonably necessary’ in connection with that under s(1)(a)(3).
Click to expand...

From the information we have managed to pry out the council via FoA requests, it appears that this project, while linking the motorways, is its own thing and considered local and unrelated to the motorway improvement works.
 
Nitefly said:
Whilst typing I’ve also just seen @ubersonic ‘s post re: M42/M5 - it’s possible these A38 works are considered ‘reasonably necessary’ in connection with that under s(1)(a)(3).
Click to expand...
I think the bigger problem for the protesters is that because it's been given a Developmental Consent Order, and it is associated with the M42/M5 project that fulfils subsection (6)(B), that in turn fulfils the entirety of Subsection 6, regardless of the status of (A) or it's subsequent (i)(ii) sections :(
 
ubersonic said:
I think the bigger problem for the protesters is that because it's been given a Developmental Consent Order, and it is associated with the M42/M5 project that fulfils subsection (6)(B), that in turn fulfils the entirety of Subsection 6, regardless of the status of (A) or it's subsequent (i)(ii) sections :(
Click to expand...

We already have confirmation from the police that their actions were undertaken under (6)(a). Hence the question on if their interpretation of it is right or wrong and why ive said (b) is irrelevant.
 
kindai said:
We already have confirmation from the police that their actions were undertaken under (6)(a). Hence the question on if their interpretation of it is right or wrong and why ive said (b) is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I know, apologies I mustn't have been clear, my point was that if you/others attempted to take action against the police based on the fact that (6)(a) should not have applied, it would likely amount to nothing because even if it were to get to court it would almost certainly be ruled the police did nothing wrong aside from give out some incorrect information, as (6)(b) applied anyway so the result would have been the same even if they said the correct thing.
 
@kindai thanks for the bonus info.

Just to spell out what I was alluding to, it’s possible that the works could be construed as ‘maintenance’ to ‘major transport works’ under very old legislation such as “ye olde A38 Act 1023 b.c.” - I haven’t checked.

In respect to what the police have / haven’t said, there’s plenty of time for ‘backwards reasoning’ to legitimise themselves even if what they told you at the time (or later) was wrong. In which case you might not get anything beyond an public apology for a clerical error, which can in turn be framed as an ‘internal miscommunication’ :o

@ubersonic are you sure re: the DCO? I did see the scheme was approved in principle under their Local Plan but from a quick look I couldn’t see anything that made the DCO clear as day - I may have missed it.
 
Nitefly said:
@ubersonic are you sure re: the DCO? I did see the scheme was approved in principle under their Local Plan but from a quick look I couldn’t see anything that made the DCO clear as day - I may have missed it.
Click to expand...
From what I saw it was granted in 2021, quashed by a judge on climate grounds, then amended and re-granted in 2023. It's a bit hard to tell what's what as it seems the A38 widening project is being handled by multiple parties along the route.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom