No Supreme Court appeal over Hereford Rugby Club HQ

Ledbury Reporter: No Supreme Court appeal over Hereford Rugby Club HQ No Supreme Court appeal over Hereford Rugby Club HQ

A FINAL appeal bid over Hereford Rugby Club’s new home has been dismissed.

Hampton Bishop Parish Council applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal judgement that gave the club’s development plans the go-ahead.

Today, it was confirmed that the Supreme Court appeal bid has been refused as raising “ no issue of principle suitable for consideration”.

As reported by the Hereford Times, plans for a new ground and 190 new homes that would more than double the size of Hampton Bishop today won the Court of Appeal’s support last week,.

Three judges rejected Hampton Bishop Parish Council’s challenge to the plan, landing the parish council with a hefty legal bill.

It must pay £25,000 towards Herefordshire Council’s costs of contesting it’s challenges  in the High Court and Appeal Court.

And on top of that the parish council will also have its own legal costs to pay.

Lord Justice Richards declined to quash Herefordshire Council's decision to grant outline planning permission for the scheme.

The club wants to leave its current Wyeside home for Hampton Bishop  3km away.

The appeal court decision backed a High Court ruling last December that  upheld the planning permission, finding that the council planning committee had approached its decision properly.

The court also rejected a claim that the council breached European regulations by attaching a planning obligation to the permission which will see the existing ground transferred to it for just £1.

The parish council complained that the rugby club was “buying planning permission” and argued that the 190 new homes  will more than double the number of houses in its area.

As planned, the development gives the club an HQ with four adult pitches, two junior pitches, a 3G training pitch, an indoor training facility, a clubhouse and a 400-seat spectator stand.

The parish council claims that the development will completely transform the area concerned and irretrievably change its character.

It branded the council's grant of permission as "unlawful" on the basis it had failed to decide whether the proposal complied with the development plan for the area, and added that it had granted permission against the recommendation of its own planning officers.

However, Lord Justice Richards said that  while councillors  had considered that the development was not in accordance with the local development plan they had taken the view that the departure from the development plan was “justified by other material considerations.”

Rejecting the complaint about the £1 transfer to the council of the existing site, Lord Justice Richards said the existing ground was going to be released as a direct result of the development for which planning permission was sought.

Helping  safeguard the continuation of use of the ground for sport and recreation was, he said,  “far removed” from “buying”’ planning permission but, instead “ fits comfortably” within the requirement that the planning obligation be directly related to the development.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:51pm Tue 8 Jul 14

probono says...

What ! The Parish Council are guardians of the local public purse and seem bent on making Hampton Bishop the most expensive place to live in the County if it keeps spending its precept. Exactly how do they plan to raise the many thousands they now owe ? Jumble sales ? or just put it on the rates. Absolute madness. Whoever is advising them ? I can see notdetails on their webiste to explain the finances here, it seems very out of date in places. At least the Supreme COurt has stopped this nonsense.
Please Parish Council stick to litter bins, and bus shelters, that is your level, not the Supreme Court.
What ! The Parish Council are guardians of the local public purse and seem bent on making Hampton Bishop the most expensive place to live in the County if it keeps spending its precept. Exactly how do they plan to raise the many thousands they now owe ? Jumble sales ? or just put it on the rates. Absolute madness. Whoever is advising them ? I can see notdetails on their webiste to explain the finances here, it seems very out of date in places. At least the Supreme COurt has stopped this nonsense. Please Parish Council stick to litter bins, and bus shelters, that is your level, not the Supreme Court. probono
  • Score: 4

9:57pm Tue 8 Jul 14

jarvis 2 says...

the parish council were right to challange this the very generouse Mr N Noauth (the land owner)has only ever thought of one thing and belive me it is not the best intrests of hereford rugby club. I would if a betting man say that this club will not be buit on time if at all but the houses will. Mr noauth has over a very long periode of time made many promises and as yet none or few have ever benifited the recipriant theres always a catch and this guy walks away. The only reason he has given this land is for this development to go ahead line his pocket and not give a dam about anyone bar himself.
I personaly wish the rugby club well but belive me they will live to reget the day they got involved with Mr Noauth his reputation precids him ask anyone that has had dealings anyof the staff he has used in Nauth homes the people he has done deals with the only person to benifit is him. in the end the houses will be built there will be no rugby club just like HUFC there will be no understanding what happened or why
the parish council were right to challange this the very generouse Mr N Noauth (the land owner)has only ever thought of one thing and belive me it is not the best intrests of hereford rugby club. I would if a betting man say that this club will not be buit on time if at all but the houses will. Mr noauth has over a very long periode of time made many promises and as yet none or few have ever benifited the recipriant theres always a catch and this guy walks away. The only reason he has given this land is for this development to go ahead line his pocket and not give a dam about anyone bar himself. I personaly wish the rugby club well but belive me they will live to reget the day they got involved with Mr Noauth his reputation precids him ask anyone that has had dealings anyof the staff he has used in Nauth homes the people he has done deals with the only person to benifit is him. in the end the houses will be built there will be no rugby club just like HUFC there will be no understanding what happened or why jarvis 2
  • Score: 2

1:05pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Gill Barlow says...

Utterly sickened and devastated that the development of this site (ie Bulmer's orchards) is going ahead. Now cider has had a resurgence these orchards should be used for making cider (perhaps bought up by another cider maker) instead of building over. That this beautiful, glorious area with it's wildlife is going to built over just shows what a load of greedy, philistines exist. I know that a lot of people are against this development and I wish to God that Herefordians had fought it, but instead they were passive and let it happen. Frankly they need a bomb under them for letting it happen. When what was a beautiful city and county is destroyed, there will be no going back.
Utterly sickened and devastated that the development of this site (ie Bulmer's orchards) is going ahead. Now cider has had a resurgence these orchards should be used for making cider (perhaps bought up by another cider maker) instead of building over. That this beautiful, glorious area with it's wildlife is going to built over just shows what a load of greedy, philistines exist. I know that a lot of people are against this development and I wish to God that Herefordians had fought it, but instead they were passive and let it happen. Frankly they need a bomb under them for letting it happen. When what was a beautiful city and county is destroyed, there will be no going back. Gill Barlow
  • Score: 4

2:33pm Wed 9 Jul 14

fuddled says...

Consent was granted for this development against the advice of several planning experts and other agencies, and the overwhelming majority of local residents. From an ecological viewpoint the site was devastated by tree felling and pond clearing - BEFORE the plans had been approved. This action was irresponsible and cynical, as planning objections cited were eliminated at a stroke by removing the species pre-existing on this site which should have been protected. These are the actions of people who are driven by self-interest. I agree with others on this thread that houses will be built, giving profit to land owner and developers, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a new Rugby Club here. If I were a member of the Rugby Club, I would be wanting assurances that the facility will be built however many houses are sold - let's face it supporters of the development were supporting the RC and NOT the housing development. I sympathise strongly with HBPC, and applaud their attempt to get this inappropriate planning decision reversed.
Consent was granted for this development against the advice of several planning experts and other agencies, and the overwhelming majority of local residents. From an ecological viewpoint the site was devastated by tree felling and pond clearing - BEFORE the plans had been approved. This action was irresponsible and cynical, as planning objections cited were eliminated at a stroke by removing the species pre-existing on this site which should have been protected. These are the actions of people who are driven by self-interest. I agree with others on this thread that houses will be built, giving profit to land owner and developers, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a new Rugby Club here. If I were a member of the Rugby Club, I would be wanting assurances that the facility will be built however many houses are sold - let's face it supporters of the development were supporting the RC and NOT the housing development. I sympathise strongly with HBPC, and applaud their attempt to get this inappropriate planning decision reversed. fuddled
  • Score: 5

10:01pm Wed 9 Jul 14

jarvis 2 says...

fuddled wrote:
Consent was granted for this development against the advice of several planning experts and other agencies, and the overwhelming majority of local residents. From an ecological viewpoint the site was devastated by tree felling and pond clearing - BEFORE the plans had been approved. This action was irresponsible and cynical, as planning objections cited were eliminated at a stroke by removing the species pre-existing on this site which should have been protected. These are the actions of people who are driven by self-interest. I agree with others on this thread that houses will be built, giving profit to land owner and developers, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a new Rugby Club here. If I were a member of the Rugby Club, I would be wanting assurances that the facility will be built however many houses are sold - let's face it supporters of the development were supporting the RC and NOT the housing development. I sympathise strongly with HBPC, and applaud their attempt to get this inappropriate planning decision reversed.
fact Naorth the builder does this a lot rest homes mental disablee homes ruined our peace in lugwardine retrospective planning every time he only wants for himself I am suprised it has not been anounced that the rugby club is to much of a finacil commitment and the plug has to be pulled
[quote][p][bold]fuddled[/bold] wrote: Consent was granted for this development against the advice of several planning experts and other agencies, and the overwhelming majority of local residents. From an ecological viewpoint the site was devastated by tree felling and pond clearing - BEFORE the plans had been approved. This action was irresponsible and cynical, as planning objections cited were eliminated at a stroke by removing the species pre-existing on this site which should have been protected. These are the actions of people who are driven by self-interest. I agree with others on this thread that houses will be built, giving profit to land owner and developers, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for a new Rugby Club here. If I were a member of the Rugby Club, I would be wanting assurances that the facility will be built however many houses are sold - let's face it supporters of the development were supporting the RC and NOT the housing development. I sympathise strongly with HBPC, and applaud their attempt to get this inappropriate planning decision reversed.[/p][/quote]fact Naorth the builder does this a lot rest homes mental disablee homes ruined our peace in lugwardine retrospective planning every time he only wants for himself I am suprised it has not been anounced that the rugby club is to much of a finacil commitment and the plug has to be pulled jarvis 2
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree