Our CrowdJustice appeal has worked wonders. We have now, thanks to you, secured recompense of the legal costs we had to expend, which were, sadly to no avail and which diverted funds from our commendable and key objectives.
Very sincere thanks to all who have pledged, and having made our stage one target, you will now be debited on your pledged means of payment. While our efforts to get Lichfield District Council officers to understand the complex law involved, despite being given our nationally expert barrister's opinion, fell on either deaf ears or was, as is our opinion, prejudiced by its commitment to achieve housing targets, is now neither here nor there. We are now able to put our hard won financial and time commitment efforts (thanks to all our supporters and members, volunteers, officers and trustees and to our undercharging barrister) back in to our operations for the good of not just Lichfield but waterways and wildlife preservation too.
We are not continuing to CrowdJustice for judicial review: NOT because we have ruled that out (we haven't) but because we are very likely to have other funding support for so doing and we do not feel it appropriate to ask our stalwart supporters (ie all you wonderful people) to find monies for things that are not our agreed commitment and which have only come about due, in our opinion, to failings within our local planning authority.
On behalf of the Trust: SINCERE THANKS and WE'LL GET THERE!
A statement by LHCRT Chairperson Christine Bull:
"Many of you will know that we've been battling with LDC Planning Officers about the Deanslade development: LDC admiited (we have it in writing) an "administrative error" in finalising the Local Plan back in 2015, which, had they not omitted the wording they'd previously agreed, would have ensured that the bridge at Claypit Lane would be S106 funded by the developer.
See https://www.lhcrt.org.uk/news/news_Mar6_2019.html for more on this.
We've spent many hours, meetings, emails and £11,500 on a nationally expert
planning law barrister trying, in the event to no avail, to ensure that the developer
paid through S106 funding.
In our Barrister's opinion and our opinion, Planning Officers have either
misunderstood complex planning law, or simply gone along with the developer in
order to meet demanding housing targets ...... whatever, in our opinion, we
believe Councillors were misled and forced into approving the application without
canal bridge costs.
So, we spent £11,500 in good faith, but to no avail.
I've followed up with CrowdJustice, which as name implies, crowd funds litigation costs.
Provided we get enough support we should be able to recoup that money, and put it back in to everyday restoration funding if we get enough support. It's a very professional and supportive operation with lots of experience.
Its advice is that the first few hours are critical in getting pledges so that the target is reached.
The link is - CrowdJustice: The world's crowdfunding platform for legal action.
Our page went live at 9am, Friday 5 April: please share the link below with your friends with the timescale, and, even though you are all stalwart supporters, if you feel you can spare a donation, please sign up. I'll be putting in £50, and a load of grey hair, sleepless hours and angst...!!!"
Christine Bull
