Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson
It sounds like Howard wants to sue on the basis of the Common grant and the question of "public". Honestly that might not be a bad thing at the end of the day. For too long arguments around the Common have been tied up on debates around what constitutes public use and meets the intent of the Common grant. Having a court decision one way or another could lay this to bed and provide clarity for any future proposals for projects on the Common.
|
I tend to agree. If Howard and the
Friends of the Treating the Common as the Personal Backyard of Entitled Southenders want to launch a legal challenge, I say have at it. To be clear, I'm no expert, nor am I a lawyer; but I struggle to see any legal leg on which they can stand.
The Common has been used since its earliest days for various public and semi-public purposes, including lumber harvesting, cattle grazing and military exercises. In more recent generations it has become home to health care, education and sports facilities (what the 2021 Common Plan calls "active recreation areas").
The
Common Plan -- which, after all, is advisory only -- clearly contemplates (at section 5.4.16) some kind of permanent "Sports Field Venue" on the Wanderers Grounds. It's also worth underscoring that the Wanderers Grounds includes several permanent and long-term exclusive uses (e.g., Museum of Natural History [1970], the Lancers Equestrian Facility [1936] and the Halifax Lawn Bowling Club [1887]). Perhaps in the interest of consistency Howard is prepared to argue in court that this all should all be returned to underused green space. Somehow, I doubt it.
Threaded Mode