Forgive me if I’m teaching grandma-egg-sucking, but in the event of (or indeed irrespective of) an eviction order, have you considered applying to the local authority for the placement of the site on the Register of Assets of Community Value, under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011?

The LA is bound by (this new) legislation to draw up this list, and to consider your application on the basis of a) are you a bona fide comm group b) has the ‘asset’ had recent social value, both of which you could argue. If the site is placed on the register then the ‘community right to bid provisions kick in, including a moratorium on sale (to BAA presumably, unless they’ve already bought the site). That doesn’t win the battle overall, but may give a space.

In addition, there’s the April 2012 regulations amending The town & Country Planning Act 1990 , again consequent on the Localism Act, which allow a Parish Council if there is one, or a new ‘neighbourhood forum’ in its absence, to draa a up a Neighbourhood Devt Plan, which the LA is bound to consider for inclusion in its own local plan, and in which might be placed local policies on how the site must be used. Might be useful. Might not be.

Given that this is not your land, and the owner wants to have it back, what reasons do you have to refuse? I am aware of the concept that property is theft, but you do need to have it the right way round.

China intends to build 70 new airports by 2015, so it is certainly in the public interest to expand Heathrow – not to mention Gatwick, Stansted and regional airports, too.

“China intends to build 70 new airports by 2015, so it is certainly in the public interest to expand Heathrow – not to mention Gatwick, Stansted and regional airports, too.”

A textbook non-sequitur.

@OP:

A two day trial on an issue of significant public interest? I would put my mortgage on the judgment being reserved; although you may get the decision today with reasoning to follow, if it is as clear-cut against you as your article suggests.

I wish you the very best, but I fear you have no chance.

The Laws Of Olde England were only ever set up to guard the privileges of people and bodies who own things (like, say, Buckinghamshire), and the English judiciary are trained from the get-go that you don’t piss off the owning classes, even if those owners turn out to be clueless, shifty, indolent or even criminal. That’s why damaging property will tend to attract longer sentences than harming people.

Lamia @ 4:

“A textbook non-sequitur.”

Actually, it’s not a non sequitur, and it’s certainly not a “textbook” non sequitur, as the suppressed premise is fairly obvious – viz. ‘Increasing airport capacity is essential for economic groth in the 21st century’.

If the UK is to generate the tax revenues to pay for all the services people on here want provided by the state, the UK economy will have to grow steadily. And it won’t grow without substantial increase in airport capacity – particularly at Heathrow.

“China intends to build 70 new airports by 2015″

But presumably not within 50 miles of each other……

“But presumably not within 50 miles of each other……”

Not sure what you think that has to do with the issue under discussion, but it would not surprise me if some of China’s new airports were within 50 miles of each other given that many large cities like London have more than one airport (eg Rome, New York…)

‘a squatted community garden’

So someone else’s land then which you’ve decided is now yours?

“the UK economy will have to grow steadily. And it won’t grow without substantial increase in airport capacity – particularly at Heathrow.”

Again, this doesn’t follow. You might as well argue more bus stations, railway stations and cab ranks need to be built. Your error is in asuming the Chinese building or airports is purely or primarily a means to stimulate the economy, rather than serving other purposes and needs, needs which may be quite different from needs in Britain – or that if it is an attempt to stimulate the economy it will simply work.

On top of which, what re you planning on fuelling all these shiny new planes with? The world is running out of oil. Unless that is sorted, more airports means more white elephants.

It is quite bizarre to see so many economic arguments on a supposedly left wing site proceeding from the naive ultra-capitalist assumption of inexhaustible physical and environmental resources and everlasting growth.

It is quite bizarre to see so many economic arguments on a supposedly left wing site proceeding from the naive ultra-capitalist assumption of inexhaustible physical and environmental resources and everlasting growth.

Not really. Left wing = proceeds of growth shared equitably. Growth is awesome. Let’s have lots of it, and then make poor people not be poor. Fucking win.

Some, not all, greens are miserable bastards who’d rather everyone dwelled in shit and lived like a peasant. As a leftie who wants the world to ha