Not really. This is why I linked the judgement. The judge writes in detail are what aspects of, and to what extent, lawful protest and unlawful actions can be relevant to such a decision, and he says it is of low weight.
The factors to which he ascribes a high weight are that:
upholding planning regulation is important
the hotel deliberately took the risk that they might be breaking planning regulations
he thought the council’s argument that it was a breach of planning rules was strong (although this is a judgement for interim relief, not the final judgement).
Having read it, it still sounds insane. The risk if interim relief were not granted but the changes at the hotel turn out to require planning permission with respect to those three factors are that the breach goes on for a bit longer. The risk if it were granted but the changes turn out to be lawful is that over a hundred people are turfed out, the government has to find a yet-more expensive way of accommodating them, something which may be impossible if the relevant factors of this case become precedent in others.
Not really. This is why I linked the judgement. The judge writes in detail are what aspects of, and to what extent, lawful protest and unlawful actions can be relevant to such a decision, and he says it is of low weight.
The factors to which he ascribes a high weight are that:
Having read it, it still sounds insane. The risk if interim relief were not granted but the changes at the hotel turn out to require planning permission with respect to those three factors are that the breach goes on for a bit longer. The risk if it were granted but the changes turn out to be lawful is that over a hundred people are turfed out, the government has to find a yet-more expensive way of accommodating them, something which may be impossible if the relevant factors of this case become precedent in others.
That’s really informative, thanks. I agree with your assessment.