Response from CPRE

[Addiseagull]

Just received this response from the CPRE, when I asked them to clarify their stance:

Hello James,
Thanks for your email. I think it's probably best for us to agree to disagree about whether it's right to put the stadium on an area soon to be designated a National Park. May I just point out that John Prescott, who originally approved the stadium, has now admitted he shouldn't have?

http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2006/4/7/209670.html

Estelle

Estelle Taylor,
Head of Campaigns

Direct phone: 0207 981 2818

Is this factually correct?

 

[RM-Taylor]

0207 981 2818 - expect them to recieve a lot of prank calls now.

 

[Scotty Mac]

i thought he just admitted making a mistake in the letter, not that he shouldnt of approved it?

 

[RM-Taylor]

i thought he just admitted making a mistake in the letter, not that he shouldnt of approved it?

That's what I thought. Can someone with more knowledge about this matter clear this up please ?

 

[Da Man Clay]

i thought he just admitted making a mistake in the letter, not that he shouldnt of approved it?

Thats it exactly, Well tahts what I made from the argus article and what ive heard on here.

 

[Ccider]

Just received this response from the CPRE, when I asked them to clarify their stance:

Hello James,
Thanks for your email. I think it's probably best for us to agree to disagree about whether it's right to put the stadium on an area soon to be designated a National Park.

Is this factually correct?

The stadium is NOT on an area to be designated a Nationa Park. It's on a site currently an AONB that is to be de-designated not to be an AONB.

Anyway - the National Park thing has been put on hold and may never happen.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong ...

 

[Napper]

1st crank call given

 

[Curious Orange]

Re: Re: Response from CPRE

The stadium is NOT on an area to be designated a Nationa Park. It's on a site currently an AONB that is to be de-designated not to be an AONB.

Anyway - the National Park thing has been put on hold and may never happen.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong ...

You are not wrong. The coach park is in an area that was potentially to be designated as part of the mooted National Park, despite the line being drawn in the wrong place and therefore not following planning guidelines.

 

[Bluejuice]

1st crank call given

Not cool.

Please don't do this

 

[Rangdo]

i thought he just admitted making a mistake in the letter, not that he shouldnt of approved it?

"This does not mean the original decision was wrong. We have conceded because of a technical error, not because of the substance of the decision."

 

[Jim in the West]

Although I'm (slightly) biased, I think the CPRE is undermining it's own credibility in using Falmer as one of the nine "jewels in the crown".

Firstly, most of the land is NOT in an AONB, or in an area potentially to be designated as a National Park. The Stadium itself will not be in the AONB, only the coach park and, I believe, some of the access.

Secondly, most of the land required for the stadium site will be developed anyway, even if Falmer doesn't go ahead - it is designated for development within the Brighton & Hove local plan (incidentally, it will be interesting to see what representations the CPRE made to Brighton & Hove regarding the Local Plan).

Thirdly, as clarified by Adrian Newnham earlier, and as noted by Martin Perry yesterday, the National Park boundary will almost certainly be re-drawn, such that the current proposed dividing line (the boundary between LDC and B&H) is moved slightly to the east. Thus Falmer village WILL BE in the National Park (and AONB), but the whole stadium site, including the coach park, etc, will not be.

Fourthly, once the National Park boundary is clarified, the stadium site will be de-designated as an AONB.

Fifthyly, regardless of where boundary lines are actually drawn, the stadium site is very clearly NOT beautiful (see below).

The CPRE should recognise that in order to be taken seriously, it should be campaigning to preserve areas which are genuinely outstandingly beautiful.

Thinking about it, I think I'll write a short letter to them along the above lines!

 

[Curious Orange]

Those buildings are right where the top of the new West Stand will be.

 

[Addiseagull]

Next response back...

Hi,

Prescott's error wasn't about the boundary of the National Park, it was on thinking the stadium was within the built-up area of Brighton and Hove (see Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/08/nbrighton08.xml).

No, no, of course there shouldn't be simple branding of an area which eliminates sensible, justifiable development -- and an AONB or National Park designation does not restrict all development in an area. Our concern is that allowing Falmer goes against Government planning rules.

But it's not just us who think this. Lewes District, and others, are challenging the decision: http://www.lewes.gov.uk/environment/6931.asp

Estelle

 

[phil1977]

Those bastards from CPRE haven't replied to my e-mail that was sent yesterday

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

If the boundary line for the National Park is redrawn then it shouldn't include any residential or industrial buildings. My suggestion would be for the whole of Falmer village to be absorbed into the Brighton & Hove local plan thus enabling the council to rename it as North Moulscoomb and build loads more social housing there.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Just thought that the current residents of what is now North Moulscoomb might object of being joined to those snobs and nimbys so might need to change the name to Moulscoomb Annexe. That way we can sing from the stadium "You're not Falmer anymore ! "

 

[The History Man]

From the purely factual point of view, the whole stadium site is in the AONB. So too are the two universities. The boundary was designated in 1966 but the process dates back to around 1958 at least and the line reflects the built-up area of Brighton as then existed. Falmer School and its playing fields are not included, neither is Southern Water.

The national park - including the decision on whether to have one at all - will be the subject of a ministerial decision.

The Countryside Agency proposed a boundary to form the basis for a public inquiry. Initially they recommended that the whole area north of Village Way be excluded, but, following consultation with local authorities, the area within Lewes District, which includes only the bus-and-coach park, was recommended for inclusion in the national park.

At the public inquiry Albion and the city council argued that the whole area should be excluded, LDC argued that it should be included. You can say it's proposed national park, you can also say it's not proposed national park. It depends who is proposing!

The same can be said of Sheepcote Valley and Toad's Hole Valley. Both have been recommended for exclusion by the Countryside Agency. The city council argues for the inclusion of Toad's Hole, the Friends of Sheepcote Valley argue for the inclusion of Sheepcote.

If the national park is approved then any AONB areas left outside the new boundary will be de-designated.

But, in any case, the same arguments will apply to the stadium development - it meets the tests for major development within AONB or national park.

 

[The Large One]

From the purely factual point of view, the whole stadium site is in the AONB. So too are the two universities. The boundary was designated in 1966 but the process dates back to around 1958 at least and the line reflects the built-up area of Brighton as then existed. Falmer School and its playing fields are not included, neither is Southern Water.

The national park - including the decision on whether to have one at all - will be the subject of a ministerial decision.

The Countryside Agency proposed a boundary to form the basis for a public inquiry. Initially they recommended that the whole area north of Village Way be excluded, but, following consultation with local authorities, the area within Lewes District, which includes only the bus-and-coach park, was recommended for inclusion in the national park.

At the public inquiry Albion and the city council argued that the whole area should be excluded, LDC argued that it should be included. You can say it's proposed national park, you can also say it's not proposed national park. It depends who is proposing!

The same can be said of Sheepcote Valley and Toad's Hole Valley. Both have been recommended for exclusion by the Countryside Agency. The city council argues for the inclusion of Toad's Hole, the Friends of Sheepcote Valley argue for the inclusion of Sheepcote.

If the national park is approved then any AONB areas left outside the new boundary will be de-designated.

But, in any case, the same arguments will apply to the stadium development - it meets the tests for major development within AONB or national park.

Which highlights just how ill-informed the CPRE are. Or at the very least, how prepared they are to try and misinform the rest of us.

 

[Guinness Boy]

CPRE= Campaign for Rural England right?

In which case could someone please ask them what the f*** is rural about Brighton University, the A27 and Falmer Station. I'm tempted, having the email address to do just that but am aware that it's probably not best to send emails at 11.35 on a Friday night unless they're to your boss and purport to be about work. And my choice of words is probably more rural than Falmer....

 

[The Large One]

CPRE= Campaign for Rural England right?

In which case could someone please ask them what the f*** is rural about Brighton University, the A27 and Falmer Station. I'm tempted, having the email address to do just that but am aware that it's probably not best to send emails at 11.35 on a Friday night unless they're to your boss and purport to be about work. And my choice of words is probably more rural than Falmer....

Once upon a time, about 50-60 years ago, it was rural. Campaign for the Protection of Retro England is closer to the mark.