Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Countryside Agency Response
- Thread starter b.w.2.
- Start date
East Preston Gull
New member
Boring read
Got mine in the post this morning..
standard nonsense and you wander what they are on about
Got mine in the post this morning..
standard nonsense and you wander what they are on about
East Preston Gull
New member
Who asked u Gobby
The History Man
Active member
You don't have to do anything.
What people received this morning was the Countryside Agency's (CA) response to our submissions on the national park boundary in the Falmer area. (There were 2,500 of these, all c/o the Supporters' Club naming me as the contact - but I haven't had anythng from the CA!)
The CA is proposing the boundary for the entire national park. At Falmer it is proposing that the stadium site within the City of Brighton & Hove is outside the park, and that the coach/bus park (in Lewes District) is inside the park. Our submissions were that the entire area north of Village Way should be outside the national park.
The CA's proposals are being examined at a public inquiry at the Chatsworth Hotel in Worthing which is almost over (it's been going a year now!). Objectors to their proposals present their evidence to the Inspector and the CA states their case.
All our submissions were tied in to the evidence of both the city council and the Albion. Early in November the cases were heard and the Inspector will in due course present his report to DEFRA, where the Secretary of State (Margaret Beckett at present) will make the final decision, perhaps next year.
I attended the sessions, which was quite fortunate as the CA witness claimed not to be aware of any public opinion against the merits of the beauty of the coach park site. I was able to pass a note to Jonathan Clay, our counsel, that there were in fact 2,500 objections! The CA then admitted that this was in fact half the total of the objections to ALL parts of the national park!
The Albion's case was essentially that the CA's case to designate the coach park site goes against its own guidelines in designating land for the national park. I was convinced, but the minister will make the final decision.
So you can all ignore what you received this morning. Essentially, it is old news and merely the summary of the CA's case.
Tim Carder
Chairman
BHA Supporters' Club
What people received this morning was the Countryside Agency's (CA) response to our submissions on the national park boundary in the Falmer area. (There were 2,500 of these, all c/o the Supporters' Club naming me as the contact - but I haven't had anythng from the CA!)
The CA is proposing the boundary for the entire national park. At Falmer it is proposing that the stadium site within the City of Brighton & Hove is outside the park, and that the coach/bus park (in Lewes District) is inside the park. Our submissions were that the entire area north of Village Way should be outside the national park.
The CA's proposals are being examined at a public inquiry at the Chatsworth Hotel in Worthing which is almost over (it's been going a year now!). Objectors to their proposals present their evidence to the Inspector and the CA states their case.
All our submissions were tied in to the evidence of both the city council and the Albion. Early in November the cases were heard and the Inspector will in due course present his report to DEFRA, where the Secretary of State (Margaret Beckett at present) will make the final decision, perhaps next year.
I attended the sessions, which was quite fortunate as the CA witness claimed not to be aware of any public opinion against the merits of the beauty of the coach park site. I was able to pass a note to Jonathan Clay, our counsel, that there were in fact 2,500 objections! The CA then admitted that this was in fact half the total of the objections to ALL parts of the national park!
The Albion's case was essentially that the CA's case to designate the coach park site goes against its own guidelines in designating land for the national park. I was convinced, but the minister will make the final decision.
So you can all ignore what you received this morning. Essentially, it is old news and merely the summary of the CA's case.
Tim Carder
Chairman
BHA Supporters' Club
dougdeep
New member
Cheers Tim.
Excellent informative post Tim.
A standard OS map will show the dividing line of the Brighton & Hove city boundaries which is the arbitary division that Lewes District Council proposed.
Tim will know what the argument presented to exclude the current AONB boundaries up to the geographic boundary of the B2123. (I assume this is right?)
In other parts of the South Downs national Park boundaries, e.g Adur, the CA are proposing to exclude AONBs from the National Park in similar circumstances to the bit being requested (by 2,500 people) to be excluded near Falmer. I expect these areas to be excluded if the NP actually goes ahead.
Now for the controversial bit. My analysis is this leaves the way clear to introduce Village Way South as a further alternative site into the fray, should it be advantageous to do this.
This is strictly the business of the people of Brighton & Hove and Falmer. Not in the national interest any more.
A standard OS map will show the dividing line of the Brighton & Hove city boundaries which is the arbitary division that Lewes District Council proposed.
Tim will know what the argument presented to exclude the current AONB boundaries up to the geographic boundary of the B2123. (I assume this is right?)
In other parts of the South Downs national Park boundaries, e.g Adur, the CA are proposing to exclude AONBs from the National Park in similar circumstances to the bit being requested (by 2,500 people) to be excluded near Falmer. I expect these areas to be excluded if the NP actually goes ahead.
Now for the controversial bit. My analysis is this leaves the way clear to introduce Village Way South as a further alternative site into the fray, should it be advantageous to do this.
This is strictly the business of the people of Brighton & Hove and Falmer. Not in the national interest any more.
Last edited:
dougdeep
New member
Good grief! Let's pay for another inquiry.
dougdeep said:Good grief! Let's pay for another inquiry.
To make it clear, I am just suggesting this. I did say "advantageous" which means both cheaper and if the legal bods could work in. I think it is probably too late now as it would require an extra "Planning Permission" to Lewes District Council as well as Brighton?
I think we are left with the Falmer Way North only. My imagination gets the better of me sometimes.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
No-one, not even the Albion, has suggested that the land south of Village Way should be excluded from the National Park.perseus said:
Your analysis is hopelessly flawed, Percy.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Whilst you are on about rejection do it for the P site as well please
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
perseus said:
Then why the f*** are you obsessed with a stadium at an unknown location thus pi$$ing everyone off ?
dougdeep
New member
perseus said:
No, we're pissed off that you keep chuntering on about nothing in particular!
perseus said:
I do recall the presentation at Hove Town Hall that included a graphical display (a bit gimmicky) of a stadium embedded in the downs at a location which seemed to roughly correspond to Village Way South, and a planning permission was drawn up for this location.
Am I to take it that these are just pretty pictures that do not mean anything? Did not mean anything then and/or now?
If that is the case, what are we to believe?
I expect nobody will believe anything until the first brick is laid, and then we will not be quite sure!
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The Albion did submit a planning application for VWS to the City Council.perseus said:
The Club withdrew it before it was considered by the Planning Committee.