Day 6 - Thu 10th Feb - FACTS AND FIGURES

[perseus]

Bart: good post, I could not have put it any better myself. Except you should really have put "call in" instead of an "appeal" (for the pedantic).

Jonathan Clay did not think it necessary to bring up or fully challenge the evidence of the other sites at the first Public Inquiry, therefore his interpretation could be said to be not quite right*. But he gets another large fee, so he couldn't lose.

Prescott could have said "I am minded to approve the Planning Application but ..."

Portosmello was turned down without an alternative.

When I first read the ODPM letter, I read it like Bart's interpretation. More like, Prescott thought that he did not have enough information and wanted more before he made up his mind. He might even have been inclined to say No, but because of all the fuss, he ordered extra time.

Bart's letter said "in theory" it is possible. I may actually be unlikely, = more likely Falmer would be approved.

Q: do the proposed boundaries of the National Park actually exclude AONB Toad's Hole Valley, or is this in dispute (at the South Downs NP Public Inquiry) as well?

(*Really a serious blunder or oversight. He could have introduced a sequential selection process of the other sites at the last Public Inquiry and saved the delay and extra expense?)

 

[The Large One]

Falmer will Yes or No without any clear explanation.
The Inspector will not recommend another site. (i.e. there is no point recommending another site at the Public Inquiry as it can only damage the chances of Falmer without increasing its own chances in the strict legal sense.)

This is the above board legal stuff. Who knows what might go on behind the scenes?

f***ing what? The decision one way or the other has to given with a full explanation behind it. It's a legal obligation. Failure to do so is appeal and Judicial Review time.

What do you mean 'there is no point recommending another site at the Public Inquiry as it can only damage the chances of Falmer without increasing its own chances in the strict legal sense'? I mean, really, WTF are you on about?

 

[The Large One]

Bart: good post, I could not have put it any better myself. Except you should really have put "call in" instead of an "appeal" (for the pedantic).

Jonathan Clay did not think it necessary to bring up or fully challenge the evidence of the other sites at the first Public Inquiry, therefore his interpretation could be said to be not quite right*. But he gets another large fee, so he couldn't lose.

Prescott could have said "I am minded to approve the Planning Application but ..."


(*Really a serious blunder or oversight. He could have introduced a sequential selection process of the other sites at the last Public Inquiry and saved the delay and extra expense?)

Judas, belt up. Snipe, snipe, snipe - that's all you can do. It was not Clay's fault - why the f*** are you blaming him? It was the oversight the entire inquiry. It never came up.

And there's nothing pedantic about challenging someone's belief that this is an appeal - because this is one thing this inquiry is certainly not.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

You could just ask ODPM.

What I mean is, you could ask ODPM under the freedom of information act to provide the advice given to 2jags when he made his decision to have this extra enqiry . They might block the release of it (as it could prejudice the current enquiry) but they might well release it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Ah, this is where you need LB. I may be way off the mark but I assumed it was a straight no other site = Falmer. Another possiblilty site = no Falmer and Withdean for as long as we can persuade B&H to let us stay there or Tom carr takes us to the Court of Human Rights

You don't need LB.

All you need is dtg.

This is spot on.

 

[DTES]

LB: A lot of concern on here about Sheepcote being "accepted" as viable by people who probably know a lot more about it than me. Should we be worried? Dare to put a % of how confident we should be?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As to the point that perseus makes - that the sequential site analysis should have been presented at the previous Inquiry - all I will say is that it was - by the Albion.

However, after the presentation of the Albion's case had finished, more information was put into the Inquiry about Sheepcote Valley in particular (by Lewes DC and others). Whilst the Albion and the City Council challenged it, the performance by the City Council's transport consultant was (I have to say) less convincing that it should have been.

After the Inquiry had finished, the Albion submitted more evidence about transport direct to Prescott's Office. This made an overwhelming case that sustainable transport access won't be possible at Sheepcote Valley.

However, since the Albion's late representation hadn't been subject to cross-examination in public, Prescott really had no choice but to re-open the Inquiry to allow that to happen.

He would have been challenged in the courts if he hadn't allowed all the Albion's evidence to be questioned, but had relied on the bit of it that came in late to make his decision in favour of Falmer.

In re-opening the Inquiry to hear evidence about Sheepcote Valley, I guess that he thought we might as well give advocates of the other sites a go as well.

It's already clear that the Albion have been right about Sheepcote Valley all along. A stadium there would be contrary to both local and national transport policy. But Prescott is still free to decide that he can set aside transport policy, if he wants to give greater priority to protecting Falmer from development. I don't think he will, though.




PS I am confident that the transport consultant that the City Council have lined up this time will be better informed about Sheepcote Valley than the previous consultant was. In fairness to the previous guy, he had only been briefed to gather and present evidence about Falmer.

 

[Curious Orange]

Withdean for as long as we can persuade B&H to let us stay there or Tom carr takes us to the Court of Human Rights

Are we getting our NIMBYs mixed up? John Catt is the Withdean NIMBY isn't he?

 

[perseus]

What Bart said.

The explanation will be legally watertight (as far as possible). It might not actually give that many clues of the process of thinking. The object of the explanation by the legal bods at the ODPM will be prevent appeals and any further legal delays. It will be a matter of interpretation. It will be no good chasing after Prescott to find out what he actually means. The decision will be final.

As of Jonathan Clay; results speak for themselves. If the case at the Public Inquiry was good enough first time around it would have been a Yes. As it was a draw, I can surmise that the original case was not presented well enough at the first Inquiry.

If the team (or planning case) was good enough first time around and the team lost, it would be fair comment to blame the Manager (Danny Wilson got the sack) so it is fair comment blaming Clay.

You could if you want blame the referee or the Inspector, but that is just excuses in my book.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

LB: A lot of concern on here about Sheepcote being "accepted" as viable by people who probably know a lot more about it than me. Should we be worried? Dare to put a % of how confident we should be?

Sheepcote ISN'T viable in terms of sustainable transport access. There will be thousands of cars roaming the clogged up streets of East Brighton, looking for an on-street parking place. The park & ride system would collapse because people wouldn't be prepared to pay for a travel voucher to use it, when there was a chance of getting free parking close to the ground. And once the P&R system collapsed, even more people would use cars.

But, for all that, Sheepcote is affordable. It can be built without expensive on-site access roads. It's in East Brighton, so would qualify for regeneration funding. It won't disturb any bats. It's not in the AONB.

This is the stuff that we've been hearing over the last few days, but we shouldn't confuse the fact that some positive things can be said about Sheepcote Valley with a suggestion that it might be "viable" or that it's "better than Falmer". It isn't.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Are we getting our NIMBYs mixed up? John Catt is the Withdean NIMBY isn't he?

And Tom Carr is the Falmer NIMBY - who is represented by a lawyer who has already tried to take a planning decision about a football stadium (Arsenal) to the European Court.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

At least some of the cars, or at least their stereos, would be removed during the game at Sheepcote.

 

[Curious Orange]

And Tom Carr is the Falmer NIMBY - who is represented by a lawyer who has already tried to take a planning decision about a football stadium (Arsenal) to the European Court.

So we could have some berk trying to challenge us in some European court either way. Tut-tut.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As of Jonathan Clay; results speak for themselves. If the case at the Public Inquiry was good enough first time around it would have been a Yes. As it was a draw, I can surmise that the original case was not presented well enough at the first Inquiry.

I know that some people get upset because they think I am sometimes abusive towards perseus. As it happens, I'm not.

But I shall choose my words carefully.

You are wrong, perseus. You have never attended the Inquiry, to see Jonathan Clay in action. But you choose to "surmise".

I might choose to surmise that you know very little about the planning process.

 

[Easy 10]

The park & ride system would collapse because people wouldn't be prepared to pay for a travel voucher to use it, when there was a chance of getting free parking close to the ground. And once the P&R system collapsed, even more people would use cars.

Not that I'm arguing the case for Sheepcote here, but surely all the NIMBYS will throw back as an argument against this point is that the club could implement a parking exclusion zone in Sheepcote the same as what we currently have at Withdean ?

How managable in practice that would actually prove to be around Sheepcote compared with the current scheme at Withdean is clearly open to debate....but debate it they no doubt would.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Not that I'm arguing the case for Sheepcote here, but surely all the NIMBYS will throw back as an argument against this point is that the club could implement a parking exclusion zone in Sheepcote the same as what we currently have at Withdean ?

I'm not an expert of the geography, but it seems to me that exclusion zone at Withdean is relatively easy to manage as most traffic would have to get into it from London Road.

There are loads of ways into Whitehawk/Kemp Town so I think it would be a nightmare to enforce there.

 

[Curious Orange]

Not that I'm arguing the case for Sheepcote here, but surely all the NIMBYS will throw back as an argument against this point is that the club could implement a parking exclusion zone in Sheepcote the same as what we currently have at Withdean ?

How managable in practice that would actually prove to be around Sheepcote compared with the current scheme at Withdean is clearly open to debate....but debate it they no doubt would.

Wasn't that what they tried to do by raising Ashburton Grove the other day, my understanding was that it would be prohibitively expensive?

I could be completely wrong of course.

 

[perseus]

Both Sheepcote and Waterhall are public open spaces and both would risk actions in a European Court.

There are planning guidelines on public open spaces as well.

It is irresponsible of Lewes DC and the South Downs (Sussex) Conservation Board nominating the alternative of Sheepcote.

Not only that, the public would be rightly aggrieved at being deprived of an amenity.

The alternative of removing a small piece of farmland at Falmer or medium to poor agricultural land (there is a classification index that has been discontinued) surplus to national farming requirements should be a better choice. That with the rotten transport provisions and not being central to the Albion fan base (records are held on the Albion computer) makes Falmer a clear leader over Sheepcote.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm not an expert of the geography, but it seems to me that exclusion zone at Withdean is relatively easy to manage as most traffic would have to get into it from London Road.

There are loads of ways into Whitehawk/Kemp Town so I think it would be a nightmare to enforce there.

That's essentially the argument that was put at the Inquiry by the Club's transport expert.

You'd not only have to enforce an exclusion zone in many more streets, but you'd also have to enforce it at the ASDA car park at the Marina.

Any idea how that would be achieved?

 

[Bart]

Correct. However, if Prescott is minded to turn down Falmer, he could and should have done so by now. The suitability and availability of the other sites would be irrelevant to that particular planning application.

I agree that if Prescott is minded to turn down Falmer, he should have done so by now. But, he was also aware of what might be percieved as gaps in the alternative sites issue and the potential legal challenge which could arise as a result.

Lets not also forget that it conveniently pushes a difficult decision on past a general election.