clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 26,378
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0184
Under notes to editors, split into 3 word documents
Under notes to editors, split into 3 word documents
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
J R Collyer Report's NOW AVAILABLE TO DOWNLOAD
- Thread starter clapham_gull
- Start date
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It's 262 pages long!
Vlad the Impala
New member
- Jul 16, 2004
- 1,345
Why are the documents 1.doc, 2.doc and 4.doc ?
I can smell a cover-up conspiracy...
I can smell a cover-up conspiracy...
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 26,378
- Thread starter
- #6
3.doc is the letter
timco
Well-known member
The only real bits you need
General Conclusions
18.244 For the reasons explained in relation to all four applications I consider that permission should be refused. Given the inter-relationship between these proposals and the Applicants’ express comments on this matter, if the First Secretary of State were however to consider Application A to be acceptable but not Application B then both should be refused because each is entirely dependant on the other and for all practical purposes they are 2 inseparable elements of a single scheme; and it is on this basis that evidence has been presented and examined. The same consideration applies if Application B were to be acceptable to the First Secretary of State but not Application A.
18.245 If Applications C and D were deemed by the First Secretary of State to be acceptable but not Applications A and B then, similarly, permission should be refused for all four because the sole justification and reason for the road improvements is the stadium and interchange development and it is on this basis that evidence has been presented and examined.
18.246 However as for the remaining scenario, that the First Secretary of State were to judge Applications A and B to be acceptable but not Applications C and D, decisions could be made on that basis. That would be in effect to revert back to the situation prior to the June adjournment where evidence had been presented and examined (and concluded) on the stadium and interchange proposals alone on the understanding that this development, if permitted, could go ahead without any road or junction improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that in respect of all 4 applications planning permission be refused.
I have the honour to be,
Sir
Your obedient Servant
J R COLLYER
He was ignored more or less
General Conclusions
18.244 For the reasons explained in relation to all four applications I consider that permission should be refused. Given the inter-relationship between these proposals and the Applicants’ express comments on this matter, if the First Secretary of State were however to consider Application A to be acceptable but not Application B then both should be refused because each is entirely dependant on the other and for all practical purposes they are 2 inseparable elements of a single scheme; and it is on this basis that evidence has been presented and examined. The same consideration applies if Application B were to be acceptable to the First Secretary of State but not Application A.
18.245 If Applications C and D were deemed by the First Secretary of State to be acceptable but not Applications A and B then, similarly, permission should be refused for all four because the sole justification and reason for the road improvements is the stadium and interchange development and it is on this basis that evidence has been presented and examined.
18.246 However as for the remaining scenario, that the First Secretary of State were to judge Applications A and B to be acceptable but not Applications C and D, decisions could be made on that basis. That would be in effect to revert back to the situation prior to the June adjournment where evidence had been presented and examined (and concluded) on the stadium and interchange proposals alone on the understanding that this development, if permitted, could go ahead without any road or junction improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that in respect of all 4 applications planning permission be refused.
I have the honour to be,
Sir
Your obedient Servant
J R COLLYER
He was ignored more or less
Storer68
New member
The Planning Inspectorate is based in Bristol.
I don't suppose beating Bristol City in cardiff endeared ourselves to their staff........
I don't suppose beating Bristol City in cardiff endeared ourselves to their staff........
BUTTERBALL
East Stand Brighton Boyz
Well done Mr Prescott for over-ruling - you are indeed a top man. This should have been a "no" today according to this report (I spent 90 minutes reading it).
Brixtaan
New member
perseus said:
Because Labours policy in general is to leave a legacy of monuments to their spell in office.I genuinely believe they have the well-being of the population in mind (civic pride etc) and if it creates jobs in the process then great.
About the same as I thought. Prescott's more important role is not stopping unsuitable developments, but the most important part of his portfolio is supporting business and employment in England and his inclination is to support a proposal unless he feels the proposal is directly contrary to Government policy.
It is possible that the current Government does not really like having applications called in and being judge and jury in its own Court, and prefer it up to the local democratic process to sort it out. So he has put it back on to a local forum, e.g, a Public Inquiry.
He could have been aware of the impetus that the Hull Stadium has to their local economy which even more than Brighton is below the national average.
What I don't think is that Prescott responds to lobbying or public pressure. He has simply shown no inclination to do so. He may respond to criticism in his rarified circles of public talks before Society of Architects, etc.
It is possible that the current Government does not really like having applications called in and being judge and jury in its own Court, and prefer it up to the local democratic process to sort it out. So he has put it back on to a local forum, e.g, a Public Inquiry.
He could have been aware of the impetus that the Hull Stadium has to their local economy which even more than Brighton is below the national average.
What I don't think is that Prescott responds to lobbying or public pressure. He has simply shown no inclination to do so. He may respond to criticism in his rarified circles of public talks before Society of Architects, etc.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Absolutely wrong.perseus said:
Again.
As always.
BUTTERBALL
East Stand Brighton Boyz
He responds to the will of the people. Mr prescott will come through for us, of that I have no doubt.
Cian
Well-known member
Labour are *meant* to be socialist, and *meant* to be a party of the people. So they *should* respond to lobbying...
Tony Blair has a record of responding to lobbying, whether it comes form George Bush or all the other minor political pressures that seem to sway his descisions according to the public mood.
John Prescott seems less fickle to me.
Tony Blair could just be rhetoric (hot air).
One thing that seems to have happened under this Labour Government though is the "deprived" = low household income, areas of the UK are picking up better than the prosperous areas like Reading, inasmuch that their household income is growing at at a higher % rate (from a low baseline).
This means that the Goverment is prepared to encourage enterprise and projects in the less well off areas (and that includes Brighton conurbation) like Hull, and I would maintain that the development of a new football stadium (e.g Hull) provides a catalyst for development leading to greater economic prosperity!
John Prescott seems less fickle to me.
Tony Blair could just be rhetoric (hot air).
One thing that seems to have happened under this Labour Government though is the "deprived" = low household income, areas of the UK are picking up better than the prosperous areas like Reading, inasmuch that their household income is growing at at a higher % rate (from a low baseline).
This means that the Goverment is prepared to encourage enterprise and projects in the less well off areas (and that includes Brighton conurbation) like Hull, and I would maintain that the development of a new football stadium (e.g Hull) provides a catalyst for development leading to greater economic prosperity!
Last edited:
dougdeep
New member
I think we should concentrate on Teflon Tony, as he seems the sort who would love a bit of ego massage right now.Perhaps he could put a bit of pressure on Prescott.
I have heard the view expressed tonight (from neutrals) that the Public Inquiry Inspectors are just high-up (i.e. overpaid) bureaucrats and that the stadium/planning issues are really a political decision.
Requires more enterprise/skill than has ever been known by pen-pushers.
Overall, the paper shifters are just that and that the opinions of Hoile and Collyer are not the issue. Nor that of Brighton Planning either.
I was tending towards the same view myself.
I think I have held that view all along. I there was the political will to build Brighton Marina, they can build just about anything.
Just how did they pay for Brighton Marina though? I never understood why such a hideously expensive scheme got through?
That was in the pub though.
Requires more enterprise/skill than has ever been known by pen-pushers.
Overall, the paper shifters are just that and that the opinions of Hoile and Collyer are not the issue. Nor that of Brighton Planning either.
I was tending towards the same view myself.
I think I have held that view all along. I there was the political will to build Brighton Marina, they can build just about anything.
Just how did they pay for Brighton Marina though? I never understood why such a hideously expensive scheme got through?
That was in the pub though.