Lewes District Council drop Falmer case?

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

The only mistake -- only mistake -- last time was the ODPM confusing the location of the coach park, and saying it was in B&H when it was in fact in Lewes.

Not even this government could open a public inquiry to determine where a local authority boundary is.

 

[Easy 10]

The only mistake -- only mistake -- last time was the ODPM confusing the location of the coach park, and saying it was in B&H when it was in fact in Lewes.

Not even this government could open a public inquiry to determine where a local authority boundary is.

Perhaps not. But if LDC are looking to argue the toss with the Government over their various points (I can't even remember what they are now), then where else would that occur but another PI ? I doubt very much LDC will accept a statement from Ruth along the lines of: "I have carefully considered all the points LDC have raised in their objection to the original decision, and frankly they ARE all bollocks. The decision STANDS".

Alright, she'll probably word it better than that, and address each point individually, but if LDC still disagree with her conclusions on those points, I have a nasty feeling another PI could be exactly what we end up with.

 

[Easy 10]

Here are those points....


In particular we believe that Mr Prescott either overlooked, or failed to deal with or explain a number of important issues:

1. Wrongly concluded that the application site for the stadium is located within the boundary of the built up area of the City of Brighton as identified by the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which was adopted in July 2005. The mistake was critical to his reasoning for attaching less weight than did his first Inspector to the considerable harm that the development would cause to the AONB.
2. Failed to deal with his first Inspector’s conclusions that the coach and bus interchange part of the development, which would fall outside of the built-up area boundary, would add appreciably to the harm caused by the stadium to the AONB.
3. Failed to have regard to the impact of the development on the existing gap between Falmer Village and the City of Brighton. Failed to mention this in his decision letter despite the fact that his first Inspector identified this as a relevant issue and stressed the importance of retaining a gap of countryside between the built up edge of Brighton and the village of Falmer, so as to prevent creeping development into rural surroundings and to preserve Falmer’s distinct character and separate identity.
4. Failed to have regard to the development’s conflict with the policies in the statutory development plan which prevent the erosion of strategic and other important gaps between settlements.
5. Failed to apply correctly his own policy guidance in PPS7 by wrongly characterising the development as amounting to a matter of national interest, and thus giving it disproportionate weight in balancing it against the harm caused by the development to the AONB. Wrongly concluded that because a particular development would support regeneration, which is an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest.
6. Failed to apply the appropriate test for determining whether a suitable alternative site was available (which is whether there is a “realistic possibility” of a better site coming forward) by setting too high a threshold for evaluating alternative sites.
7. Failed to take account of other recent cases relating to large scale development in the AONB in which he agreed that it was not possible, at that time, to determine whether other alternative projects would be approved or would proceed, but that there was no reason to rule them out as credible alternative proposals.
8. Failed to take account of the fact that part of the development site is included within the land designated to be included within the National Park and failed to deal with the effect of the development on the proposed National Park. Failed to deal with the parties’ arguments/evidence on this issue, despite having expressly said he wanted to hear these.
9. Wrongly concluded that in most views only the roof of the stadium would be the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. Wrongly contradicted (without giving reasons) the conclusion of his first Inspector who said that:
1. the stadium as a whole would be highly visible and it was only from Stanmer Park, to the north-west, that views would be limited to the roof structure;
2. the coach and bus interchange would be just as visible as the stadium site from most nearby vantage points;
3. the coach and bus interchange would be seen from medium-distance locations on higher ground as a further encroachment of the built-up area into this sensitive stretch of open downland separating Brighton from Falmer;
10. Contrary to the Inquiries Procedure Rules, contradicted his first Inspector’s finding of fact on the issue of visibility without giving any reasons and without advising the Claimants of that disagreement and offering them the opportunity to comment on it.
11. Wrongly concluded that a stadium development at Sheepcote Valley would lead to severe overcrowding on the streets of Brighton’s centre posing serious problems in terms of congestion, crowd control and policing, when there was no evidence on which he could reasonably reach that conclusion. Wrongly took into account new evidence to which the Claimants did not have the opportunity of responding.
12. Misunderstood and failed to have regard to his first Inspector’s findings that the formation of the new link road and the scale of its use by stadium-related traffic would have an unacceptable impact on the historic Stanmer Park and would not have the effect of protecting the historic park.
13. Wrongly and unreasonably attached “very limited weight” to his first Inspector’s assessment of alternative sites, in which the first Inspector concluded that there were other potential sites outside the AONB which could be developed for the stadium.

 

[ROSM]

In my opinion, the Lib Dem conference rally was the perfect foil for the club's court efforts. Put the two together, alongside threat of costs and that is why they have caved in today.

I see what Rich Suvner is saying, but don't underestimate the damage LDC have done to their legal credibility with this. They are now seen as vexatious litigants - only interested in delays and time wasting.

They have raised their points - kelly was always going to review them. kelly simply has to acknowledge their points and that makes it very difficult for them. Mainly because their points will have been covered and even though they may not like the response - the judgement of the Secretary of State (as Lord B's signature says) is something enshrined in planning law.

If they were to raise new points - the question will be why didn't they before? Difficult to defend that one!

The irony of this is that they have now weakened their options when campaigning against incinerators and water treatment plants - they are now unreliable in legal terms.

But we must keep up the pressure on this - I think we must focus on pinnochio Neighbour.

 

[seven stands]

ive not read all 10 pages of this thread and had a drink or eight so sorry this bound to be have said... How much will this have cost us on soliceter`s (sp) cost`s getting ready for tommorw i think ldc have done what they wanted and spent f*** all on this stage of planning fight

 

[ROSM]

ive not read all 10 pages of this thread and had a drink or eight so sorry this bound to be have said... How much will this have cost us on soliceter`s (sp) cost`s getting ready for tommorw i think ldc have done what they wanted and spent f*** all on this stage of planning fight

but that is two months less than they wanted to string it out. You are right though which is why we must never forget and make sure they pay!

 

[Jameson]

My thoughts ... we still need to keep the pressure on them. In particular, they mustn´t ever again be allowed to decide to go to the High Court on the basis of a decision taken behind closed doors, without any consultation with local residents.

I'm still pursuing my FoI request to expose the "decision behind closed doors". Since March, actually. I have been refused twice by LDC and my complaint to the Information Commissioner is still unresolved. I've resorted to my MP now. This has been a mini crusade of mine since March.

I've obviously got them worried

 

[BensGrandad]

Are we getting carried away to soon could it be that LDC will appear to have withdrawn to save their townspeople money if they lost and then not really being concerned because they believe that Ruth Kelly will refuse permission or at the best order another public inquiry.

They seem to win the PR battle out on the streets not on here or to BHA fans but the public in general are taken in by them. I have devils own job persuading my mother that we are right and they are wrong because all she goes by is the radio and tv and how it comes across on them.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm still pursuing my FoI request to expose the "decision behind closed doors". Since March, actually. I have been refused twice by LDC and my complaint to the Information Commissioner is still unresolved. I've resorted to my MP now. This has been a mini crusade of mine since March.

I've obviously got them worried

Fair play to you fella. Keep at em'

 

[The Large One]

Are we getting carried away to soon could it be that LDC will appear to have withdrawn to save their townspeople money if they lost and then not really being concerned because they believe that Ruth Kelly will refuse permission or at the best order another public inquiry.

They seem to win the PR battle out on the streets not on here or to BHA fans but the public in general are taken in by them. I have devils own job persuading my mother that we are right and they are wrong because all she goes by is the radio and tv and how it comes across on them.

For f*** sake, Brian, use some punctuation now and again.

In answer to what I can gather from your first paragraph, they have withdrawn for one reason only - they knew they were going to lose. They knew this from the minute the Consent Order was written back in March, but they decided to string it out as long as possible. They have deluded themselves into thinking they are saving face, where in fact, we knew they was a better than fair chance they were going to withdraw all along.

They also know Ruth Kelly will not reverse the decision. They just want to play it out as long as possible. I'll give them til next May at the latest.

 

[KPTF]

For f*** sake, Brian, use some punctuation now and again.

 

[KPTF]

What is the chance of Ruth Kelly changing the verdict or am I paranoid

Didn't see an answer to this and I've not seen anything specifically in the previous pages to suggest that this couldn't happen!

 

[Gully]

I can't see Ruth Kelly changing the decision, she will have one eye on the next election. The Lib Dems have already blown it in this part of Sussex, she doesn't want to add Labour to the list of hated parties, it would hand victory to the Tories and we can't have that can we.

 

[Everest]

it would hand victory to the Tories and we can't have that can we.

What about the Seagulls Party?

 

[Chicken Run]

I can't see Ruth Kelly changing the decision, she will have one eye on the next election. The Lib Dems have already blown it in this part of Sussex, she doesn't want to add Labour to the list of hated parties, it would hand victory to the Tories and we can't have that can we.

WTF has that got to do with our team and OUR stadium you twat

 

[Nemesis]

WTF has that got to do with our team and OUR stadium you twat

The nuances of our language get lost on message boards-I'm not sure which of you two are pro-Tory (if at all) but I'll say in response to the above: "Quite a lot if you think about things for a moment".

The Tories have always been anti-football (except when they are after the football votes) and locally they have always been anti-Albion as proven by their moves to try and block our move to Withdean. They have also sided with the Lib Dumbs in Lewes.

Any Tory control locally would be disastrous for the Albion and our stadium bid. They are only pro-Albion when it suits-as seen at the rally by that nonce who hadn't a frigging clue but used the moment for political gain and political gain only. He doesn't give a shit about the Albion, merely our votes and that typifies the Tories in Sussex. Fatty Soames anybody? As anti-stadium as LDC. That Bottomley twat in Worthing. And all Sussex Tory MPs-not one that I am aware of supports our bid.

Has a lot to do with our stadium I'd say. If they had been in control of B&H council a few years ago we'd still be ground sharing somewhere.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

WTF has that got to do with our team and OUR stadium you twat

 

[3gulls]

The Tories have always been anti-football (except when they are after the football votes)

Right! And David Mellor shagged his bird in a rugby shirt?

 

[Nemesis]

Right! And David Mellor shagged his bird in a rugby shirt?

And Thatcher's government was really pro-football wasn't it?

 

[El Dude Brother]

From the Argus today:

Legal bid against Albion stadium dropped
By Miles Godfrey

Brighton and Hove Albion's plans for a stadium at Falmer will be decided by the Government after a legal bid against the scheme was dropped at the last minute.

Lewes District Council withdrew its legal challenge to the plans less than 24 hours before it was due to appear in the High Court in London.

The move means the decision is now in the hands of Ruth Kelly, the new Communities and Local Government Secretary.
continued...

Ms Kelly has promised to take all parties' views into account when she reconsiders the planning application for the stadium, which the Seagulls have been trying to build for more than five years.

The new decision is being taken after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted he had made a blunder in his approval of the scheme last October.

Mr Prescott granted planning permission almost a year ago but he was forced to quash his decision due to a mistake over the proposed site's location, which he described as within the built-up area of Brighton and Hove.

In fact only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area.

Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society launched a legal challenge after the Government said it would not consider all their objections when the decision was retaken.

The Government had, until yesterday, said it was only willing to review the section of the decision in which the error had been made.

However, the opposing parties have now been reassured the Government would now consider all the objections raised, effectively retracing Mr Prescott's steps in making his original decision.

The district council received a letter from Government lawyers yesterday, saying the council's objections would now be considered.

Both sides claimed victory after the legal challenge was dropped.

Lewes District Council said the decision was further justification of its own stance against the stadium and said it was further proof Prescott's decision to grant planning permission was flawed.

Councillor David Neighbour said: "It's just a shame these assurances were not given months ago.

"We knew the High Court would quash the decision because the Government's lawyers had already admitted it was flawed on one key point, which Mr Prescott used repeatedly to justify his decision."

Albion Chief Executive Martin Perry said: "Lewes District Council has argued it wanted confirmation from the Treasury Solicitor that the Secretary of State is now dealing with this matter.

"Ruth Kelly should give an undertaking that she will consider all the points it has raised when she makes her decision on planning permission for the new stadium. The club has always argued this is unnecessary because, as part of the process under the inquiry rules, the Secretary of State has to write to the interested parties to ask them whether there is anything they wish her to consider before she makes her decision.

"I am very pleased that at last this matter has been resolved. It is no coincidence that, just a few hours before they were due to appear in court, the council has agreed to the terms of the Consent Order offered to it by the Treasury Solicitor.

"Lewes District Council knew it was at risk for costs and it was because of the pressure applied by the club that we now move on."

Paul Samrah, chairman of the Falmer For All campaign group and leader of the Seagulls Party political group, said: "Lewes District Council is firmly on the back foot.

"This is a clear victory for the thousands of supporters that attended our rally."

The decision to prevent today's planned High Court action effectively means the bid to build a football stadium in Falmer is back to square one.

Ms Ruth Kelly must now decide whether to grant planning permission for the stadium, considering the same data as John Prescott.

Ms Kelly's department confirmed letters would be sent to all parties involved to make representations over the plan but could not confirm when a decision was likely to be made.

It has been confirmed all costs incurred on both sides of the argument in preparation of the High Court action would be met by the Government.

End of article.

One question: Did the government, as the Argus assert, ever state they would not consider all their objections when the decision was retaken? I thought the government's position has been the same all along.