Lewes District Council drop Falmer case?

[Scoffers]

Another battle won, but sadly the war is still raging.

Ruth Kelly should confirm Pressers initial judgement, and hopefully the wording in response to the 16 points that LDC have raised will be watertight, making any further challenge less likely.

The key now, as I see it, is how could LDC suggest that Ruth Kelly's decision (assuming it goes our way) has been reached incorrectly, as that is the whole basis for being able to string it out any further - I guess we'll have to wait for Lord B to return from holiday!

 

[SurreySeagulls]

The Spin from LDC - What a bunch of w@nker$

3 October 2006: Government ducks Falmer court battle
Media: 745
John Prescott’s discredited decision on the proposed Stadium at Falmer will not now be reviewed in the High Court. Government lawyers have this morning sent a letter giving assurances that all the points in the legal challenge will be considered when the planning applications go back for re-determination to the new Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly.

Falmer Parish Council, the South Downs Society and Lewes District Council have accepted the Government’s assurances, which means that their joint legal challenge need not now proceed to a Court hearing.

Lewes District Council lead councillor for Planning David Neighbour said:

“We won’t pursue this now that the Government has caved in. It’s just a shame that these assurances were not given months ago.

We knew that 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.

The costs incurred to date will be met by the Government, because their lawyers have admitted Mr. Prescott’s decision was fatally flawed.

John Prescott’s decision flew in the face of recommendations from Senior Planning Inspectors. The first Inspector who conducted the inquiry reported to John Prescott that the case against building the Stadium at Falmer was “overwhelming”. John Prescott disregarded his own inspector’s conclusion when he issued his decision.

Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club's separate application to the Court for a half-hour procedural hearing on 4th October 2006 was always premature and pointless - a waste of time and money.”

The new Secretary of State Ruth Kelly will now write to all the parties inviting them to make representations on the issues. She must take those representations into account before she reaches a decision.

 

[Curious Orange]

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.

I don't believe so, the Treasury Solicitors stance has always been that there was a technical error with the letter in terms of the built up area of Brighton & Hove, and that this was enough to have the decision quashed. They have always maintained that LDCs other points didn't have any legal merit - that isn't the same as refusing to consider them in the new decision, in fact it was ALWAYS the case that any new decision would have to start from square one in terms of reviewing the evidence, and taking any new evidence provided by the interested parties into consideration (such as LDCs other "points").

 

[Curious Orange]

A good article on the BBC website now, and actually quite accurate, and no pictures of ponds:

from news.bbc.co.uk

Stadium court hearing called off

A planning row over a new Brighton and Hove Albion football stadium will no longer be going to court.

The club and Lewes District Council said there had been assurances from the government over the reconsideration of the Falmer planning application.

The new decision is being taken after an error by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in his approval last October.

Brighton and Hove Albion FC said it was pleased the court hearing scheduled for December had been called off.

The club's attempts to build a new stadium at Falmer, to the north of Brighton, have been ongoing for the past five years.

Mr Prescott granted planning permission nearly a year ago, but that was quashed due to a mistake over the proposed site's location being described as "within the built-up area" of Brighton and Hove.

But Lewes District Council, the South Downs Society and Falmer Parish Council continued with a legal challenge because the government had not said it would consider all their objections when the decision was retaken.

Lewes council said it had now been given this assurance in a letter received from government lawyers on Tuesday morning.

It opens the way for Ruth Kelly, the new Communities and Local Government Secretary, to take all interested parties' views into account when she reconsiders the planning application.

The football club said it hoped to submit its papers to the government by Christmas.

I think the key phrase there was "because the government had not said it would consider all their objections when the decision was retaken", the government never had to say that because they are legally obliged to re-consider all the old and any new evidence available. Rather than continuing the court proceedings the proper process for LDC to have taken was to present their other points as evidence for the new decision - which they will now do, and I'm pretty certain that the Club said yonks ago that they'd do the same.

 

[withdeanwombat]

A good article on the BBC website now, and actually quite accurate, and no pictures of ponds:



I think the key phrase there was "because the government had not said it would consider all their objections when the decision was retaken", the government never had to say that because they are legally obliged to re-consider all the old and any new evidence available. Rather than continuing the court proceedings the proper process for LDC to have taken was to present their other points as evidence for the new decision - which they will now do, and I'm pretty certain that the Club said yonks ago that they'd do the same.

Yes,yes,exactly my understanding of it.LDCs economy of truth,smoke and mirrors has ,however,caused frustration and delay,and when the next decision is taken,expect more of the same.The defence of the idyllic Falmer site(with photos possibly of the North Downs) and duckponds everywhere is certain to continue.

Unless,of course,the kick arse Seagulls Party has decimated this lib-dem riff raff by then.(Oh,and where's my membership card btw?.)

We must NOT regard this as home and hosed.Just a new phase of the struggle.



Up the Albion!

 

[Screaming J]

I have been of work sick all week with a really heavy cold and this has worked far more wonders than any Paracetamol.

I actually can see a light at the end of the tunnel; and I don't think its a train being driven by De Vecchi either!

Lewes would not have done this unless they were going to:-

a) be made to look fools in court today - which the evidence would have showed them to be as illustrated by the complete LIES in their press statement

b) be shafted for massive costs, which; although it is not certain; must have been risky enough for them to pull back.

They COULD challenge Kelly's eventual decision - assuming it is a yes - but in view of the publicity we've created and their reputation before an election I don't think they'll risk it.

And in terms of Kelly's decision; don't forget that she only has to consider Lewes's 13 points, it is NOT a case of reopening the Inquiry. She has to protect the Planning sysem and the Sec of States role. In support of this I quote from Lord B's signature:-

“If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the ... Secretary of State” - House of Lords Judgement in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment

This is Lewes starting a tactical retreat whilst trying to lose as little face as possible. It won't be the end of it, and we must keep the pressure up - especially on Nov 5 - but.....

WE ARE WINNING

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Originally posted by Screaming J WE ARE WINNING

If you know Screaming J like I do, you'll know

a) He knows what he's on about when it comes to planning matters; and

b) He's normally a pessimistic bastard, so this must be good news.

 

[Screaming J]

If you know Screaming J like I do, you'll know

a) He knows what he's on about when it comes to planning matters; and

b) He's normally a pessimistic bastard, so this must be good news.

Well, thanks for that Albatross TCOPB

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Just because the avanue of a day in court has been ,I think there are more strands in this saga that LDC can string out. Which afterall is their plan.

So our job is to close these stands at every opportunity. LDC took us by surprsie last time. There should be no mistakes this time.

a) Letters by fans should be sent to Ruth Kellys office again explaining the need for Falmer, that there has been two public inquiries, that the Govt should stand by its original decision and that a full decision should be made asap. Hopefully, that will curtail the threat of another Public Inquiry.

b) at every opportunity Lewes Council should shamed in public for their total lack of democracy in Lewes, their wastefulness, their decietfulness and their total lack of support for a professional football in Sussex. The elections are on the horizon, we should hound them at every opportunity. Bonfire night in Lewes is a chance not to be missed. Mass leafleting to all concerned. Maybe a effigy or two.

c). At every opportunity LDC must be reminded that any further decisions on Falmer must be open and transparent. (Again this should be on any leaflets/flyers and campaigning material).

d) As LDC are happy for Ruth Kelly to re-assess material for and against Falmer, that they they will now make a statement expressing confidence in her and accept any decision reached. Again our letters/flyers politiacl campaigning/flyers etc.

e) the club/supporters step up the pressure and put these points in leafleting Lewes residents and fund a giant sized advertising board in Lewes with the same message.

The club/fans really need to step up our PR and drive Falmer home.

 

[stevil]

As a Brentford fan (but a Brighton resident of 13 years) I just wanted to wish you all luck with this. Falmer is the perfect site for a stadium the city can be proud of, and the nimbies hiding behind the AONB rubbish makes my blood boil. Falmer might well have been beautiful in 1961, but that has surely changed since the trunk road, 2 universities and water works have been built...

On the face of it this seems like good news, but it is clear the battle is not yet won. Hope it happens soon, not least so I can watch some decent footie in the dry when the Bees are away!

 

[BensGrandad]

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

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.

Sorry about the punctuation I just get carried away.

Is there not a possibility that Ruth Kelly could change the decision? Or are we saying that it is the same civil servants that will make the recommendation with just a different signature on the final papers. Doesm she actually make the decision herself?

 

[Screaming J]

Sorry about the punctuation I just get carried away.

Is there not a possibility that Ruth Kelly could change the decision? Or are we saying that it is the same civil servants that will make the recommendation with just a different signature on the final papers. Doesm she actually make the decision herself?

Well, civil Servants move on, but whoever is there will provide the advice. Don't forget the only thing the Govt were prepared to concede was the boundary of the built up area issue. I would be shocked if they caved in on the other 15.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Generally (as seen in my Dept), if an area of work is transferred to another Govt Dept, then the team that deals with that area also transfers. So the same expertise is not lost.

Obviously, the top Civil Servant advising the Minister may not be the same (but he/she might be), but he/she will be guided by what the planning team provides him.

I would be amazed if the Civil Service advice is any different. Besides which there are politics to consider in all of this i.e there is nothing to be gained politically by declining Falmer as Labour cant win in Lewes, but there is awful lot to lose such as the sitting Labour MPs in Brighton & Hove

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Sorry about the punctuation I just get carried away.

Is there not a possibility that Ruth Kelly could change the decision? Or are we saying that it is the same civil servants that will make the recommendation with just a different signature on the final papers. Doesm she actually make the decision herself?

Ultimately yes, she makes the decision but she doesn't do all the research herself. Her officials will present her with the facts and then give her the available options. They will then make a reccomendation and give the reasons why. She could go against the decision but it would be extremely unlikely.

 

[The Large One]

Sorry about the punctuation I just get carried away.

Is there not a possibility that Ruth Kelly could change the decision? Or are we saying that it is the same civil servants that will make the recommendation with just a different signature on the final papers. Doesm she actually make the decision herself?

She is 'advised' on the decision, although she is free to accept or ignore the advice.

The advice has already been to grant the application, which is what Prescott did. Although even the second inspector had some doubts about the suitablility of Falmer (mainly on environmental impact), one, Prescott was satisfied that the mitigating circumstances outweighed the inspector's concerns and two, the inspector concluded that there was nowhere else suitable or available to build the stadium - something Lewes constantly and probably deliberately overlook in their protests.

Similarly, according to the Treasury Solicitor, nothing that Lewes have raised is enough for that legal opinion to be changed. Even that one point that the government did concede on is not nearly enough to have the decision overturned. To reverse the decision would be political folly, flying as it would in the face of government policy.

 

[Mr Blobby]

To reverse the decision would be political folly, flying as it would in the face of government policy.

Gulp, Labour and Political folly seam to hand in hand at the moment (now waiting for away fans singing we can see you holding hands, does your boyfrind know your hear, town full of faggotts etc etc ZzzzZzzzzZzzz).

Does the Falmer Campaign team want us to send letters to Ruth Kelly. I havent written to anyone for ages, so would be good to get back into action!

Mr Blobby

 

[attila]

If Ruth Kelly reverses the decision, Labour will lose all its Brighton MPs and control of the council. It'd be political suicide. they know that.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

When RK approves the decision will LDC then appeal and take it to judicial review again

 

[The Large One]

When RK approves the decision will LDC then appeal and take it to judicial review again

WE DON'T KNOW.

Probably. They're totally ****ish that way, you know.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

It has always been LDC's plan to withdraw from this hearing the day before the hearing itself. This is in line with their strategy of maximum delay for minimum cost.

They will now await the ODPM's new decision and once more demand a judicial review. They will keep appealing to higher and higher courts and the decades will pass...