MY 20 minute chat with Norman Baker and the head of Lewes DC this morning..

[perseus]

Addenda:

In short there seem to be two types of AONBs.

1) In pristine countryside (i.e. dominated by farming interests)

2) Green belt areas on the outskirts of towns and cities (regeneration areas) where a geographic barrier (e.g. the B2123) are meant divide the countryside from the urban bits.

The Town and Planning Institute recent responses to PPS7 have come out in favour of sporting uses for these areas.

Brownfield in the centre of town is the place for shops, businesses, places of high income generation in accordance with high land prices.

I can see Prescott quite able to justify giving permission in an AONB on the edge of town of he likes the Falmer scheme.

It might mean a precedent for allowing other developments on the edge of town in regeneration areas, but it would not give a carte blanche go ahead for every crappy development on greenfield on the edge of town.

 

[perseus]

I would tend to go for an overt political (progressive Labour party candidate).

Why are the roads around Falmer crowded during the rush hour. Not because of a proposed sports stadium.

It is because there are not enough jobs in both Lewes and Brighton for the number of people living there.

Over half of the people living in Lewes work outside the area, lots of them in Brighton crowding up the roads. The Lewes politician should be there to promote the generation of economy not to find fallacious reasons to stop any new initiatives.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Here we go...more shit from Mr Andy Horton

BTW I hear that RYAN AIR are saeeking permission to fly larger turbo props into shoreham airport....whats next, jets!!! flYing over Shoreham Harbour....my my you are going to live in a noisy area aren't you Andy.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

When is the petition to allow this being presented to the council? I will sign it, and I am sure I can get many Albion fans to do this also.........IN RECOGNITION OF YOUR TREACHERY

 

[perseus]

Your accusation of TREACHERY is without any foundation. What is the source for this?

If the source is located, then I, or you, can work out the reason why somebody is making excuses.

It doesn't matter anyhow. Martin Perry & Co. have one chance to prove that Falmer is the best site. Prescott has seen to it that he has got to prove it is. Like a Football Manager he is being paid to deliver the goods. I do not want hear any more excuses. I would not accept it from MM, blaming the referee, so he has just got to do his job.

The main opposition to Falmer comes from the downs lobby. They are not even NIMBYs. Most of the South Downs Conservation Board (should have said Sussex Downs Conservation Board?), seem to be comprised of members of the Countryside Agency, (with a few token local politicians) and they do not even come from Sussex!

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/WhoWeAreAndWhatWeDo/Index.asp

NIMBYs have never stopped a good development plan, EVER! The best they can do is get expensive footbridges built.

They can't land big planes at Shoreham Airport even with an extended runway. This is all nonsense.

I thought Norman Baker was going off in a boat to save the whales. I tried to find a Press Release in case he had fallen over board. Apparently not.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

f*** got a fact wrong i think as it wasnt a lady with Norman(now that would be a story:safeway )it was a bloke with a beard whom i am led to believe was on the council or maybe the mayor!

Aha! That would've been Councillor Mike Chartier, Chairman of Lewes District Council

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I give up with you perseus.

It's the impression you give that somehow you have some kind of knowledge of the planning process that is bugging me the most.

There AREN'T "two kinds of AONB".

"Green Belt" isn't a concept that applies in Sussex. It's a designation that is relevant to non-AONB land around London.

The "regeneration areas" in Sussex are outside the AONB, not in it, near the major towns.

The main reason the roads around Falmer are congested at peak periods is that there are thousands of jobs in Falmer.

There's no such body as the South Downs Conservation Board. It's the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, and it works closely with the East Hampshire Joint Advisory Committee.

... and on and on and on ...




It may be that I am the source of dave the gaffer's accusation of treachery. In my book, all of the mis-information that you have put into the public arena contributes to a misunderstanding of how the planning process works and what the Albion have to do to get a stadium. If you were a supporter of the Club, you wouldn't be doing this, since it undermines their position. That falls within my definition of treachery.

 

[The Large One]

Quite right. Did you still want to borrow my cricket bat, my Lord?

 

[Yorkie]

Baker comes across as a funny chap. Can't remember who, but someone on here got to speak to him in Falmer one morning when he was doing his rounds on the "battle bus" or something.

I remember reading that post - like this one - and thinking, well at least he takes the trouble to listen, and his level of ignorance on the subject will surely make him go back and look into it properly. When he does he'll realise that his opposition is futile and a waste of tax payers money.

Unfortunately this doesn't appear to have been the case at all, as he still seems ignorant of the issues and the feeling, with absolutely no concept of it being a waste of everyone's time and money continuing to oppose it.

I think you have nailed the issue Lewes Cliff, that will finally get through to him, and that is if he has to stand against a pro-Falmer candidate. I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be someone with political affliations, it should be someone standing purely on the Falmer issue, whilst making the point of "not wasting anymore taxpayers money on opposing this."

Now all we need to find is someone intelligent, distinguished, and in full knowledge of all the facts to the extent that they could destroy all other candidates at any public debate. For my money there is just one name .... stand up ... the new candidate for Lewes .....

LORD B !!!!!

It was The Full Harris who spoke to him at Falmer and then I spoke to him when the battle bus got to Newhaven.

Baker just makes out like it's the first time that he's heard of it and that he wishes us all the best with the stadium but not at Falmer.

He is a prat of the highest order.

 

[perseus]

I apologise for misleading anybody (I doubt if I did).

Legally, of course, there is only one type of AONB. There is not getting around that. Even if the area is essentially urban, does not have rural economy to speak of, it is still an AONB because somebody drew up the invisible (on the ground) boundary line in the 1960s.

Development is not expressly forbidden in an AONB. They are just fussy about what type it is. (Is this correct LB?)

How could all development be prohibited? The economy would wither and die if nothing was allowed to change.

The ODPM letter said that Falmer has to comply with PPG7. I was trying to be optimistic to see if Prescott could find a way to allow a development within an AONB. There is a precedent with Wycome football ground, but this is much smaller.

As Lord Bracknell says, the Falmer is already a magnet for jobs. I do not know if this is good or bad? Prescott may reckon there are enough jobs? Or he may reckon it is an urban area with good transport links and more jobs are beneficial.

It is a fact that Brighton is a loser for jobs. Despite the thousands of people working in Brighton, more Brighton residents work outside the city than in it. This is an alarming statistic. How can any place called a "city" have more people working outside of it than in it?

This thread is about Norman Baker. He is the MP for Lewes. The single greatest flow of workers in Sussex, 15,000 maybe 20,000 a day go from Lewes to Brighton every day and quite a few the other way as well. They way I see it the politicians should be co-operating to find a solution not squabbling. Well one politician seems to be.

Anyrate, I don't live in Lewes. It is none of my business. You voted him in, you can vote him out!

 

[Hunting 784561]

Aha! That would've been Councillor Mike Chartier, Chairman of Lewes District Council

Is there anyone in Lewes that doesnt wear sandals or have a grey lib-dem beard ?








- Ladies ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Development is not expressly forbidden in an AONB. They are just fussy about what type it is. (Is this correct LB?)

How could all development be prohibited? The economy would wither and die if nothing was allowed to change.

The ODPM letter said that Falmer has to comply with PPG7. I was trying to be optimistic to see if Prescott could find a way to allow a development within an AONB. There is a precedent with Wycome football ground, but this is much smaller.

Major development is only permitted in an AONB if (1) it can be shown to be economically and socially beneficial, (2) it is significant in terms of national considerations and (3) there is no other suitable site available in the area.

That's basically what PPG7 says.

As has been said a thousand times before, Prescott has re-opened the Inquiry to look at (3). That must mean that he is already satisfied that conditions (1) and (2) are met.

The Inquiry will NOT be looking at whether Falmer is suitable. It plainly is.

That is why I see no point in these ramblings by perseus - most of which are banging on about whether or not Falmer meets the criteria (or whether the criteria are sensible).

IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA. The ONLY outstanding issue is whether there is another suitable site anywhere else.



[Sorry to repeat myself in this post. It seems to be necessary.]

 

[Curious Orange]

Major development is only permitted in an AONB if (1) it can be shown to be economically and socially beneficial, (2) it is significant in terms of national considerations and (3) there is no other suitable site available in the area.

That's basically what PPG7 says.

As has been said a thousand times before, Prescott has re-opened the Inquiry to look at (3). That must mean that he is already satisfied that conditions (1) and (2) are met...

...IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA. The ONLY outstanding issue is whether there is another suitable site anywhere else.

It is so nice to hear someone say that again. That is why we WILL get permission for Falmer.

All the utter drivel that has been said on this board recently and Lord B snaps it all back into focus. I feel much happier for reading that!!

 

[perseus]

This is what the ODPM letter said.

As this is a Norman Baker thread
If you are a constituent of Norman Baker, I would have thought it would legitimate to ask him what he thought it actually meant? (I always find it is best to consult with politicians asking them a question?)


4. Following consideration of these representations, the Secretary of State has concluded that that he should seek further evidence concerning the availability or otherwise of alternative sites and that for this purpose it is appropriate to re-open the inquiry. The matters on which the Secretary of State requires further evidence are as follows :

a) the availability and suitability for the proposed development of land at

• Brighton Station

• Brighton Greyhound Stadium
• Shoreham Harbour

• Sheepcote Valley

• Toad's Hole Valley

• Waterhall

• Withdean Stadium

In each case against the following criteria:
(i) Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, thereby complying with Football League requirements?
(ii) Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
(iii) Is the site large enough for a 22,000 capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach park?
(iv) Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs on the site?
(v) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any over-riding safety/stadium management problems?
(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?
(vii) Is the site accessible by sustainable modes of transport?
(viii) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any unacceptable environmental impacts?
(ix) Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?

b) The estimated cost of the development at Falmer and all of the above sites having regard to the advice in PPG7 "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" that major development proposals in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be demonstrated to be in the public interest and should include assessments of the cost and scope of developing elsewhere outside the AONB or meeting the need for it in some other way

c) Whether there are any other sites that could be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the above criteria.

d) The implications for the application site and for any of the other alternative sites located within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park.

PS: The letter does not actually say "national" interest but just public interest. Do you think this was changed on purpose?

(d) has also been altered to remove part of Village Way. (If I have got this right, the whole of Village Way was AONB, but now the boundaries have been moved.)

So the coach park bit in the AONB/NP itself is actually smaller than Wycombe's ground so we have already got a precedent?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Shut the f*** up perseus. You self-promoting toe-rag.

 

[Rambo]

What she said:falmerspi

 

[Hunting 784561]

(it's a he)

 

[Lord Bracknell]

PS: The letter does not actually say "national" interest but just public interest. Do you think this was changed on purpose?

I think the phrase "public interest" embraces the TWO issues - "significant in terms of national interest" and "economically and socially beneficial".

(d) has also been altered to remove part of Village Way. (If I have got this right, the whole of Village Way was AONB, but now the boundaries have been moved.)

The boundaries of the proposed National Park have NOT YET been fixed. The Public Inquiry only finished last week. It will be some time before the Inspector submits his report and recommendations to the Secretary of State. Strong representations were made at the Inquiry to exclude the whole of the stadium and coach park site from the Park. Equally strong representations were made to include both the stadium and coach park sites. It will be for Margaret Beckett to make the final decision on the detailed boundary - if, indeed, she decides to go ahead with the National Park designation.

So the coach park bit in the AONB/NP itself is actually smaller than Wycombe's ground so we have already got a precedent?

No. See above.

I've explained previously why I think that the Wycombe case doesn't set any sort of precedent for Falmer. I'll not bother doing this again, since you don't seem to be paying much attention.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I admire your patience Lord B. And your ability to wade through the obfuscation in an attempt to find points almost worth answering.

 

[perseus]

My interpretation (second opinion) welcomed?

I have just had another look at the ODPM letter especially (d). It looks like virtually the whole site (except for the coach park) has been removed from the effective AONB to the proposed (that's what the letter said, not fixed) National Park boundary. As the only unresolved objection is the site being within an AONB, by the content of the letter (parameters of the Public Inquiry) it implies (always tricky) that the AONB and the alternative sites issue has already been resolved. It will not even be enough for the opponents (downs lobby) to say their is a better site as the AONB seems to have been removed. I can't see the opponents have an planning argument any more?

The best the opponents can say is that Martin Perry & Co. were not diligent enough to have preliminary investigations in all the other sites. And we know that is not true: MP did! including Pende. And he made a better fist of fit, quicker than most, ruling out Waterhall before I knew it was a no hoper!

All that remains is for the "estimated cost of the development at Falmer" to the satisfaction of the Inspector and we are home an dry?!

This is what I said before "if the costs stack up" that is the important bit. I would anticipate this will be the hardest bit as well.

(PS: I am not causing trouble for the sake of it: I want a new stadium as much as anybody, and at the moment, I can't see why Falmer VWN can be stopped!)

 

[Lord Bracknell]

My interpretation (second opinion) welcomed?

I have just had another look at the ODPM letter especially (d). It looks like virtually the whole site (except for the coach park) has been removed from the effective AONB to the proposed (that's what the letter said, not fixed) National Park boundary. As the only unresolved objection is the site being within an AONB, by the content of the letter (parameters of the Public Inquiry) it implies (always tricky) that the AONB and the alternative sites issue has already been resolved. It will not even be enough for the opponents (downs lobby) to say their is a better site as the AONB seems to have been removed. I can't see the opponents have an planning argument any more?

I have NO IDEA how you contrive to arrive at this conclusion.

There are three proposals for a boundary of the National Park at Falmer. You seem to be suggesting that the one proposed by the Countryside Agency has a higher status than either of the other two.

It doesn't. The Inspector at the National Park Inquiry is considering it alongside the other proposals.

And who are the "Downs Lobby" in this? The Sussex Downs Conservation Board or the Countryside Agency? They were each lobbying for different outcomes at the Worthing Inquiry.

All that remains is for the "estimated cost of the development at Falmer" to the satisfaction of the Inspector and we are home an dry?!

This is what I said before "if the costs stack up" that is the important bit. I would anticipate this will be the hardest bit as well.

AGAIN, you completely misunderstand the terms of reference of the resumed Falmer Inquiry.

Prescott has already received the information he is seeking about the costs at Falmer. He is NOT asking the Inspector to re-open this question or to be "satisfied" that Falmer is affordable. All the July letter says is that the Falmer costs should be used as a baseline in any investigation of the cost of building a stadium at the other sites.