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

[perseus]

What boundaries does the letter mean when it says:

"within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park." ?

I didn't realise there were several different proposals for designation.
Maybe I was jumping to conclusions?

What are the different proposals?

I can't see anything about baseline mentioned. This is implied. You may be right. The letter just asks for the information:

"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"


I know that financial considerations have rather limited considerations at planning inquiries, but I do not expect that it is failed to come to notice the parlous state of some football clubs.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What boundaries does the letter mean when it says:

"within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park." ?

Let's look at the WHOLE of that sentence, not just the PART of it that you've quoted:-

"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".

What this means is that the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park will have implications for Falmer, Waterhall, Toads Hole Valley and Beeding Cement Works (the sites that are currently within the Sussex Downs AONB).

In the case of Falmer, it is possible (but not certain) that some or all of the site will be in the National Park.

In the case of Waterhall and Beeding Cement Works, it is almost certain that the sites will be in the National Park.

In the case of Toads Hole Valley, it is almost certain that the site won't be in the National Park.

The Secretary of State is asking for further evidence to be gathered by the Inquiry to enable him to consider the implications of these possibilities. For example, he may wish to take a different view on Toads Hole Valley if it is outside the National Park than he would if it continued to be designated as AONB.

And if the WHOLE of the Falmer site was to be outside the National Park, then he might consider that the protection currently given by AONB status was no longer relevant. Although, since the Club will be pressing him for an EARLY decision on the planning application (ie before the National Park boundary decision is taken), this isn't likely to be a point that will be argued by anyone at the Inquiry - beyond a claim that "emerging" public policy might be given some weight in the matter.

If PART of the Falmer site was in the National Park, the implications might be different.

And if ALL of the Falmer site was in the National Park, the current AONB protection would still apply (ie the development would only be permitted if the three tests were passed).

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The REASON that Prescott has raised the National Park issue at this stage is simple.

When the terms of the original Public Inquiry were set, some two years ago, Prescott was content that sites were judged against the AONB designation alone. A possible National Park (and its boundaries) was so far in the future at that time, that it was excluded from the terms of reference.

Things have now moved on and Prescott is saying that the possible National Park designation should now be considered, not just the historic AONB designation. This simply clarifies things for the Inspector and the various parties.