Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Still trying to get my head round where this Hoiles inspector guy came from - he wasn't mentioned at all before as far as I was aware. So I have a few questions..
1. I was under the impression that the City Council approved the Falmer plans, but there were some objections so a public enquiry was called. Then I thought the public enquiry also approved (preliminary, whatever) the plans, but because of the nature of the development the Deputy PM called it in or review. I guess I'm wrong?
2. I gather the two inspectors are working independently. So whose decision carries the most weight? If Mr Collyer (sp.?) approves the plan, would it be the case that Prescott has the casting vote? The first inspectors report implies (to me at least) that he is looking at the whole plan, whereas Mr Collyer is looking at a part of it in more detail, meaning that Hoile's report is more important.
3. Hoiles report covers alternative sites, conservation issues, traffic issues, local villagers concerns, noise and light pollution, finance and the business plan, future expansion possibilities etc etc. Is there anything left for Collyer to talk about? What was the point of the specific public enquiry into Falmer if all the issues are being discussed by someone else in a report of a separate enquiry? One could surmise that he is going into such detail because he feels strongly about this and he thinks Collyer will go the other way, but perhaps that is grasping at straws.
4. This must just be advice to the DPM, yes? After all he is going against the decision of a democratically-elected council, referendum, independent analyses etc etc, so something would have to be seriously wrong with this process for the DPM to overturn it? SURELY?
5. Have the boundaries of the new National Park still not been decided, or at very least provisionally decided? What has been the stance of English Nature during all this? Conservation isues are very important in planning decisions these days (and rightly so) I do assume there is no real case to argue, aside from the subjective points about views, and presumably the club answered justifiable concerns about light and noise pollution.
Cheers guys, keep up your good work.
1. I was under the impression that the City Council approved the Falmer plans, but there were some objections so a public enquiry was called. Then I thought the public enquiry also approved (preliminary, whatever) the plans, but because of the nature of the development the Deputy PM called it in or review. I guess I'm wrong?
2. I gather the two inspectors are working independently. So whose decision carries the most weight? If Mr Collyer (sp.?) approves the plan, would it be the case that Prescott has the casting vote? The first inspectors report implies (to me at least) that he is looking at the whole plan, whereas Mr Collyer is looking at a part of it in more detail, meaning that Hoile's report is more important.
3. Hoiles report covers alternative sites, conservation issues, traffic issues, local villagers concerns, noise and light pollution, finance and the business plan, future expansion possibilities etc etc. Is there anything left for Collyer to talk about? What was the point of the specific public enquiry into Falmer if all the issues are being discussed by someone else in a report of a separate enquiry? One could surmise that he is going into such detail because he feels strongly about this and he thinks Collyer will go the other way, but perhaps that is grasping at straws.
4. This must just be advice to the DPM, yes? After all he is going against the decision of a democratically-elected council, referendum, independent analyses etc etc, so something would have to be seriously wrong with this process for the DPM to overturn it? SURELY?
5. Have the boundaries of the new National Park still not been decided, or at very least provisionally decided? What has been the stance of English Nature during all this? Conservation isues are very important in planning decisions these days (and rightly so) I do assume there is no real case to argue, aside from the subjective points about views, and presumably the club answered justifiable concerns about light and noise pollution.
Cheers guys, keep up your good work.
Last edited: