The Decision Letter from Hazel Blears' Department

[Lord Bracknell]

23 July 2007
Tony Allen
DMH Stallard
100 Queens Road
Brighton
East Sussex
BN1 3YB
Our Ref:
Dear Sir,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 77)
APPLICATIONS BY BRIGHTON AND HOVE ALBION FOOTBALL CLUB LTD
LAND NORTH OF VILLAGE WAY, FALMER
APPLICATION NOs: BH2001/02418/FP, LW/02/1595, BH2003/02449/FP, LW/03/1618
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, J R Collyer MRTPI FRICS (the first Inspector), who held an inquiry between 18 February and 23 October 2003, into your client's applications for planning permission for:
a) a community stadium with accommodation for Class B1 business, educational, conference, club shop merchandise, entertainment and food and road works, pedestrian and cycle links, coach/bus park and set down area, shared use of existing car parking space at the University of Sussex and shared use of land for recreation and parking at Falmer High School (Application A);
b) the construction of a coach and bus interchange for the community stadium (Application B);
c) the partial widening of Village Way together with the B2123 junction improvements and new roundabout at University of Brighton campus entrance (Application C); and
d) the partial widening of Village Way together with the B2123 junction improvements and new roundabout at the University of Brighton campus entrance (Application D)
2. Following consideration of the first Inspector's report, the then First Secretary of State indicated by letter dated 26 July 2004 that he wished to seek further
information concerning the availability or otherwise of alternative sites and for that purpose it was appropriate to re-open the inquiry. The Secretary of State has also given consideration to the report of the Inspector, D H Brier BA MA MRTPI (the second Inspector), who re-opened the inquiry to examine the issue of alternative sites. This part of the inquiry was held between 2 February and 5 May 2005.
3. On 27 October 2005, the then First Secretary of State issued his decision to disagree with the first Inspector and grant planning permission for all four applications. In reaching that decision, the then First Secretary of State agreed with the second Inspector that none of the alternative sites which were before him were sufficiently advantageous that they represented feasible, practical and realistic alternatives to the application site for the proposed community stadium. On 6 November 2006 this decision was quashed following the Order of the High Court and these applications fell to be re-determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. On 20 November 2006, the Secretary of State issued a letter under Rule 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 to all interested parties inviting representations to allow her to redetermine these applications. The deadline for receipt of these representations was 15 February 2007. On 2 March 2007, the Secretary of State re-circulated those representations received to allow parties the opportunity to comment. On 6 March 2007, the Secretary of State re-circulated a representation from Celia Barlow MP. On 25 April 2007 the Secretary of State also re-circulated a representation from Lord Bassam and on 3 May 2007 re-circulated a representation from Natural England, both of which were received after the deadline for receipt of representations but which the Secretary of State considered should be re-circulated to all parties. The deadline for receipt of all further representations from parties was extended to 11 May 2007. In making her determination of the applications, the Secretary of State has taken into consideration all the representations which she has received.
4. Since the Secretary of State recirculated those representations received in response to her letter under Rule 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, she has received a number of further representations. All of these have been carefully considered, but do not appear to her to constitute new evidence, or to raise new issues which need to be referred back to the parties before the Secretary of State proceeds to a decision. Nor have they been such as to cause her to take a different view of the matters before her from that which she would otherwise have taken. On 18 July, the Secretary of State wrote to parties informing them of certain requests made to her under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, seeking the release of some of these further representations, and that after due consideration she had agreed to release the requested material. That letter detailed the material being circulated under the Regulations, and invited parties to request copies of all or some of the representations if they wished. Copies of those representations are not therefore attached to this letter.
Inspectors’ recommendations and summary of decisions
5. The first Inspector recommended that all 4 applications be refused planning permission. The second Inspector concluded that none of the proposed
alternative sites were sufficiently advantageous that they represented feasible, practical and realistic alternatives to the application site for the proposed community stadium. He found that there was no reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted for a community stadium at any of the alternative sites discussed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to these reports. References to IRa are to the first Inspector's report and IRb to the second Inspector's report. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the first Inspector's recommendation and grants planning permission for all 4 applications. She agrees with the conclusions of the second Inspector and, having regard both to his conclusions and the further information and evidence submitted for her consideration following the quashing of the First Secretary of State’s decision in November 2006, herself concludes that there is no available alternative site which would be a suitable location for the proposed community stadium. Copies of the conclusions of both Inspectors were attached to the then First Secretary of State’s decision of 2005 and have not therefore been attached to this letter. However, they can be made available on request to this office.
Procedural matters
6. The Secretary of State agrees with the first Inspector as to the inter-relationship between Applications A and B, and that, if it were concluded that one application was acceptable but not the other, then both should be refused (IRa18.244). She also agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given in IRa18.245, that if Applications C and D were deemed to be acceptable but not Applications A and B, permission should be refused for all 4 applications. For the reasons given in IRa18.246, she agrees with the Inspector that, if Applications A and B were deemed acceptable, but not Applications C and D, a decision could be made on that basis.
7. At the start of the first part of the inquiry, the applicant requested that certain modifications to the originally submitted proposals be taken into account. The most significant modification is the deletion of the bus and coach park from Application A so that land south of Village Way no longer forms any part of the formal application site area (IRa1.9). For the reasons given in paragraphs IRa1.9 and IRa1.10, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no reason why any party should be prejudiced as a result of the proposed modifications and no reason why they should not be taken formally into consideration. The Secretary of State has therefore proceeded on this basis.
8. The Secretary of State notes the concerns expressed by Falmer and Rottingdean Parish Councils relating to a possible breach of the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (the EIA Regulations) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (the Habitat Regulations) (IRa1.15 and 1.16). She also notes the concerns raised on these matters by Mr Scott in his letters of 15 February and 11 May 2007. However, in relation to the EIA Regulations, for the reasons given in paragraph IRa1.18, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the additional information submitted regarding cut and fill was sufficient to meet the specified requirements of the Regulation 19 Direction. She also agrees that the question of lighting impact is adequately addressed in the Environmental Statement and
that the evidence submitted on bats was convincing that no unacceptable impact would be likely to arise. Additionally, for the reasons given in paragraph IRa1.19, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the question of meeting the requirements of Regulation 44 of the Habitats Regulations is unlikely to arise. The Secretary of State considers that she has sufficient information before her to enable her to assess the main environmental effects of the development proposed, and she considers that the relevant requirements of the Regulations have been satisfied.
9. The Secretary of State has also considered a request dated 9 May 2007 by Earthrights Solicitors on behalf of Falmer Parish Council to re-open the Inquiry. However, the Secretary of State has taken the view that it is not necessary to re-open the Inquiry having regard to all the information before her.
South Downs National Park
10. The application site and surrounding land lie within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)(IRa2.8). The proposed stadium site is located partly within and partly outside the built-up area boundary as identified in the adopted Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005. The site of the proposed bus and coach interchange is located within Lewes district in an area subject to countryside policies. The Secretary of State has determined the applications on this basis.
11. The Secretary of State also notes that part of the stadium site and the site for the proposed bus and coach interchange lie within the proposed South Downs National Park. However, decisions on National Park designation are currently before the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On 2 July 2007, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs invited objections and representations on new issues relating to the South Downs National Park. As part of this exercise, the report of the Inspector who oversaw the South Downs National Park inquiry was published. That report recommended that the boundary of the proposed National Park be amended so as to exclude the stadium site from it. Recommendations affecting the boundary were also proposed which could affect the alternative sites of Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley. Representations are being sought with a view as to whether it is appropriate to re-open the public inquiry into the National Park. As no final decision on designation has yet been taken, and as the precise boundary may yet be subject to change, the Secretary of State has afforded the proposed National Park only limited weight as a material consideration in the determination of these applications.
12. The Secretary of State also notes that the European Landscape Convention was signed by the Government on 24 February 2006 and was ratified by the Council of Europe on 21 November 2006. Whilst the Convention promotes landscape protection, management and planning, and European co-operation on landscape issues, the Secretary of State notes that it does not offer any increased protection in respect of the application site, which as AONB, is already afforded the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
Policy considerations
13. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (RPG9), published in March 2001; the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan (1991 - 2011), adopted in 1999 (ESSP); the Brighton and Hove Local Plan, adopted in 2005 (BHLP); and the Lewes District Local Plan, adopted in January 2003 (LDLP).
14. The Secretary of State notes that the BHLP was still in draft form at the time of both inquiries. She has determined the planning applications having regard to the relevant policies contained in the adopted BHLP (2005).
15. Material considerations include Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1); Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6); Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7); Planning Policy Guidance note 13: Transport (PPG13); Planning Policy Guidance note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15); and Planning Policy Guidance note 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17).
16. The Secretary of State has had regard to the draft South East Plan March 2006. This plan was subject to an examination in public between November 2006 and March 2007. She affords its policies only limited weight. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the emerging Brighton and Hove Local Development Framework (LDF) and Lewes District Council’s Core Strategy: Draft Preferred Options (Development Plan Document September 2006). However, since these documents are also at an early stage of development, and may be subject to change, she also affords them only limited weight.
Main issues
17. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are:
(i). Whether the proposed development complies with PPS7;
(ii). The application of PPS6 to the development proposals;
(iii). The extent to which the proposed development complies with PPG13;
(iv). The extent to which the proposed development complies with PPG15;
(v). Whether the proposed development complies with PPG17; and
(vi). The extent to which the proposed development complies with development plan policies.
Whether the proposed development complies with PPS7
18. The application site lies within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). AONBs, along with other nationally designated areas comprising National Parks, the Broads and the New Forest Heritage Area, have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty
of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas.
19. PPS7 is clear that major developments, such as that proposed in this case, should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. Due to the serious impact that major developments may have on these areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities that they provide, applications for all such developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination. PPS7 makes clear that any planning permission granted for major developments in these designated areas should be carried out to high environmental standards through the application of appropriate conditions where necessary. As required by PPS7, for the purpose of determining the current applications the Secretary of State has carefully assessed the following matters:
(i). the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
(ii). the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need in some other way; and
(iii). any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.
The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy
20. The Secretary of State has had regard to the applicant's argument that it is in the national interest that a community stadium should be provided to serve the city of Brighton and Hove. They argue that it is in the national interest that all major centres of population are able to enjoy participation and representation at a professional level in major sporting activities which their communities support. For the reasons given in paragraphs IRa18.42 - 18.44, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no compelling evidence that all major urban centres must be represented or that football would suffer nationally if BHAFC were to be lost to the League (IRa18.44). Furthermore, for the reasons given in paragraph IRa18.46, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is little in the way of tangible evidence to support the view that BHAFC's very existence depends on the development of a new stadium at Falmer. She considers the issue of potential alternative sites for the proposed stadium below.
21. However, the Secretary of State considers that the stadium proposal will bring with it a number of important socio-economic benefits. These were identified by the first Inspector at IRa 18.30-18.39. He found that, notwithstanding his view that some of the benefits had been overstated by the applicant, there would be important and valuable regenerative benefits flowing from the development (IRa18.39). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the provision of so many jobs suitable for the unskilled and/or part time in nature would be beneficial in an area which is so seriously deprived of employment opportunities (IRa 18.36). The Secretary of State considers that there is little evidence to suggest that these benefits would be gained in other ways if the proposed
development did not go ahead and that the proposed development therefore provides a valuable opportunity for securing important regeneration benefits for this deprived area.
22. There is no dispute that the eastern part of Brighton, and the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean in particular within which the stadium site lies, suffer from serious levels of economic and social deprivation. Both at the time of the inquiry, and now, the area ranks near the top of national tables of deprivation and, through its inclusion in areas designated for funding and other assistance, it is recognised as being in urgent need of regeneration. Wider Government policy sees regeneration as a national priority, aiming to narrow the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. One of the key aims of RPG9 is to create a more sustainable pattern of development with, amongst other aims, a particular focus on promoting regeneration and renewal. It identifies a number of areas of regional significance known as Priority Areas of Economic Regeneration (PAER) which need tailored regeneration strategies to address their problems and maximise their contribution to the social and economic well-being of the region. The Sussex Coastal Towns, including Brighton and Hove, are identified as a PAER.
23. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.31) that the scheme would undoubtedly bring important and very welcome social benefits to this deprived area. She further agrees that (IRa18.41) the evidence demonstrates that the application proposals would have an appreciable beneficial effect on the economic and social well-being of the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean and the eastern part of Brighton. The Secretary of State considers that it is in the national interest that areas of marked deprivation, of which the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean is one, should be regenerated, and that this weighs significantly in favour of the development.
24. The Secretary of State considers that there is a clear public interest in securing the socio-economic and regenerative benefits which the proposed development offers. There is little evidence to suggest that the permitted B1 development would bring anything like the gains of the proposed stadium, or that it is even likely to go ahead. She accords considerable weight to this consideration.
25. The Secretary of State has had regard to the arguments raised by the applicant and the Council centred on national need which arises from community related issues. She agrees with the Inspector that these particular arguments are concerned with the needs of the local community in economic and social terms. She concludes that they represent a strong local need for the community facilities which the proposed stadium would provide. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that the significant local need for a stadium, the national interest to regenerate some of the most deprived wards in the country, the significant contribution the proposal would make towards achieving regeneration, and the negative impact that refusing permission would have upon the local economy, amount to national considerations that weigh in favour of the proposed development. She concludes overall that a need for the proposals has been demonstrated.
26. The Secretary of State has had regard to the arguments of some parties that the circumstances described above are essentially local interests, and that an accumulation of local interests cannot become a national interest. She does not accept that contention. She considers that the regeneration of an area of marked deprivation is in the national interest of its own account.
The cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way
27. The Secretary of State has found a need to have been demonstrated for the proposals, thereby satisfying the first assessment criteria of paragraph 22 of PPS7. She accepts that the proposal will have adverse impacts on the AONB, and that potential alternative sites have been put forward for consideration which would not have those adverse impacts, or would have them to a lesser degree. She considers that there is only a single permission to be granted. It is therefore an important material consideration in the determination of these applications that an assessment is made of the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need which she has identified in some other way.
28. At the time of the first part of the inquiry, the applicant had not presented sufficient information to enable a robust, quantifiable assessment to be made of alternative sites. The first Inspector concluded therefore that this particular requirement of PPG7 (since replaced by PPS7) had not been satisfactorily demonstrated and, on the basis of the limited information before him, concluded that there were other potential sites which could be developed which were outside the AONB. The then First Secretary of State decided that the inquiry should be re-opened in order to give the opportunity for further, more detailed assessment of that issue.
29. The second Inspector approached the consideration of alternative sites on the basis stated in IRb10.1-10.8. In her Rule 19 letter dated 20 November 2006, one of the matters on which the Secretary of State invited representations was regarding the approach to assessment of the alternative sites put forward for consideration by the Secretary of State; and the merits of those sites including, in particular, the accessibility of the Sheepcote Valley site.
30. The Secretary of State has considered the representations received by all parties regarding this matter. Having found that there is a need for the proposals, the assessment of alternative sites becomes an important material consideration. The Secretary of State concludes that it is important that the merits of alternative sites are evaluated in terms of their ability to meet the need identified. With regard to the approach to assessment of alternative sites, she notes that the focus of the reopened inquiry was upon the availability of a suitable alternative site for the proposed community stadium. She has had regard to the weight of evidence and representations now available to her on the merits and demerits of the proposed alternative sites. The Secretary of State considers that it is both relevant and reasonable for her to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted for a community stadium at the alternative sites put forward for assessment. The
Secretary of State considers that she is in a position properly to approach this part of her decision on that basis.
Brighton Station and Greyhound stadium sites
31. The second Inspector concluded in IRb10.9 - 10.11 that neither the Brighton Station nor the Brighton Greyhound Stadium sites can now be regarded as being available for a community stadium development. The Secretary of State is satisfied that nothing has subsequently changed to affect this conclusion.
Shoreham Harbour
32. The second Inspector considered that whilst this site offers the prospect of a development opportunity with the potential to make a significant contribution to the regeneration of an urban area and is more attractive and potentially far less damaging than a scheme at Falmer, the circumstances are such that there is no development site at the moment, nor can it be said with any degree of certainty that one will materialise in the foreseeable future (IRb10.12-27 and IRb10.156) The Secretary of State notes from the representation dated 14 December 2006 from Shoreham Port, that there is no land available within Shoreham Harbour Limits that might be used as the location for a new sports stadium. She therefore concludes that nothing has subsequently changed to affect the second Inspector’s conclusion.
Sheepcote Valley
33. The Secretary of State has considered the second Inspector’s consideration of this site at IRb10.28-10.54 and his conclusion at IRb10.157-10.158 that there is no reasonable prospect of planning permission being forthcoming for a football stadium on this site. The Secretary of State has also considered the representations received on the merits of this site in response to the Secretary of State’s Rule 19 letter dated 20 November 2006, including the accessibility study commissioned by Lewes District Council.
34. The Secretary of State notes that in terms of the criteria used by the second Inspector to examine the alternative sites, Sheepcote Valley meets the majority. It lies within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, a 22,000 stadium is capable of being built at an affordable cost and there are no overriding site specific planning issues. The Secretary of State considers that the stadium site does not have any particular landscape qualities which would result in a stadium having a harmful impact, and the site does not enjoy AONB status, and that this is sufficient to give it a clear advantage over Falmer in planning policy terms. In reaching this conclusion, she notes that Sheepcote Valley is wholly outside of the boundary of the built up area of the City, as defined in BHLP. She has also borne in mind the recently published findings of the South Downs National Park Inspector, who recommended that the boundary of the proposed national park be amended to incorporate the eastern flank of Sheepcote Valley, bringing it much nearer to the site of a proposed stadium. Were this boundary to be eventually confirmed, it would greatly diminish the clear advantage over Falmer described above. However, for the reasons given in paragraph 11 of this letter, the Secretary of State attaches little weight to the South Downs National Park
Inspector’s report at this stage, and has proceeded on the basis that Sheepcote Valley continues to enjoy a clear advantage over Falmer in planning policy terms.
35. The Secretary of State notes that Sheepcote Valley is located within one of Brighton and Hove's most deprived areas and is the only one of the alternative sites that is, like Falmer, eligible for the New Deal for Communities Funding. The Secretary of State considers that, as with Falmer, it is in the national interest that areas of marked deprivation should be regenerated, and that the provision of a stadium in a similarly deprived area to Falmer would bring significant benefits. Parties made representations concerning the relative levels of deprivation between the ward of East Brighton and the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean. In updated indices of deprivation, the ward of East Brighton (in which Sheepcote Valley is located) emerges as the most deprived ward in Brighton, whilst Moulescoomb and Bevendean (in which Falmer is located) is the third most deprived ward in Brighton. The Secretary of State considers that both the areas suffer significant levels of deprivation. She does not consider the differences between them to offer significant advantages in regeneration terms to either site as she finds that the socio-economic and regenerative benefits of the proposals would be significant in both.
36. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there are persuasive reasons for preferring this location to Falmer (IRb10.158). However, for the reasons given in paragraphs IRb10.39-10.47, the second Inspector questioned the site's availability, found a strong likelihood of serious traffic congestion occurring with a capacity event, insufficient public transport capacity, and no demonstration as to how this could be overcome. The second Inspector particularly found accessibility to be the “Achilles heel” of the Sheepcote Valley site. In particular, the second Inspector commented several times in his report that he had insufficient quantifiable evidence to enable him to conclude that there was a reasonable prospect of a solution to the accessibility difficulties at Sheepcote Valley being found. Given these findings, this was an issue which the Secretary of State requested to see further evidence on in her Rule 19 letter.
37. The Secretary of State has considered the assessment of Sheepcote Valley’s accessibility put forward by RPS on behalf of Lewes District Council, which found that changes in the transport environment around Sheepcote Valley, coupled with measures to influence travel patterns and manage events would improve the accessibility of the site such that there would be no overriding objection on accessibility grounds. The Secretary of State agrees that the changing policy context offers some support for this view. In particular, she has had regard to the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (the draft South East Plan) which identifies Brighton as a regional hub which means that there will be an increasing focus on measures that increase the level of accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling. The draft South East Plan also identifies the A27 and A23 corridors as regional spokes meaning that they will become a focus for future transport infrastructure investment. However, for the reasons given in paragraph 16 of this letter, since this document is in draft form and may be subject to change, the Secretary of State affords its policies only limited weight. The Secretary of State has also noted the adoption of the Brighton and Hove City Council Local Transport Plan 2 which provides a greater emphasis on
accessibility planning within the urban area; the encouragement of higher concentrations of development in order to achieve higher levels of accessibility; a greater emphasis on parking restraint through the implementation of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ); and a recommitment to enforcing maximum parking standards in order to discourage non-essential use of the private car. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the East Sussex County Council Local Transport Plan 2 which also looks to increase accessibility to services achieved through providing greater travel choices and land use decisions; to rebalance the preferred choice of transport towards non-car modes; to promote and improve facilities for walking, cycling and public transport; to implement demand management strategies; and to improve transport and travel information.
38. The Secretary of State considers that, to a significant degree, the representations submitted in response to her Rule 19 letter dated 20 November 2006 provide a clearer understanding of the ability of the Sheepcote Valley location to overcome the overriding uncertainties as to its accessibility that the second Inspector found in the evidence submitted at the second Inquiry. The Secretary of State has noted the findings of RPS on behalf of Lewes District Council that, based on their arrival profiles, modal share and available capacity, Sheepcote Valley could comfortably cope with a capacity event. However, she has concerns regarding the methodology used to draw these conclusions. In particular, the RPS assessment assumed that 70% of visitors would arrive in the prior hour to an event, rather than the 80% which was adopted by the second Inspector at inquiry. The 80% figure was derived from the football club’s experience at the Withdean stadium, and from a Premier League Survey. While the Secretary of State recognises that the second Inspector cast some doubts on the appropriateness of this assumption (IRb 10.45), she finds this more persuasive than the examples quoted by RPS in their evidence, which do not appear to her to equate so well to the proposal before her now. The Secretary of State also considers that RPS’ findings that there would be a 21% walking modal share is inflated, given that this figure includes those arriving by rail. For the reasons given in IRb 10.41, the Secretary of State agrees with the findings of the second Inspector that walking is unlikely to be an attractive option for the great majority of visitors to the stadium. In addition, the Secretary of State is concerned that in assessing the impact on the highway network, RPS considered just four road junctions in the vicinity of the site. The Secretary of State is not persuaded that an assessment of just four road junctions is adequate for a proposal of this magnitude.
39. The Secretary of State has also considered representations concerning recent planning permissions granted for developments near the proposed Sheepcote Valley site, and other developments in the area expected to come forward. She attaches considerably more weight to those proposals with permission than to those which have yet to submit applications. Brighton and Hove City Council argues that these lower still further the accessibility of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley, as they are increasing the demand for public transport, increasing congestion, and increasing background levels of traffic. Lewes District Council on the other hand argues that the progress of new developments has brought forward the possible introduction of the Rapid Transit System, and that the emergence of this part of Brighton as a new leisure and entertainment quarter, consisting of developments with similar accessibility requirements, offers potential synergies, and is advantageous to the accessibility of Sheepcote.
While accepting that similar developments are proposed, the sheer size and capacity of the proposed stadium lead the Secretary of State, on balance, to prefer the evidence of Brighton and Hove City Council on this issue. Moreover, she considers that emerging developments placing more strain on existing transport infrastructure are likely to reduce the accessibility of a proposed stadium.
40. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that the representations submitted in response to her Rule 19 letter dated 20 November 2006 regarding the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley add significantly to the evidential picture available to the second Inspector. Having considered this further evidence, and for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that it has not been demonstrated to her satisfaction that a stadium sited at Sheepcote Valley could be made suitably accessible. She therefore agrees with the second Inspector’s conclusion (IRb10.158) that accessibility provides an overriding objection to this site as a suitable alternative location for the proposed development, and does not consider that the further evidence provided on this issue alters that conclusion.
41. For these reasons, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that planning permission would be forthcoming for a community stadium at Sheepcote Valley if the proposed development were refused planning permission (IRb10.158). She concludes that this alternative site is unlikely to represent a realistic or suitable location for the proposed development.
Toad's Hole Valley
42. The South Downs National Park Inspector’s report recommends that the exclusion of this site from the proposed South Downs National Park be reversed, bringing it back inside the proposed national park boundary. The site is currently within the AONB, and if this proposed amendment to the national park boundary were to be implemented, it would have no advantage in planning policy terms over a proposal at Falmer. However, for the reasons given in paragraph 11 of this letter, the Secretary of State affords little weight to national park designation. She has therefore considered the site on the basis of its current AONB status.
43. Since the Secretary of State has considered this site based on its current status, as she has done in respect of both the application site and Sheepcote Valley, she finds that as the site is currently located within the AONB, it offers no significant advantage over Falmer in planning terms.
44. Notwithstanding this, the Secretary of State recognises that, although this site is in the AONB, it has a higher degree of physical containment than the application site and therefore would not feature in long distance views from the Downs to the same extent (IRb10.159). Nevertheless, the Secretary of State agrees with the second Inspector that the impact of a stadium of this magnitude on a large open and undeveloped area, that still possesses a close physical affinity with the broader tracts of downland to the north of the A27 Bypass would be far more marked. Furthermore, for the reasons given in paragraph IRb10.70 - 10.80, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that traffic congestion, in particular
the implications for the junction of the A27 Bypass and the A2038, and the knock - on effect for the A27 Bypass, would be a serious problem (IRb10.160). In reaching this conclusion, the Secretary of State has taken account of the views of Steer Davies Gleave who, on behalf of the owners of Toads Hole Valley, submitted representations on the transport merits of Toads Hole Valley as an alternative to Falmer. The Secretary of State notes the concerns raised by Steer Davies Gleave regarding the second Inspector’s consideration of accessibility at Toads Hole Valley and she notes their argument that Toads Hole Valley is a far more sustainable location for a community stadium that Falmer. However, the Secretary of State is not persuaded that the representations submitted by Steer Davies Gleave allow her to conclude that a stadium could be developed without causing significant highway congestion. The Secretary of State therefore agrees with the second Inspector that there are no reasonable prospects that planning permission would be forthcoming on this site. Even if the Secretary of State concluded that the accessibility of this site could be made satisfactory, the Secretary of State considers that AONB considerations, as discussed above, would be unlikely to lead her to a different conclusion on this site.
Waterhall
45. The second Inspector had concerns regarding this site’s overall accessibility, its location within the AONB and the intrusive effect of a major development in a location that is physically detached from the main built up area (IRb10.96-10.98 and IRb10.161). The Secretary of State is satisfied that nothing has subsequently changed to affect this conclusion.
Withdean Stadium
46. The second Inspector considered that locating the stadium here would give rise to many problems, not least the question of re-locating the other recreation uses on the site and acquiring land to facilitate safe access and egress for spectators, also that the scale of the development would cause serious problems of visual intrusion and adverse effects on local residents to the extent that the prospect of planning permission being granted is very remote (IRb10.102-10.112 and IRb10.162). The Secretary of State is satisfied that nothing has subsequently changed to affect this conclusion.
Beeding Cement Works
47. The second Inspector found that this site does not perform well in terms of accessibility and that the realistic prospect of achieving a high degree of accessibility by sustainable means of transport are slim (IRb10.141 - 10.145 and IRb10.164). The Secretary of State is satisfied that nothing has subsequently changed to affect this conclusion.
Shoreham Airport/New Monks Farm
48. The second Inspector considered in IRb10.119-10.132 and IRb10.166 that the feasibility of land acquisition of this site is questionable, that accessibility is a serious concern and that a major development at this site would seriously erode
the Strategic Gap within which the land lies. The Secretary of State is satisfied that nothing has subsequently changed to affect this conclusion.
Other locations
49. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion in IRb10.148 - 10.151 that there is nothing that demonstrates that any other site submitted would be appropriate for a community stadium.
The effect on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated
50. Having regard to the Inspector's conclusions in paragraphs IRa18.5 - 18.21, the Secretary of State agrees that the proposed development would cause damage to the character and appearance of this attractive stretch of open landscape and would be seen from a wide range of short, medium and long distance vantage points, most of which are located within the AONB (IRa18.11). The Secretary of State has attached considerable weight to the harm caused to the AONB in her consideration of this application.
51. In assessing the impact, the Secretary of State has taken into account the quality of the existing landscape and the degree to which the impact could be mitigated. In considering this, the Secretary of State is mindful of the fact that a part of the application site is within the defined built up area of the City and occupies a parcel of land which is already partly urbanised by existing University buildings.
52. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector's concerns regarding the photomontages submitted by the applicant (IRa 18.16) and accepts that photomontages do not portray a completely accurate image of any proposal. However, having carefully considered the photomontages and the Inspector’s detailed findings and conclusions as regards the impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the landscape in this part of the AONB, she is content that the photomontages provide, in some respects, a useful indication of the impacts of the proposal. She sees force in the Council's assessment that the slope of the land toward the A27 allows the stadium to work with the contours of the land and to set the bulk of the building into the landform, and that in most views it would be the roof that was the most prominent or only visible feature (IRa7.7). Likewise, she sees force in the Council’s view that the proposed bus and coach park is tucked within a fold of the Downs and that when the valley is viewed from the south, this site is below the line of Village Way and that when looking down from the bridleway further south, the coach park is already hidden from view (IRa7.8).
53. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would cause considerable harm to the AONB. However, having regard to the Inspector's assessment of the site and surroundings, the Secretary of State attaches greater significance than the Inspector does to the existing quality of the landscape and the fact that the site is partly within the built up area of the City, an area which has been urbanised to some extent by the existing University buildings. She has also considered the proposals for landscaping, bunding and other forms of screening that were submitted by the applicant. She agrees with the Inspector
that the effect of these measures would be to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development to varying degrees. However, she does not agree with the Inspector that the measures proposed do not mitigate, to an acceptable degree, the harmful effects of the development on the AONB (IRa 18.22), given that the Secretary of State has accorded more weight to the fact that the site has been urbanised to some extent and that part of it lies within the built up area. Given these factors, she concludes that, on balance, the mitigation measures are sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. Accordingly, she does not consider that measures in addition to those proposed by the applicant are required.
54. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the implications of what might be regarded as the fallback position which arises from the provisions of Policies EM2 and EM20 of the Local Plan, which allocate the site for B1 uses in the event that the site proves unsuitable for a stadium. Whilst, the Secretary of State accepts, for the reasons given in IRa 18.24, that there is no assurance that this would be developed should planning permission be refused for the stadium, she considers that the B1 allocation is at least a recognition that the site may be developed, notwithstanding its AONB status. This fallback, while not being of the same order of magnitude as the proposed stadium, also reduces the weight that the Secretary of State attaches to the erosion of the gap between Falmer and Brighton, which would be contrary to ESSP Policy S1(k) and LDLP Policy CT1.
55. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, that a development of this scale in the AONB would run contrary to the primary objective to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape. However, for the reasons given above, she finds that the harm caused to the AONB is able to be moderated to a degree that she considers, on balance, to be acceptable.
Overall Conclusion on PPS7
56. The Secretary of State concludes that the significant local need for the development and the clear public interest in securing the significant regeneration and socio-economic benefits which it would bring to an area of marked deprivation are factors that weigh considerably in favour of the proposals, and lead her to conclude overall that a need has been demonstrated for them. Having so concluded, the Secretary of State has gone on to assess the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way. The Secretary of State does not consider that Sheepcote Valley, or any of the other alternatives considered, are deliverable and sufficiently advantageous to represent a feasible, practical and realistic alternative that should be preferred to Falmer.
57. Having found a clear need for the proposals, and having concluded that there is no feasible, practical and realistic alternative that should be preferred to Falmer, the Secretary of State has assessed the detrimental effect of the proposals on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. She considers that the proposed development would have a substantial adverse impact on the AONB. However, she concludes that the presence of some development already surrounding the site,
coupled with the mitigation measures proposed would be sufficient to enable the harm that the proposal would cause to the AONB to be moderated to an acceptable degree.
58. With these factors in mind, the Secretary of State concludes that, on balance, it is in the public interest to provide a new stadium at this location and that there are exceptional circumstances sufficient to meet the tests in paragraph 22 of PPS7 for major development in an AONB. For the reasons given in paragraphs 50-55 and 63-67 of this letter, and reinforced by the relevant conditions, the Secretary of State concludes that the proposed development would be carried out to high environmental standards as recommended in paragraph 23 of PPS7. For all these reasons, she concludes that the proposed development complies with PPS7.
The application of PPS6 to the development proposals
59. The Secretary of State has considered whether the proposal falls to be considered against the policies set out in PPS6 Planning for Town Centres. She considers that the list of town centre uses to which PPS6 applies are those set out in paragraph 1.8 of that document. She does not consider that the reference to “the more intensive sport and recreation uses” is intended to apply to proposals for stadia, such as the one before her in this case. She has also borne in mind guidance in paragraph 3.30 of PPS6 and paragraphs 20 and 21 of PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation in reaching her view on this. The Secretary of State considers that those elements to which PPS6 would normally apply, such as the proposed retail outlet and hospitality suites are ancillary to the stadium development. She therefore concludes that guidance set out in PPS6 does not apply to the proposals before her. She has taken into account the conclusions reached by the Inspector in relation to the now cancelled PPG6 (IRa18.111 to 18.114). Given her conclusions as to the lack of any suitable alternative site having been put forward for the proposed community stadium, she would in any event disagree with the Inspector’s conclusion in IRa18.112.
The extent to which the proposed development complies with policies in PPG13
60. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.115) that the application site offers the opportunity to achieve a scheme which would provide a relatively wide choice of transport. It would offer very good accessibility to rail links, there are bus services which pass the site and many residential areas nearby from where access to the site can be achieved on foot and by cycle. She is satisfied that sufficient measures are in place via the proposed Transport Management System (TMS) which she agrees (IRa18.133) would greatly assist in discouraging the use of the private car.
61. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.128) that there would be some car journey-distance savings due to the park-and-ride proposals. She agrees (IRa18.129) that there is no compelling reason to question the 14% figure for rail travel in the circumstances of a full capacity stadium. She accepts that the applicant’s forecast share for bus travel may be optimistic, but is content that
improvements to the capacity of bus service provision could cater for a 20% share. She is also content that the provision for parking for 40 away coaches is reasonable and, as it is supported by BHCC, meets the requirements of PPG13.
62. For the reasons given in paragraphs IRa18.121 – 18.122, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the level of “on-the-day” parking provision proposed by this scheme exceeds PPG13 standards and is inconsistent with national guidance on reducing parking to promote sustainable travel choices. However, the Secretary of State notes that this available parking would be shared with the University of Sussex and Falmer High School and therefore will not be solely for the use of the stadium traffic. She also notes that the proposed condition limiting the number of existing available car parking spaces to 2,350 was available for comment at the inquiry, but that there were no objections to the proposed condition. Having regard to her conclusions in paragraph 60 above as to the accessibility of the application site, the Secretary of State does not consider that the level of parking is sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposals, and has adopted the condition as proposed. In the light of her conclusions as to the lack of any suitable alternative site having been put forward for the proposed community stadium and for the above reasons, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s conclusion in IRa18.136 and concludes that the proposed development complies with PPG13 to an acceptable degree.
The extent to which the proposed development complies with policies in PPG15
63. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the stadium development would not have any significant impact on the setting of the Stanmer Conservation Area, nor would it cause significant harm to the historic Stanmer Park (IRa 18.144). She has considered the findings of the Inspector that the formation of the new link road associated with the development would have an unacceptable impact. This link road would link the existing access serving Stanmer Park with the University of Sussex, and would cross the south eastern corner of both Stanmer Conservation Area and Stanmer Park.
64. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appearance of the land through which the road would run is somewhat spoilt by an area of hardstanding and patches of tipped spoil (IRa18.145). The Secretary of State does not agree with the Inspector that the impact of the link road would be unacceptable. She considers that the somewhat spoilt appearance of the land at present reduces the weight to be attached to the value of the setting of the designated areas and buildings, and that the planting proposed in mitigation of the road would in the longer term satisfactorily address the impact on the setting of the listed lodges and the park and conservation area. Whilst she acknowledges that some harm would be caused by the works to the boundary wall and to the setting of the listed lodge cottages, she does not consider that the proposed use of the road would be such as to impact on the designated areas and buildings so as to justify a refusal of these proposals.
65. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.141) that the application site forms part of the setting of the Falmer Conservation Area. The Secretary of State agrees that the presence of the stadium would be harmful to the setting of
the Conservation Area, but attaches less weight than the Inspector does to that harm. The Secretary of State considers that the landscaping and design of the stadium have resulted in proposals that cause as little damage as possible to the surrounding area and moderate the impact and she concludes that the harm is tempered by these factors. For the reasons given in paragraphs 50-55 and paragraphs 63-64 of this letter, the Secretary of State considers that the impact of the development has been adequately mitigated. She concludes that the mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on the environment would serve to reduce to an acceptable degree its impact on the conservation areas, listed buildings and historic park. In reaching this, the Secretary of State has had regard to LDLP Policies H2 and H5. However, in view of her findings above, she considers that the conflict with these aspects of the development plan does not lead to the conclusion that planning permission should be refused.
66. The Secretary of State agrees that there could be harm caused by traffic, parking and general activities on match days, but she disagrees with the Inspector and does not consider that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be so adversely affected as to warrant refusal of planning permission (IRa18.141). Nor does she consider that insofar as the setting of listed buildings in Falmer are affected by the proposed development, the impact upon that setting is such as to justify refusal of planning permission (IRa18.142).
67. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that there is some conflict with PPG15, but not to the extent that would warrant refusing planning permission for the proposal.
Whether the proposed development complies with policies in PPG17
68. PPG17 identifies that the countryside around towns provides a valuable resource for the provision of sport and recreation, particularly where there is an absence of land in urban areas for those purposes. However, it states that the demand for such facilities should be met in ways which are consistent with the primary objective of conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. The Secretary of State notes that PPG17 does not preclude the use of land in AONBs for sporting and recreational activities. For the reasons given above, she has reached the conclusion that the proposed development complies with PPS7. Given that conclusion and having regard to her conclusions above in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the AONB, the Secretary of State considers that the proposed development does enjoy policy support for its provision of sports and recreational facilities at Falmer and the absence of suitable alternative sites for the community stadium elsewhere in the urban area.
69. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.109) that the noise test in PPG17 is an exacting one as it seeks to restrict noisy or other intrusive sporting or recreational activities to locations where they will have minimal impact or no impact on residents or recreational users. She agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.109) that the applicant cannot achieve this as their evidence clearly demonstrates that the proposal would, on occasions, cause noise impacts of greater than minimal scale and that the occupiers of certain residential properties would suffer as a result.
70. The Secretary of State considers, therefore, that the proposal would not comply with PPG17 in this respect. However, she has balanced this against the fact that a part of the site is within the defined built up area and is already partly urbanised to the extent that this location already generates some degree of noise disturbance. Overall, she concludes that the extent to which the proposed development fails to comply with PPG17 is not such as to merit the refusal of planning permission.
The extent to which the proposed development complies with development plan policies
71. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa 18.172) that, in relation to a scheme of this scale and nature, there is inevitably a tension between different policies of the Development Plan. The Brighton and Hove Local Plan allocates that part of the application site within Brighton for a stadium through Policy SR23. However, the policy is dependent on the outcome of the re-opened inquiry which examined the availability or otherwise of alternative sites. It makes clear that, if the Secretary of State were to decide that the allocated site at Falmer is not the most appropriate site, policy SR23 would be superseded. Therefore, whilst the Secretary of State acknowledges that there is policy support for the proposal, since this is entirely contingent on the decision she will take on the proposals before her she accords limited weight to this policy in considering these applications.
72. BHLP Policy NC6 states that development will not be permitted outside the built-up area boundary as defined on the Proposals Map and exceptions will only be made where there will be no significant adverse impact on the countryside/downland and one of the listed criteria is met. The Secretary of State has found that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape and therefore the requirements of NC6 would not be met. In addition, since the proposed development would not accord with Policy NC6, it follows that it would also conflict with Policy NC5. However, as the Secretary of State has concluded that there is no available alternative site which is suitable for the proposed community stadium, the proposed development gains some support from BHLP Policy NC7 and does not conflict with BHLP Policy NC12. Although a football stadium will inevitably be a major generator of travel, the proposed development gains support from the relevant BHLP transport policies (TR1 and 2, 4, 6, 8, 14 and 15).
73. The Secretary of State considers that the stadium design limits adverse impact on the environment to an acceptable degree and that other measures, including the transport management plan, reduce the need to travel by car. She therefore concludes that the proposed development gains some support from ESSP Policies S1 and S13. However, in terms of the countryside generally, the Secretary of State finds overall conflict with ESSP Policy S13. The Secretary of State considers that the proposed development would gain support from BHLP Policy QD1, which states that all new buildings are expected to demonstrate a high standard of design and to make a positive contribution to the visual quality of the environment. However, the Secretary of State accepts that, given the scale
and nature of the proposal in this location, within the AONB and the proximity to listed buildings, it does not accord with Policy QD4, which seeks to preserve or enhance strategic views, important vistas, the skyline and the setting of landmark buildings. She has addressed the visual impact of the proposal in paragraphs 50-58 of this letter.
74. Given the lack of available alternative sites suitable for the proposed community stadium, the proposed development gains support from ESSP Policy S10. Although the proposed development is designed to be as well integrated into the landscape as it can be, given the scale of a development of this size within the AONB, it does not accord with ESSP Policy EN2 or ESSP Policy EN3. Nor does it accord with ESSP Policy EN4, which applies even stricter criteria than EN3 for the protection of open downland. The proposed development does however, gain support from ESSP Policy EN5, as it provides for exceptions to EN3 and EN4 in that, where justified by proven national interest and a lack of alternative sites, major commercial development (among others specified) may be acceptable within AONBs, provided that it is demonstrated that the loss of environmental resource has been kept to a minimum and that it meets criterion F in Policy EN2. The proposed development accords with ESSP Policy EN9, as the Secretary of State finds in paragraphs 51-57 of this letter that the landscape is neither remote nor unspoilt, and it gains support from ESSP Policy E1 which seeks to encourage the tourist industry by supporting investment to provide high-quality attractions. The proposal does not accord with ESSP Policy E14 which promotes the development of an Academic Corridor along the A27/A270. However, it gains support from ESSP Policy LT1 and LT2 as it has been designed as sensitively as possible and will bring economic benefits to a very deprived area. The proximity of the universities, which contribute towards a more urbanised setting, limits the extent to which the development fails to conserve the character of the landscape in this area. The proposed development gains support from ESSP Policy LT11 as it would help meet local needs and would provide regional level sports facilities. It also gains support from ESSP Policy LT14 which provides specific support for new sports facilities, especially where they would meet a local need.
75. The proposed development fails to accord with relevant policies in the Lewes District Local Plan (LDLP). However, LDLP Policy CT2 indicates that major development which is incompatible with the protection of the character of the AONB may exceptionally be acceptable if it can be demonstrated to meet a national need and there is a lack of alternative sites. For the reasons given in paragraphs 56-58 of this letter, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed development is justified as an exception under this policy.
76. Given the potential impact of the proposals on the conservation areas and listed buildings within the vicinity of the site, the proposed development is not in accordance with BHLP Policies NC3, HE3, HE6 and Policy HE11 and LDLP Policies H2 and H5, However, the Secretary of State has concluded that the mitigation measures submitted with the applications are sufficient to ensure that any impact on conservation areas and listed buildings is moderated to an acceptable degree. Given that only part of the site is located within the built-up area as identified in the adopted BHLP, the Secretary of State considers that the
proposals would not accord with BHLP Policy SR16, which seeks that major sporting and recreational facilities should be located within the built-up area.
77. On balance, the Secretary of State concludes that, although the applications gain support from a number of development plan policies, limited weight can be accorded to policy SR23, for the reasons given above, and, as the LDLP does not make provision for the development, the applications cannot be said to be in accordance with the development plan.
Conclusion
78. The Secretary of State concludes that, although the application site is allocated in the adopted local plan for a stadium, for the reasons given in paragraph 71 of this letter, little weight can be given to this policy support and therefore the proposed development cannot be said to be in accordance with the development plan taken as a whole. She concludes that there is considerable local need for the proposed development and that it would bring significant regeneration and socio-economic benefits to one of the most deprived areas in the country, which she finds to be in the national interest. She also concludes that there is no available, alternative site for the proposed development which is suitable for the proposed community stadium and acceptable in planning terms, and that there is no reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted for a community stadium at any of the alternative sites which have been considered. She considers that there would be harm caused to the AONB from a development of this scale in this location, but concludes that the mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to moderate that harmful impact to a degree that is acceptable. The Secretary of State concludes that the proposed development broadly complies with relevant provisions of PPG13, and that the excessive level of parking provision, the limited conflict with PPG15 and the lack of compliance with the noise level guidance in PPG17 are not such as to make the proposed development unacceptable. On balance, the Secretary of State has concluded that the overall weight of material considerations in this case is in favour of the proposed development and that, accordingly, she should grant planning permission.
Applications C and D
79. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that it would be possible to find the proposed stadium and coach interchange acceptable, but refuse permission for the proposed highways works. She has therefore considered whether the proposed highways works would be acceptable in terms of their compliance with the Development Plan and national planning policies.
80. Having considered the Inspector's assessment of the proposals against PPS7 in IRa 18.191 - 198, the Secretary of State agrees that the scale of change associated with these road improvements is significantly less than that of the stadium and interchange and that the environmental impact is much less. Given her conclusions in paragraphs 50-55 above, and given the mitigation measures proposed (IRa 18.194), the Secretary of State has attached less weight than the Inspector has to the harm that would be caused to the AONB from these road proposals.
81. For the reasons given in IRa 18.209, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the effect of the proposed works on the promotion of travel by bus, coach and car would be essentially neutral. In addition, for the reasons given in IRa18.217 - 18.227, she agrees with the Inspector that the present works would have no adverse impact in highway safety terms. Furthermore, she agrees that there is persuasive evidence that these proposals would bring about an improvement in safety standards and that they would make access to and egress from the stadium/interchange and the University campus easier and more convenient than would be the likely situation under the main proposals alone (IRa 18.228). Having regard to the Inspector's conclusions in IRa18.229 - 18.231, the Secretary of State does not consider that there are any other environmental effects from the proposals to warrant a refusal of planning permission.
82. These road proposals would only be carried out in association with the stadium and interchange development and she agrees that these works would bring about improvements in highway safety to this stretch of the B2123 and would also be beneficial to present and future users of Village Way in that access to and egress from the University of Brighton campus and the main development would be made easier and more convenient. Given her conclusions above, she concludes that the harm caused to the AONB, the protection of the open gap between Falmer and urban Brighton and the setting of the conservation area (IRa18.242) is outweighed by the benefits which these road improvement works would bring (IRa18.241).
Conclusion on conditions
83. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions in paragraphs IRa17.1 - 17.28 and has adopted the conditions as suggested. For the purposes of clarity, she has adopted the same definition of Outdoor Event as used in the S106 agreement and defined Local Planning Authority as Brighton and Hove City Council, Lewes District Council or both as appropriate. The Secretary of State has not included suggested condition 38 of Document LDC 42 as she does not consider that this condition is reasonable given that it is unlikely to be possible to know before the development commences the level of funding required to complete and operate the stadium. Additionally, in the applicant's proposed conditions 18 and 19, the Secretary of State has decided to adopt the applicant’s suggested noise limit of 75 dB, given that the site has been urbanised to some degree. The Secretary of State has made some minor changes to the conditions throughout, although this is to provide clarity in line with Circular 11/95 rather than changing their substantial purpose or effect.

Formal Decision

84. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the conclusions of the second Inspector and disagrees with the recommendation of first Inspector. She hereby grants planning permission for:
a. a community stadium with accommodation for Class B1 business, educational, conference, club shop merchandise, entertainment and food and road works, pedestrian and cycle links, coach/bus park and set down area, shared use of existing car parking space at the University of Sussex and shared use of land for recreation and parking at Falmer High School (Application A);
b. the construction of a coach and bus interchange for the community stadium (Application B);
c. the partial widening of Village Way together with the B2123 junction improvements and new roundabout at University of Brighton campus entrance (Application C); and
d. the partial widening of Village Way together with the B2123 junction improvements and new roundabout at the University of Brighton campus entrance (Application D)
Subject to the conditions attached at Annexes A-D.

Right to challenge the decision
85. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
86. A copy of this letter has been sent to those who appeared at the inquiry.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Lynch
Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

 

[Timbo]

Do you expect me to read that!! What are the important bits?!

 

[Titanic]

YES, YES, YES, and YES !

 

[Lawro's Lip]

Sounds good. Any potential snags?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Annex A
Application A
1. The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced within five years from the date of this permission.
2. The Stadium shall not be brought into use until the Transport Interchange as proposed in the application to Lewes District Council ref: LW/02/1595, the development proposed in Applications C and D (ref: BH2003/02449 & LW/03/1618) and the other means of access and parking for vehicles and cyclists and pedestrian facilities which form part of this permission have been laid out, constructed and provided, such Interchange, access, parking and other facilities shall be retained as such at all times hereafter.
3. No development shall take place (with the exception of archaeological and other preliminary site investigations) until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include hard surfacing, means of lighting to the car parks and all circulation areas including the concourse, pedestrian and cycle ways, means of enclosure, planting of development, indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. The scheme shall also include a full specification for the construction of car parking at Falmer High School.
4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
5. All hard landscaping, means of lighting and means of enclosure shall be completed before the development is occupied.
6. The development shall not be commenced until fences for the protection of trees to be retained have been erected to a written specification and in positions to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These fences shall be retained until the completion of the development and no vehicles, plant or materials shall be driven or placed within the areas enclosed by such fences.
7. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until a scheme for the integrated provision of suitable secure bicycle parking facilities has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme has been fully implemented.
8. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until details of any external lighting, pitch floodlighting, security fencing and cctv cameras have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the said works have been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.
9. The pitch floodlighting shall not be used other than for an Outdoor Event and shall be turned off after each Outdoor Event no later than 11.00pm.
10. No events involving motor vehicles (including static vehicles) shall take place within the stadium.
11. There shall be no laser and/or firework displays at the stadium.
12. All external lighting, including pitch floodlighting and lighting for the Falmer High School car park, shall be of a nature and design having a zero upward lighting requirement so as to eliminate upward glare.
13. No development shall be commenced (with the exception of archaeological and other preliminary site investigations) until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Stadium shall not be brought into use until all works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
14. Only clean uncontaminated roof water shall discharge direct to soakaway via a sealed drainage system (capable of preventing accidental/unauthorised discharge of contaminated liquid into the soakaway without passing through either trapped gulleys or interceptors, other than that from existing roads and car parks within the applications site).
Any facilities above ground for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on an impervious base and surrounded by impervious walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund. Such facilities shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the plans approved by the Local Planning Authority.
15. No development shall be commenced (with the exception of archaeological and other preliminary site investigations) until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Stadium shall not be brought into use until all works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
16. No development shall take place until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site (excluding existing roads and car parks) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented. Such a scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public, buildings and the environment when the site is developed.
17. A sample of all materials to be used on the exterior of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.
18. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or amendments or re-enactment thereof) the elevations of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the buildings.
19. A minimum of 14 days’ notice of the commencement date of the development shall be given in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
20. No development shall take place until the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority has been secured.
21. Access to the site shall be afforded at all times during the excavation stage to an archaeological organisation/archaeologists nominated by the Local Planning Authority, to allow them to observe the excavations and record archaeological evidence that may be uncovered as a result of the development.
22. No use of the Stadium shall take place for Outdoor Events unless and until park and ride facilities with a total minimum capacity of 1,300 car parking spaces are available for use by persons attending Outdoor Events at the Stadium and such spaces shall be maintained for such use in accordance with the Travel Management Plan.
23. Amplified sound from outdoor concerts within the Stadium shall be controlled in accordance with the guidance provided by the Code of Practice on Environmental Noise Control at Concerts, The Noise Council 1995, such that noise levels do not exceed 75 dB LAeq, 15 min, 1 metre from the façade of any noise sensitive premises, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include all the University of Brighton’s academic and residential buildings at the University of Brighton’s Falmer Campus, residential dwellings at Falmer Village and the University of Sussex’s academic and residential buildings.
24. At least 28 days prior to any outdoor music concert a detailed feasibility study examining the likely propagation of music noise from the proposed event shall be submitted in writing for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The study shall have reference to the guidance of The Noise Council’s Code of Practice On Environmental Noise Control at Concerts (1995) or any subsequent alternative guidance and shall include, though not necessarily be restricted to, information on the timing, programme and duration of the music entertainment and sound checks the proposed maximum music noise levels within the Stadium bowl audience area and at any front of house mixing desks; the likely music noise levels at LAeq, 15 min and Leq, 15 min at the 63 Hz and 125 Hz octave bands, 1 metre from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive property, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include all the University of Brighton’s academic and residential buildings at the University of Brighton’s Falmer Campus, residential dwellings at
Falmer Village and the University of Sussex’s academic and residential buildings; the location, type and directionality of all sound systems associated with the event; the measures and steps that will be in place to manage music noise levels to ensure that the music noise level criterion of 75 dB LAeq, 15 min is unlikely to be exceeded 1 metre from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive property.
25. All Outdoor Events within the Stadium shall only take place between 9.00am and 11.00pm Monday to Saturday, and between 9.00am and 10.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
26. The total number of Outdoor Events within the Stadium shall not exceed in any period of 12 months 50 of which not more than two shall be music concerts.
Any proposed events in addition to these shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
27. All events within indoor bars and indoor function areas shall only take place between 8am and midnight Monday to Saturday and 8am and 11pm on Sundays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
28. No use of the Stadium for Outdoor Events shall take place unless and until a scheme for the design specification and operation of the Public Address (PA) system (both internally and externally) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the said scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
The Rating Level, measured or calculated at 1m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive property, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include all the University of Brighton’s academic and residential buildings at the University of Brighton’s Falmer Campus, residential dwellings at Falmer Village and the University of Sussex’s academic and residential buildings, shall not exceed the existing LA90 background noise level. The Rating Level, including a +5 dB character correction of the PA noise and existing background noise levels shall be determined as per the guidance provided in BS 4142:1997. The PA system shall not be used (other than for testing and commissioning purposes) until the Local Planning Authority has approved the PA system and its operational noise levels in writing. This condition shall not preclude the use of a PA system at such level as may be required for ensuring crowd safety during an emergency incident either inside or immediately outside the stadium.
29. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of noise attenuation measures which will control the break out of noise from the entertainment, banqueting and conferencing facilities and other such enclosed areas within the stadium such that its rating level, measured or calculated at 1m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive property, shall not exceed the existing LA90 background noise level. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
30. No car park to the west of the Stadium shall be used for events finishing after 11.00pm.
31. The use of the PA system shall be limited to between 9.00am and 11.00pm Monday to Saturday and 9.00am and 10.30pm Sundays and Bank Holidays, and the use of the external PA system (outside the stadium) shall be restricted to public safety announcements and shall not be used for general crowd entertainment.
32. Noise associated with plant and machinery used at the development shall be controlled such that the Rating Level, measured or calculated at 1m from the façade of the nearest existing noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed 5 dB(A) below the existing LA90 background noise level. Rating Level and existing background noise levels shall be determined as per the guidance provided in BS4142:1997.
33. Refuse collection and deliveries shall only take place between specified hours, details of which shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority except at those parts of the application site forming part of the campus of the University of Sussex and Falmer School.
34. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until:
a. The Link Road between Stanmer Park Road and the University of Sussex as shown on Plan No. HED/307.VWN.PP.002.REV B has been constructed in accordance with the said plan and brought into use;
b. The Link Road shall thereafter be available at all times to provide vehicular access and egress to the University of Sussex;
c. The existing access to the University of Sussex from the A27 to Falmer House Road shall thereafter be closed to all vehicular traffic except emergency vehicles, in the manner detailed at (iv).
d. Vehicular access to the development and the University of Brighton from the westbound A27 on slip shall be restricted to emergency vehicles by a locked gate or demountable bollards.
e. Prior to the commencement of works on the link road detailed plans/drawings showing the proposed construction details of the proposed link road, closure of Falmer House Road and all associated works including surfacing materials shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Highways Agency.
35. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until the new traffic signal controlled junction (including A27/A270 eastbound flyover) at the access to Falmer High School and Stanmer Park has been laid out, constructed and provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the Highways Agency.
36. No development shall take place until plans have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority showing the detailed layout of the taxi/drop off facility adjacent to Falmer High School and the Stadium shall not be brought into use until the taxi/drop off facility has been laid out in accordance with such approved plans, constructed and brought into use.
37. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until the new footbridge across the railway line at Falmer Station, the detailed design (including materials) of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority has been laid out, constructed and brought into use.
38. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until the new pedestrian footway/cycleway from Falmer High School (from the new junction on the A270) to the Stadium, the detailed design (including materials) of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, has been laid out, constructed and brought into use.
39. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until details of arrangements for car parking for a minimum of 2,000 and a maximum of 2,200 cars at Sussex University and Falmer High School or at alternative locations within 1.5km of the Stadium have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the said car parking provided. No Outdoor Event for which these parking spaces are required in accordance with the Travel Management Plan shall take place unless such parking spaces are available for use by persons attending the said Outdoor Event.
The total number of car parking spaces to be provided for Outdoor Event traffic shall not exceed 2,350 within 1.5km of the Stadium.
40. All buildings and trees scheduled for removal or surgery shall be surveyed for bats by a suitably licensed bat ecologist immediately prior to commencement of works and in case of occupancy being identified, removal works suspended and English Nature contacted and its advice followed. Ivy clad trees in any event shall be left for two days before clearing to allow any bats to leave.
41. At least ten weeks prior to commencement of works, a dust control plan, including details of control of particulate levels, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval. No works shall commence until the control plan has been approved, and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the control plan.
42. No development shall be commenced (with the exception of archaeological or other preliminary site investigations) until the details of CO2 Reduction Measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said CO2 Reduction Measures shall thereafter be implemented as part of the construction process.
43. No event shall take place at the Community Stadium with an attendance in excess of 22,500 people.
44. No part of the Stadium building shall be occupied unless and until a Green Travel Plan relating to the occupiers of the accommodation within the Stadium has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All occupiers of accommodation in the Stadium building shall be required to comply with the requirements of the approved Green Travel Plan.
45. No development shall be commenced (with the exception of archaeological or other preliminary site investigations) until a Travel Management Group has been established in accordance with the terms of reference submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of consultation with interested parties as to arrangements for travel management associated with the use of the Stadium and the preparation of the Travel Management Plan as required by Condition 39. The parties to be invited to become members of the Travel Management Group shall include:
The Contractors (during the Construction Period)
The Company
Brighton and Hove City Council
The University of Brighton
The University of Sussex
Sussex Police
British Transport Police
East Sussex Fire Service
East Sussex Ambulance Service
East Sussex Highway Authority
The Highways Agency
Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company
Govia South Central
Lewes District Council
Falmer Parish Council
Or any successor body to the said groups, organisations or Councils.
46. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until a Travel Management Plan prepared in consultation with the Travel Management Group has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Travel Management Plan shall include details of:
1. Match ticket sales points;
2. Provision of Transport Voucher or equivalent and journeys/modes to be covered by the same;
3. Capacity location management and operational arrangements of Park and Ride sites and the Bus and Coach Park;
4. Provision of Signage directing vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists to Stadium and Parking;
5. Public Transport arrangements to be provided including (but not limited to) addition public transport capacity on Event Days;
6. A Parking Management Strategy for the Controlled Parking Zone as defined in Condition 48 below;
7. Methodology for assessment of additional traffic impacts;
8. Publicity arrangements in respect of parking restrictions in the vicinity of the Stadium including (but not limited to) restrictions on parking on the Falmer Campus of the University of Brighton in Falmer Village and in Stanmer Park and the use of non-car travel modes (to include away supporters);
9. Pedestrian routing to and from the Stadium;
10. Management of Pedestrian Routes;
11. An Information Strategy for publicity of travel details and advice of spectator behaviour;
12. Mechanism for monitoring and review of the Travel Management Plan;
No event with an anticipated attendance of 500 or more shall take place at the Stadium other than in accordance with the Travel Management Plan or such separate Travel Management Plan as shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority specific to that Event.
47. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until a Stewarding Plan (which for the avoidance of doubt shall not apply to the area of the Stadium or adjoining concourse) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Stewarding Plan shall include details of:
1. Stewarding arrangements for the Match Day Parking Zone before, during and after Outdoor Events;
2. Stewarding arrangements for the Bus and Coach Park before, during and after Outdoor Events;
3. Stewarding arrangements for pedestrian and cycle access routes in the vicinity of the Stadium;
4. Stewarding arrangements for the Park and Ride sites before, during and after Outdoor Events;
5. Stewarding arrangements for train station and routes to Falmer station before, during and after Outdoor Events;
6. The provision of situation response stewards to respond as necessary to local problems arising as a result of Outdoor Events held at the Stadium;
7. Stewarding arrangements for preserving Campus security and amenity and free flows of traffic (to include pedestrian, vehicular and cyclists) to and from the Campus before, during and after Outdoor Events (subject to such arrangement as may be agreed for the checking of passes or other authorisation);
8. Stewarding arrangements for the supervision of bus queues outside the Bus and Coach Park in the vicinity of the site before, during and after Outdoor Events;
9. Post-event litter collection;
10. A mechanism for stewards, the University and local people to advise of breaches of the Stewarding Plan, or parking restrictions or of disorderly behaviour;
11. Equipment to supplied to Stewards;
12. Arrangements for placement of temporary signs;
No event with an anticipated attendance of 500 or more shall take place at the Stadium other than in accordance with the Stewarding Plan or such separate Stewarding Plan as shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority specific to that Event.
48. No use of the Stadium for Outdoor Events shall take place unless and until Outdoor Event day Controlled Parking Zone is brought into operation for the duration of each Outdoor Event and for three hours either side of the start and finish times of each Outdoor Event. The area covered by the Controlled Parking
Zone is identified in inquiry documents BHA 251/253 and 252 at Plans 3 and 2 respectively, but for the avoidance of doubt shall include the village of Falmer. The Controlled Parking Zone will in every case operate to prevent visitors to the Outdoor Event from parking their vehicles within the area controlled by the Controlled Parking Zone.
49. Within 6 months of the first opening of the stadium Artistic Component, details (including the location) of which shall have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be installed in the location so approved.
50. The Stadium shall not be brought into use until accommodation is made available within the Stadium building for the following:
(i). A study support centre to be operated jointly with the Learning and Skills Council or with any such other agency or agencies as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority of not less than 81 square metres;
(ii). A Crèche Day Nursery of not less than 68 square metres which facility shall include a proportion of spaces to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority to be made available on a non profit basis and this facility when not required commercially shall be made available to local residents or other groups using other facilities in the Stadium during evenings and at weekends at times to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
(iii). A facility for sports science and sports medicine treatment and research to be occupied by the University of Brighton of not less than 549 square metres provided that if such facility is not required by the University it shall be offered on a commercial basis to such other organisation as may have the requisite skills and experience to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
(iv). A Skills Training Centre which may be operated in conjunction with such commercial or educational agencies as may wish to participate to provide such range of courses as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority of not less than 1224 square metres;
(v). Such internal space as may be reasonably required and subject to the prior needs of the Company's football and other commercial activities to be provided on a not for profit basis for the agreed periods of use by local residents and other groups to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
Definition of Stadium
The Community Stadium building as described in the application and shown on the approved plans
Definition of Outdoor Event
Any event including a football match with a duration not exceeding 24 hours taking place at the Stadium (other than entirely within wholly enclosed rooms or spaces of the Stadium) with an anticipated attendance of more than 500 people provided that two separate events taking place on one day shall count as two Outdoor Events.
Definition of Company
Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd, or any successor organisation.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Annex B
Application B
1) The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced within five years from the date of this permission
2) The transport interchange shall not be brought into use until the Stadium as proposed in the application to Brighton and Hove City Council Ref: BH2001/02418/FP and the other means of access and parking for vehicles and cyclists and pedestrian facilities which form part of that permission have been laid out, constructed and provided. The interchange shall be used only for the parking and manoeuvring of buses and coaches serving outdoor events at the Stadium and to gain vehicular and pedestrian access to the stadium concourse.
3) No development shall take place (with the exception of archaeological and other preliminary site investigations) until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include hard surfacing, means of lighting to the coach and bus park and all circulation areas including the pedestrian, cycle and access ways, means of enclosure, planting of the development, indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.
4) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first use of the bus and coach park or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
5) All hard landscaping and means of enclosure shall be completed before the development is occupied.
6) The development shall not be commenced until fences for the protection of trees to be retained have been erected to a written specification and in positions to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. These fences shall be retained until the completion of the development and no vehicles, plant or materials shall be driven or placed within the areas enclosed by such fences.
7) Prior to the commencement of development a lighting plan shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The coach and bus park shall only be lit for outdoor events at the stadium. The access to the concourse shall be lit at other times but only when the stadium is in use. The lighting plan should include details of the luminance levels and the times when lighting shall be turned off.
8) No development shall be commenced (with the exception of archaeological and other preliminary site investigations) until a scheme for the disposal of foul and
surface waters has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the coach and bus park shall not be brought into use until all works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
9) A minimum of 14 days notice of the commencement date of the development shall be given in writing to the Local Planning Authority
10) No development shall take place until the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority has been secured.
11) Access shall be afforded at all times during the excavation stage to an archaeological organisation/archaeologists nominated by the Local Planning Authority, and they shall be allowed to observe the excavations and record archaeological evidence that may be uncovered as a result of the development.
12) At least ten weeks prior to the commencement of works, a dust control plan, including details of control of particulate levels, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. No works shall commence until the control plan has been approved, such approved control plan to be implemented at commencement of works
13) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
14) A landscape management plan, including long term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development for its permitted use. The landscape management plans shall be carried out as approved.
15) The transport interchange shall not be brought into use unless and until details of any external lighting, security fencing and CCTV cameras have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the said works have been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.
16) All external lighting for the interchange shall be of a nature and design having a zero upward lighting requirement so as to eliminate upward glare.
17) There shall be no laser and/or firework displays at the transport interchange.
18) No development shall take place until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such schemes shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public, buildings and the environment when the site is developed
19) The level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed 65DblLeq 15mm 1 metre from the façade of noise sensitive premises, which for the avoidance of doubt shall include the nearest residential properties within Falmer Village.
20) The use of the PA system at or adjoining the interchange shall be limited to between 9.00am and 11.00pm Monday to Saturday and between 9.00am and 10.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall be restricted to public safety announcements and shall not be used for general crowd entertainment
21) Noise associated with plant and machinery incorporated within the development shall be controlled such that the Rating Level, measured or calculated at 1 metre from the façade of the nearest existing noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed a level of 5Db(A) below the existing La90 background noise level. Rating level and existing background noise level shall be determined as per the guidance provided in BS4142:1997
22) Refuse collection and deliveries shall only take place between hours, details of which shall be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority except at those parts of the application site forming part of the campus of the University of Sussex and Falmer School.
23) No development shall be commenced (with the exception of archaeological or other preliminary site investigations) until details of CO2 Reduction Measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said CO2 Reduction Measures shall thereafter be implemented as part of the construction process.
24) Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme indicating the provisions to be made for disabled persons to gain access to the transport interchange shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use.
25) The interchange shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
26) Construction work shall be restricted to the hours of 7:30am to 6:00pm, Monday to Fridays and 8:30am to 1:00pm on Saturdays and works shall not be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank/Statutory Holidays
27) Before the development hereby approved is commenced on site, details/samples of all surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that consent
28) No event or events involving motor vehicles (including static vehicles) shall take place within the transport interchange
29) No development in accordance with this permission shall be commenced until the works for the improvements of Village Way in accordance with application BH2003/02249/FP and LW/03/1618 have been completed and brought into use
Definition of Stadium
The Community Stadium building as described in the application and shown on the approved plans
Definition of Outdoor Event
Any event including a football match with a duration not exceeding 24 hours taking place at the Stadium (other than entirely within wholly enclosed rooms or spaces of the Stadium) with an anticipated attendance of more than 500 people provided that two separate events taking place on one day shall count as two Outdoor Events.
Definition of Company
Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd, or any successor organisation.

 

[Lawro's Lip]

Oh and:yahoo:

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Annex C
Application C
1) The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced within five years from the date of this permission
2) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include hard surfacing and landscape planting of the development, indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.
3) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development and any tree or plant which within a period of 5 years from the planting of any tree/plant (or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it) dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
4) No development shall be commenced until details of any external lighting, including illumination details along with details of the timing of use of any lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the said works shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details before the Village Way improvement works are first brought into use
5) The landscaping scheme required under the terms of Condition 2 shall include the provision of an informal footway/cycleway within or alongside the proposed tree belt on the southern side of Village Way; details of its alignment, width and surface treatment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the footway/cycleway shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved plans concurrently with the implementation of the planting scheme as required by Condition 3.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Annex D
Application D
1) The development for which permission is hereby granted must be commenced within five years from the date of this permission
2) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include hard surfacing and landscape planting of the development, indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.
3) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the commencement of the development and any tree or plant which within a period of 5 years from the planting of any tree/plant (or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it) dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
4) No development shall be commenced until details of any external lighting, including illumination details along with details of the timing of use of any lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the said works shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details before the Village Way improvement works are first brought into use
5) The landscaping scheme required under the terms of Condition 2 shall include the provision of an informal footway/cycleway within or alongside the proposed tree belt on the southern side of Village Way; details of its alignment, width and surface treatment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the footway/cycleway shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved plans concurrently with the implementation of the planting scheme as required by Condition 3.

 

[Timbo]

11. There shall be no laser and/or firework displays at the stadium.

I wanted fireworks at the opening game!

 

[Timbo]

26) Construction work shall be restricted to the hours of 7:30am to 6:00pm, Monday to Fridays and 8:30am to 1:00pm on Saturdays and works shall not be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank/Statutory Holidays

Looks like they've got 7 hours left of today to get going.

 

[Brovion]

Are those conditions the same as last time? I didn't realise we were allowed TWO music concerts!

 

[Normandy seagull]

I can spot a loop hole- they have called our Ambulance service "East Sussex Ambulance Service". It has not been called that for years. Try "South East Coast Ambulance Service". ssssshhhhhhhh nobody tell the NIMBY's

 

[BUTTERBALL]

51. In assessing the impact, the Secretary of State has taken into account the quality of the existing landscape and the degree to which the impact could be mitigated. In considering this, the Secretary of State is mindful of the fact that a part of the application site is within the defined built up area of the City and occupies a parcel of land which is already partly urbanised by existing University buildings.

Exactly.

 

[Gordon the Gopher]

46. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until a Travel Management Plan prepared in consultation with the Travel Management Group has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Travel Management Plan shall include details of:
1. Match ticket sales points;


Pay on the gate?? Hopefully

 

[wehatepalace]

As Hazel Blears is in such a good mood, do you think it would be pushing our luck to ask for a safe standing area

 

[Storer68]

As Hazel Blears is in such a good mood, do you think it would be pushing our luck to ask for a safe standing area

Wasting your time.

Under the Safety of Sports Ground legislation, all NEW stadiums HAVE to comply with the all seater requirements.

Unless of course you want to waste yet more time before the stadium building can commence by trying to change the law of the land:falmerspi:falmerspi:falmerspi:falmerspi:falmerspi

 

[Storer68]

46. The Stadium shall not be brought into use unless and until a Travel Management Plan prepared in consultation with the Travel Management Group has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Travel Management Plan shall include details of:
1. Match ticket sales points;


Pay on the gate?? Hopefully

Match ticket sales points means seperate booths away from the entry point to the stadium comp[lex itself.

Effectively the same a a pay on the gate. Pay at the booth, then take your ticket and present it at the turnstile.

 

[fleet]

LB can you attach the note saying what grounds for appeal exist?

 

[Beach Hut]

We still need to wait 6 weeks as I cannot see how LDC will not appeal having gone this far.