This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

[perseus]

Brighton Council are arguing that THV should remain within the National Park and are opposed to any development there. The Enviroment Agency also has concerns because the Valley has significant under ground water supplies for Hove. This was all stated at the last Inquiry.

Good post. I did not know this. Toads Hole Valley does not seem to be zoned for anything definite in the provisional Local Plans sent to me.

 

[Ccider]

How can any objection be made on its effect on the proposed National Park? This, after all, is only a proposal and may never happen.

 

[Curious Orange]

Lewes District Council

-Mr Prescott stated that the site for the stadium applications are located within the boundary of the built up area of the city of Brighton and Hove as identified by the Brighton and Hove Local Plan which was adopted in July 2005. This is simply not true. This is a crucial mistake by Mr Prescott. He has made a fundamental error of fact, yet repeatedly bases his conclusions on this error.

That is debatable. Of course not all of the application sites are in Brighton and Hove, however those that are are within the built up area of city according to this map:

http://www.brightonandhovelocalplan.org.uk/map_htm/inset_03/inset_03_488.htm

(hopefully this is as adopted in 2005!)

 

[The Large One]

How can any objection be made on its effect on the proposed National Park? This, after all, is only a proposal and may never happen.

It's highly likely a National Park will come into effect. The relevant government department issues its report sometime next year - possibly in the autumn.

Even if the National Park boundary was to cover the Falmer Stadium site, this counts for little as Prescott has ALREADY given planning consent. Lewes were desparately hoping to delay the decision until after the SDNP Inquiry decision was made.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

That is debatable. Of course not all of the application sites are in Brighton and Hove, however those that are are within the built up area of city according to this map:

http://www.brightonandhovelocalplan.org.uk/map_htm/inset_03/inset_03_488.htm

(hopefully this is as adopted in 2005!)

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1000164

That's a link to the Local Plan. Click on 'view the Adopted Local Plan'. It's REALLY, REALLY tedious and boring. But the bit about Village Way North is on p150.

It basically says it's made provision for the Albion to build the stadium there, but if that's turned down, then it's something for the University can go there.

 

[Curious Orange]

Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1000164

That's a link to the Local Plan. Click on 'view the Adopted Local Plan'. It's REALLY, REALLY tedious and boring. But the bit about Village Way North is on p150.

It basically says it's made provision for the Albion to build the stadium there, but if that's turned down, then it's something for the University can go there.

Yes, but is the map I linked to still accurate in terms of the dotted line showing the edge of the built up area? I haven't seen anything else on that site that would appear to supercede it.

SR23 on page 176 is the specific policy for the stadium, but it doesn't say what the land is clasified as.

 

[Curious Orange]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

Yes, but is the map I linked to still accurate in terms of the dotted line showing the edge of the built up area? I haven't seen anything else on that site that would appear to supercede it.

SR23 on page 176 is the specific policy for the stadium, but it doesn't say what the land is clasified as.

Though perhaps I can answer my question, as SR23 is a direct replacement for SR25 I expect the boundary to be the same, certainly the ODPM seems to think so:

the Local Plan has been adopted and retains the allocation of
the application site 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 First 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
he will take on the proposals before him he accords limited weight to this policy in
considering these applications. Nevertheless, the Local Plan shows the site to be
within the built-up area

So the only quibble that LDC could have is by not referring to the classifications of those applications in the Lewes area. I'm going to do a little research and see exactly what was said - as there are several references to built up areas, and I expect the specific applications to which they are referring is key.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Like the AONB, the "built up area" of the city is defined by a line on a map.

The 2005 Local Plan supercedes the 2001 Plan, and - strictly speaking - LDC are correct in saying that the stadium site is outside the newly defined built up area.

As TLO says, that doesn't affect the fact that City Council planning policy supports the development of the stadium where it is proposed to go. The Local Plan only really becomes relevant if the stadium isn't built.

The definition of the built up area is just one of the Council's planning policies. It's not the ONLY policy that matters (although LDC might wish it was).

To the extent that Prescott's decision letter refers to the boundary of the built up area, he is in error, but that doesn't affect the key point that a stadium on that site is in line with Council planning policies.

The argument about this may, however, give some very expensive lawyers plenty of opportunity to ratchet up the costs.

 

[Yorkie]

The argument about this may, however, give some very expensive lawyers plenty of opportunity to ratchet up the costs.

But will it drag on for months and months and months?

 

[Curious Orange]

Like the AONB, the "built up area" of the city is defined by a line on a map.

The 2005 Local Plan supercedes the 2001 Plan, and - strictly speaking - LDC are correct in saying that the stadium site is outside the newly defined built up area.

As TLO says, that doesn't affect the fact that City Council planning policy supports the development of the stadium where it is proposed to go. The Local Plan only really becomes relevant if the stadium isn't built.

The definition of the built up area is just one of the Council's planning policies. It's not the ONLY policy that matters (although LDC might wish it was).

To the extent that Prescott's decision letter refers to the boundary of the built up area, he is in error, but that doesn't affect the key point that a stadium on that site is in line with Council planning policies.

The argument about this may, however, give some very expensive lawyers plenty of opportunity to ratchet up the costs.

Why on earth did they move the line on the map when SR23 replaced SR25? The stadium was within the built up area before, and you're saying it now isn't? That's daft...

But, as you say, expensive to argue about!!



(just so you're all clear the built up area in the map for SR25 encompasses the University of Brighton, runs along Village Way to the boundary of Brighton & Hove, and then goes north following the City boundary up to the A27 and around Sussex University

 

[Lawro's Lip]

But will it drag on for months and months and months?

That is the worry. Are there any reassurances on this?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

But will it drag on for months and months and months?

I doubt it.

But it may mean that the City Council will need to engage a senior barrister to represent them in court.

And Lewes District Council have promised that they won't commit yet MORE money to the case. If costs look like going beyond their budget limit, they may have to withdraw.

If they don't, Neil Commin, lead member for Planning, has promised to resign.

Silly boy.

 

[Colbourne Kid]

In the original local plan the built up area was aligned to places that had actually been built and in others to areas for which building was planned or permissable.

The local plan inspector recommended consistency in this boundary policy and so BHCC moved all the built up area boundaries to those areas where development had already occurred.

So at the time of the first Inquiry the site was IN the built up area but by the time of the second Inquiry it was OUT. Probably how the mistake was made.

Hardly a major issue likely to prevent permission.

 

[Curious Orange]

So at the time of the first Inquiry the site was IN the built up area but by the time of the second Inquiry it was OUT. Probably how the mistake was made.

The Local Plan hadn't been adopted by the end of the second Inquiry on 5th May, so it is more likely that Mr Brier has referred to the draft one in his report, this of course being the evidence the ODPM was to base it's decision on. I suspect they noted that SR23 had subsequently replaced SR25, but hadn't noticed the boundary change as the text of the Local Plan doesn't specify it.

Within the adopted Local Plan the definition of the built-up area is "Extent of area identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map within which the
development of the city has occurred. The outer limits of the built up area are defined on the Local Plan Proposals Map by the ‘Built Up Area Boundary’ beyond which is the countryside and / or the sea." However I haven't seen the actual Proposals Map itself as "for copyright reasons the proposals map may not be viewed on this website".

It should be noted that the adopted Local Plan is littered with exceptions for various cases as to when the boundaries can be breached for development, and these are consistent with the exceptions for building on AONB/National Park land.

 

[queens park pete]

LDC case

It looks to me that the whole of the site within B&H boundary is also classed as built up area by the local plan. The only bit classed as outside the built up area is (unsurprisingly) the bit that belongs to LDC which is for the coach park itself.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

But will it drag on for months and months and months?

but it wont matter will it?

There is no embargo on the building of the stadium there is there?

I have not read of an injunction been put on the decision.

Surely this is an argument between LDC and the Government, which I would have thought the LDC will never win. If it does, the Government would never do anything for them ever again!

I am not sure why people are getting so het up about this

 

[Curious Orange]

Re: LDC case

It looks to me that the whole of the site within B&H boundary is also classed as built up area by the local plan. The only bit classed as outside the built up area is (unsurprisingly) the bit that belongs to LDC which is for the coach park itself.

Not so, I believe this is the relevant proposal map which became part of the adopted Local Plan.

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/localplan2001/policiesEM2,EM19,SR25map.pdf

The original link on the website doesn't mention SR25 (says - Policy EM2, EM19, EM25 map [PDF 217kb]) which is why I couldn't find it earlier. Also, there isn't a key, so I'm assuming that the dotted line is the built-up area boundary.

I'm now almost completely satisfied that LDC are right about this particular point. I'm also satisfied that it wasn't a deliberate mistake on the part of the ODPM, given the way the info is hidden on BHCC's website... So I promise to stop banging on about it!!

rather reminds me of the time Arthur tried to find the plans for that new bypass...

 

[Lawro's Lip]

but it wont matter will it?

There is no embargo on the building of the stadium there is there?

I have not read of an injunction been put on the decision.

Surely this is an argument between LDC and the Government, which I would have thought the LDC will never win. If it does, the Government would never do anything for them ever again!

I am not sure why people are getting so het up about this

But will it affect the funding? Even if there is an element of doubt will we still get the grants/ investment we need to build the thing?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I never thought of that.

How did Arsenal get away with it then, because they were actually clearing the site and laying foundations when their Judicial Review was in progress.

 

[The Large One]

But will it affect the funding? Even if there is an element of doubt will we still get the grants/ investment we need to build the thing?

Shouldn't do.

As far as the process in concerned, the decision has been made and nothing has countered it. I would have thought that moneys would only be put on hold IF the High Court decided to refer the matter back to Prescott.

Martin Perry doesn't seem overly bothered. He has said that, for the time being, it is full steam ahead. (I am paraphrasing, of course).