Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Campaign against Lewes District Council's £134,000 spending on the Public Inquiry
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The Large One
Who's Next?
Further to the Argus' story today about Councillor Commin saying that Lewes DC is 'duty bound to protect an AONB', the AONB in question is not within their boundaries, and it won't be an AONB in two years' time - so that argument is a load of bollocks.
This is purely a face-saving exercise - they have spent £99,000, so they need to justify it, and they are doing so by going the whole hog, and wasting, sorry spending, spending the further £35,000 to show that they have 'principles'. Principles, I am afraid, based on stupidity and ignorance.
This is purely a face-saving exercise - they have spent £99,000, so they need to justify it, and they are doing so by going the whole hog, and wasting, sorry spending, spending the further £35,000 to show that they have 'principles'. Principles, I am afraid, based on stupidity and ignorance.
The Auditor
New member
Its no doubt been said before ( and I live outside of the area and new to this)
but I cant see the bit of land we want is AONB its got the A27, a railway and University there
surely that arguement fails on common sense although I'm probably naive and this has probably all been discussed prior to me joining
but I cant see the bit of land we want is AONB its got the A27, a railway and University there
surely that arguement fails on common sense although I'm probably naive and this has probably all been discussed prior to me joining
- Thread starter
- #85
The Large One said:
Can someone explain here or by means of PM to me what exactly is happening in two years time regarding the Field in terms of AONB please. I have vague memorys of some write ups but cant remember if it becomes a normal field, brownfield site or what, thanks.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Part Two of my report from the Lewes District Council Meeting...
The Debate about Spending £35,000
When it came to the point in the meeting to approve the decisions made by the Council's Cabinet on 8 September, a number of councillors indicated that they wished to question the £35,000 that had been set aside for the re-opened Public Inquiry.
First to speak was Councillor Ian Wilson (Conservative, Ouse Valley & Ringmer). He wasn't a supporter of the Falmer Stadium, but wasn't happy about the Council spending more money opposing it. The Council had established its position already, and surely that was enough. If it wanted to mount a political campaign, it should leave that sort of thing to Norman Baker. This was "reprehensible and unwarranted" expenditure, at a time when the Council was engaged in an exercise to identify ways of cutting spending in other areas by £200,000. Any decision to spend more on the Public Inquiry should be deferred at least until after that review was completed.
Councillor David Neighbour (Lib Dem, East Saltdean & Telscombe Cliffs) spoke in favour of the spending. He also supported the campaign against the stadium that was being carried out at the political level. The Council had to be seen to be acting in support of its Local Plan. Lewes District Council's voice should be given the same amount of weight at the Public Inquiry as Brighton & Hove City Council and Falmer Parish Council.
Councillor Andy Small (Independent - formerly Lib Dem - Ouse Valley & Ringmer) supported the District Council's planning policy [He is a former Lead Councillor for Planning]. But the Inquiry is no longer about the rights and wrongs of a stadium at Falmer. It was now the responsibility of Brighton & Hove City Council to form a judgement about the suitability of alternative sites - even Councillor Commin accepts that. The Inspector has already found in favour of Lewes District Council's position on Falmer. What more would be added to the process by committing more resources?
Councillor Commin (Lib Dem, Kingston, & Lead Councillor for Planning) then quoted from Inspector Collyer's Report - "the objections to Falmer are overwhelming".
Councillor Ann de Vecchi (Lib Dem, Lewes Priory & Leader of the Council) was the last to speak. The Council was taking the process to its logical conclusion. "We owe it to the people of Falmer and to ourselves".
Unsurprisingly, given the size of the Lib Dem majority on the Council, the vote was overwhelming and the Council approved the Recommendation of the Cabinet:-
That a budget of £35,000 be approved for the re-opened Falmer Public Inquiry in respect of the planning application by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club for the provision of a new community stadium at Falmer.
The Debate about Spending £35,000
When it came to the point in the meeting to approve the decisions made by the Council's Cabinet on 8 September, a number of councillors indicated that they wished to question the £35,000 that had been set aside for the re-opened Public Inquiry.
First to speak was Councillor Ian Wilson (Conservative, Ouse Valley & Ringmer). He wasn't a supporter of the Falmer Stadium, but wasn't happy about the Council spending more money opposing it. The Council had established its position already, and surely that was enough. If it wanted to mount a political campaign, it should leave that sort of thing to Norman Baker. This was "reprehensible and unwarranted" expenditure, at a time when the Council was engaged in an exercise to identify ways of cutting spending in other areas by £200,000. Any decision to spend more on the Public Inquiry should be deferred at least until after that review was completed.
Councillor David Neighbour (Lib Dem, East Saltdean & Telscombe Cliffs) spoke in favour of the spending. He also supported the campaign against the stadium that was being carried out at the political level. The Council had to be seen to be acting in support of its Local Plan. Lewes District Council's voice should be given the same amount of weight at the Public Inquiry as Brighton & Hove City Council and Falmer Parish Council.
Councillor Andy Small (Independent - formerly Lib Dem - Ouse Valley & Ringmer) supported the District Council's planning policy [He is a former Lead Councillor for Planning]. But the Inquiry is no longer about the rights and wrongs of a stadium at Falmer. It was now the responsibility of Brighton & Hove City Council to form a judgement about the suitability of alternative sites - even Councillor Commin accepts that. The Inspector has already found in favour of Lewes District Council's position on Falmer. What more would be added to the process by committing more resources?
Councillor Commin (Lib Dem, Kingston, & Lead Councillor for Planning) then quoted from Inspector Collyer's Report - "the objections to Falmer are overwhelming".
Councillor Ann de Vecchi (Lib Dem, Lewes Priory & Leader of the Council) was the last to speak. The Council was taking the process to its logical conclusion. "We owe it to the people of Falmer and to ourselves".
Unsurprisingly, given the size of the Lib Dem majority on the Council, the vote was overwhelming and the Council approved the Recommendation of the Cabinet:-
That a budget of £35,000 be approved for the re-opened Falmer Public Inquiry in respect of the planning application by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club for the provision of a new community stadium at Falmer.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 71,878
The Large One said:
Surely LDC can't just be allowed to proceed with that argument then? Can't they be warned off by threats of auditors or legal action? Can't believe they can just come out with a public statement if it is simply not true.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
What's happening is that the Government will define the boundaries of the new South Downs National Park. Any bits of the existing AONB that are not part of the National Park will be de-designated and no longer given the protection against development that they currently have.CrabtreeBHA said:
There is a Public Inquiry currently going on at Worthing into the details of the National Park boundary. The boundary in the Falmer area is, of course, a matter of some dispute. The Inquiry will deal with Falmer issues in late October / early November, with the following organisations programmed to give evidence:-
27 & 28 October Lewes District Council
2 November Brighton & Hove City Council
3 November Society of Sussex Downsmen, Falmer Parish Council, Gosport & Fareham Friends of the Earth, Mr Colin Child (an objector at the Stadium Inquiry)
4 November Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club
- Thread starter
- #90
Thanks Lord B.
So for argument sake, if they say "Falmer Field will not fall into the boundary and therefore wont be a National Park" then the NIMBYs have nothing to argue against in the AONB respect, correct?
But if they conclude it should fall into it what then? Do we still have the right to carry on gunning for a stadium there as we started ages ago, or do we have to back down and accept we simply cannot build there?
So for argument sake, if they say "Falmer Field will not fall into the boundary and therefore wont be a National Park" then the NIMBYs have nothing to argue against in the AONB respect, correct?
But if they conclude it should fall into it what then? Do we still have the right to carry on gunning for a stadium there as we started ages ago, or do we have to back down and accept we simply cannot build there?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Hopefully the Planning Application for Falmer Stadium will be resolved before the National Park Designation Order is made.
I know that Lewes District Council's planning consultant takes the view that the final decision on the Stadium should be delayed until AFTER the National Park boundary is settled. But that's just a ploy to send the Albion up Shit Creek without a paddle.
I suppose - if the worst comes to the worst - it would be possible to wait until the AONB at Falmer has disappeared and re-submit the planning application. Objections on AONB grounds would then count for nothing. But we'd need at least another four years at Withdean, over and above what we can currently expect.
The Falmer application has been dealt with under current planning rules. That means the site has been treated as an AONB and national policy on development in AONBs has been an unavoidable consideration.
It goes without saying that real natural beauty doesn't come into it. An AONB is a line on a map, not a place to have a nice picnic.
I know that Lewes District Council's planning consultant takes the view that the final decision on the Stadium should be delayed until AFTER the National Park boundary is settled. But that's just a ploy to send the Albion up Shit Creek without a paddle.
I suppose - if the worst comes to the worst - it would be possible to wait until the AONB at Falmer has disappeared and re-submit the planning application. Objections on AONB grounds would then count for nothing. But we'd need at least another four years at Withdean, over and above what we can currently expect.
The Falmer application has been dealt with under current planning rules. That means the site has been treated as an AONB and national policy on development in AONBs has been an unavoidable consideration.
It goes without saying that real natural beauty doesn't come into it. An AONB is a line on a map, not a place to have a nice picnic.
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
The phone number for Cllr Neil Commin is 01273 472530.
I'm sure if he gets a vocemail box full of people asking for Falmer he might actually listen.
Anybody know if he's from Falmer, by shear coincidence
I'm sure if he gets a vocemail box full of people asking for Falmer he might actually listen.
Anybody know if he's from Falmer, by shear coincidence
Lord Bracknell
On fire
He lives in Iford. His ward stretches from Piddinghoe in the south, through Southease, Rodmell, Iford, Kingston and the Newmarket to Falmer.
dougdeep
New member
There's a good letter in the Sussex Express this week, from George Mason of Seaford on this subject. If they received lots of letters backing up his views it might raise the profile of the campaign.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Has anyone got a copy of the leaflet that was handed out at the Dripping Pan on Tuesday? Produced, I believe by members of Lewes Labour Party.
And - from yesterday's Argus - it would seem that Rory Love, prospective Tory candidate against Baker, is joining in the campaign against Lewes DC.
Baker's argument - that it's Prescott's 'electioneering' that is to blame for the delay in resolving the issue - is looking very stale. If it hadn't been for Lewes DC refusing to make themselves available for re-opening the Inquiry in December or January (dates that were acceptable to all of the other parties), we wouldn't now be looking at February.
This is even more sickening, since LDC shouldn't be there in the first place, and even they are beginning to admit that they have nothing to say that they haven't said already.
And - from yesterday's Argus - it would seem that Rory Love, prospective Tory candidate against Baker, is joining in the campaign against Lewes DC.
Baker's argument - that it's Prescott's 'electioneering' that is to blame for the delay in resolving the issue - is looking very stale. If it hadn't been for Lewes DC refusing to make themselves available for re-opening the Inquiry in December or January (dates that were acceptable to all of the other parties), we wouldn't now be looking at February.
This is even more sickening, since LDC shouldn't be there in the first place, and even they are beginning to admit that they have nothing to say that they haven't said already.
- Thread starter
- #98
Lord Bracknell said:This is even more sickening, since LDC shouldn't be there in the first place, and even they are beginning to admit that they have nothing to say that they haven't said already.
what? thats bloody ridiculous, cant the club mention that to the Inspector or something? They quite clearly should'nt be allowed to get away with that esepcially as they've admitted to not saying much new.
The Large One
Who's Next?
But all that they have said is 'it should be at Sheepcote Valley', and when challenged about the problems associated with siting it there, simply replied 'we don't care, it's not our problem'.Lord Bracknell said:This is even more sickening, since LDC shouldn't be there in the first place, and even they are beginning to admit that they have nothing to say that they haven't said already.
I'm paraphrasing of course, but this was from the first Public Inquiry.