Falmer another delay!!!

[The Large One]

Decision now ON OR BEFORE 25 JULY.

Fact. Have just had email from H. Blears's Office.

Does she explain why there's a delay?

 

[The Oldman]

This strikes me as VERY ENCOURAGING NEWS.

Think about it.

If Blears is being advised to say NO, there's nothing to stop her saying so immediately. The reasons would be technical ones that a Secretary of State (even a new one) could legitimately just accept as "the advice of my planning experts".

If she is being advised to say YES, she OUGHT to be asking "How is this going to look to the people who made the legal challenge last year?" She can't be seen to be rushing to a judgment that might be challenged again by people who might be minded to complain that she couldn't possibly have grasped all of the complex issues in the time that has been available to her.

I'm not worried at all. Quite the reverse.

Or it could be she has been recommended to say yes but does not agree. Panic by the civil servants as they have to redraft the letter.

 

[Jam The Man]

This strikes me as VERY ENCOURAGING NEWS.

Think about it.

If Blears is being advised to say NO, there's nothing to stop her saying so immediately. The reasons would be technical ones that a Secretary of State (even a new one) could legitimately just accept as "the advice of my planning experts".

If she is being advised to say YES, she OUGHT to be asking "How is this going to look to the people who made the legal challenge last year?" She can't be seen to be rushing to a judgment that might be challenged again by people who might be minded to complain that she couldn't possibly have grasped all of the complex issues in the time that has been available to her.

I'm not worried at all. Quite the reverse.

That's calmed me down significantly!

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I have thought about it and you could take the opposite view.....

If she has decided NO then in the same way as she needs to make sure she checked everything assuming LDC or whoever will appeal if there is a problem, then surely she should do the same if and when we appeal!

If she says NO, will we go for a Judicial review ED?

Indeed, Unless we know why its been delayed no one has a clue.

 

[Woodchip]

Decision now ON OR BEFORE 25 JULY.

Fact. Have just had email from H. Blears's Office.

I may be in for a FANTASTIC birthday present then, here's hoping for the 20th.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

How likely is a judicial review following a successful decision?

 

[Colbourne Kid]

The decision letter will now have to refer to the new information on the National Park boundaries. If it didn't then either side could challenge. Remember that one of the questions asked in the consultation was about the effect of the NP boundaries.

As most of the opposition assumed in their replies that the NP boundary would include as a minimum the coach park area, the report last week was very significant.

The Govt must take time to get any references to the NP correct in their letter.

Good news, I think.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

How likely is a judicial review following a successful decision?

Less likely than if there was the appearance of the decision having been made by a Secretary of State who had only had a few days to think about it.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

25th July

What a fecking joke.

What else can possibly go wrong.

Its like a Pinter farce.

 

[Bluejuice]

Seriously, does anyone actually remember the first time we saw a "Falmer decision delay" headline and how many separate occasions it's been dug up since?

I'm starting to think I might as well forget it

 

[Simster]

Decision now ON OR BEFORE 25 JULY.

Fact. Have just had email from H. Blears's Office.

Can you just clarify. Is that 25th July, 2007?

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Does she explain why there's a delay?

Yes, and now I've forwarded myself the email and one-handedly faffed around copying and pasting, here's the bit that matters:

Variation of timetable

4. Parties will be aware that following the recent change of Prime Minister, a number of subsequent changes have been announced in Cabinet and junior ministerial positions. The Secretary of State considers that she will not be in a position to reach a decision on this application by 9 July 2007, as previously notified. Therefore, in the exercise of the power conferred on her by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, she hereby gives notice that she has varied the timetable previously set and she will now issue her decision on or before 25 July 2007.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The decision letter will now have to refer to the new information on the National Park boundaries. If it didn't then either side could challenge. Remember that one of the questions asked in the consultation was about the effect of the NP boundaries.

As most of the opposition assumed in their replies that the NP boundary would include as a minimum the coach park area, the report last week was very significant.

The Govt must take time to get any references to the NP correct in their letter.

Good news, I think.

Bear in mind this (which I posted yesterday on another thread) ...




With a further period of consultation on the National Park boundary now starting, Defra have published their "GUIDANCE ON MAKING OBJECTIONS OR REPRESENTATIONS ON FURTHER MATTERS"

This includes the following paragraphs:-

9. Objections and representations should relate only to the areas covered by the proposed additions and not to any other part of the boundary for, or area of, the proposed National Park.

10. The areas recommended for exclusion by the Inspector are shown on the maps for information only. Objections and representations on these are not invited as they fall within the Designation Order boundary that was the subject of the public inquiry.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/guid-object.pdf


In other words ... LDC and any other interested parties have NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY NOW BEING RECOMMENDED AT FALMER

 

[The Large One]

Its like a Pinter farce.

Pinter didn't write farces...

 

[Scoffers]

So no celebrating at least until early 5 September, 9 weeks today

 

[John Dorian]

You gotta larf!

otherwise u'd cry so hard u'd hit the bottle !!!

 

[cjd]

Wouldn,t be surprised if part of the delay is because Hazel Blears may want to visit the site, and has a busy schedule.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Yes, and now I've forwarded myself the email and one-handedly faffed around copying and pasting, here's the bit that matters:

Variation of timetable

4. Parties will be aware that following the recent change of Prime Minister, a number of subsequent changes have been announced in Cabinet and junior ministerial positions. The Secretary of State considers that she will not be in a position to reach a decision on this application by 9 July 2007, as previously notified. Therefore, in the exercise of the power conferred on her by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, she hereby gives notice that she has varied the timetable previously set and she will now issue her decision on or before 25 July 2007.

The thing i dont understandabout this is that its the Civil servants that look at the evidence and present a case to the secretary of state to make a decision....now assumeing that Kelly would have had this by last week then surely she would Have made the decision then, Blears ( scabby cow) will have spoken to the Civil Servants and presumably Kelly.

So are we saying that Blears thinks there is a problem as Kelly was prepared to give a decision by Monday and Blears thinks she needs another nigh on a month to give the same decision?

 

[BensGrandad]

I may be wrong but my interpretation of this is that they are dotting the i's and crossing the t's to ensure that there is no mistake that LDC or anybody else can jump on.

We have waited so long so anther 16 days is neither here nor there.