The Large One
Who's Next?
Even answering those old, old points, Prescott AGREED that the Albion's survival was not in the national interest, and that the stadium itself would not necessarily bring about Albion's revivial, but he did say that the stadium and the benefits it could bring were in line with government policy of urban re-generation.
And the Falmer site is considered URBAN, not rural, because there are buildings already on there.
17. 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 cannot be said to conform with ESSP Policy EN2 or ESSP Policy EN3. Nor can it be said to conform with ESSP Policy EN4, which applies even stricter criteria than EN3 for the protection of open downland. However, the Secretary of State is not convinced that this area can be categorised as open downland as he applies more weight to the recently adopted Local Plan which places the site within the boundary of the built up area of the City.
Plus, the faith in which FPC place on the first inspector's report is completely blown out of the water by Prescott because (and one day the Falmer parishoners will get their thick heads round this), the first inspector could not rule on other sites because he had little or no evidence on them. They claim he says other sites were suitable, but he was not in a legal position to make that judgement. FPC only place their faith in him because he agrees with them. Take the first Inspector's evidence to court, and it will be laughed out within five minutes.
The second inspector stated quite clearly that none of the other sites were suitable, mainly for the reasons the Albion gave. In other words, he agreed with the Albion's evidence, especially on Sheepcote Valley - and Pende.
Shoreham Airport/New Monks Farm
40. Whilst this site does not enjoy AONB status, for the reasons given in paragraphs IRb10.119 - 10.121, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the feasibility of land acquisition of this site is questionable. He also agrees, for the reasons given in paragraph IRb10.127 - 10.132, that accessibility is serious concern and that a major development at this site would seriously erode the Strategic Gap within which the land lies [IRb10.166]. So that's you f***ed, Perseus.
He still had concerns over the site at Falmer, especially environmental impact, but Prescott 'gave less weight' to the second Inspector's concerns in favour of the the fact that the vast benefits outweighed the smaller detriments.
All of these things are well within Prescott's remit on this matter.
As for the Local Plan Inspector, that report went to Brighton & Hove City Council for them to make a judgement on, and they disagreed with it, which they quite entitled to do. And the Local Plan has now been adopted, which was quite a boost to the case and carried a great deal of weight. It would only have been superceded IF a suitable and available alternative site had been found. And it hadn't.
Now which solicitor worth his dues is going to be able to take on Falmer PC's case in challening the Government solicitors and tell them they have a real chance of success?
And the Falmer site is considered URBAN, not rural, because there are buildings already on there.
17. 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 cannot be said to conform with ESSP Policy EN2 or ESSP Policy EN3. Nor can it be said to conform with ESSP Policy EN4, which applies even stricter criteria than EN3 for the protection of open downland. However, the Secretary of State is not convinced that this area can be categorised as open downland as he applies more weight to the recently adopted Local Plan which places the site within the boundary of the built up area of the City.
Plus, the faith in which FPC place on the first inspector's report is completely blown out of the water by Prescott because (and one day the Falmer parishoners will get their thick heads round this), the first inspector could not rule on other sites because he had little or no evidence on them. They claim he says other sites were suitable, but he was not in a legal position to make that judgement. FPC only place their faith in him because he agrees with them. Take the first Inspector's evidence to court, and it will be laughed out within five minutes.
The second inspector stated quite clearly that none of the other sites were suitable, mainly for the reasons the Albion gave. In other words, he agreed with the Albion's evidence, especially on Sheepcote Valley - and Pende.
Shoreham Airport/New Monks Farm
40. Whilst this site does not enjoy AONB status, for the reasons given in paragraphs IRb10.119 - 10.121, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the feasibility of land acquisition of this site is questionable. He also agrees, for the reasons given in paragraph IRb10.127 - 10.132, that accessibility is serious concern and that a major development at this site would seriously erode the Strategic Gap within which the land lies [IRb10.166]. So that's you f***ed, Perseus.
He still had concerns over the site at Falmer, especially environmental impact, but Prescott 'gave less weight' to the second Inspector's concerns in favour of the the fact that the vast benefits outweighed the smaller detriments.
All of these things are well within Prescott's remit on this matter.
As for the Local Plan Inspector, that report went to Brighton & Hove City Council for them to make a judgement on, and they disagreed with it, which they quite entitled to do. And the Local Plan has now been adopted, which was quite a boost to the case and carried a great deal of weight. It would only have been superceded IF a suitable and available alternative site had been found. And it hadn't.
Now which solicitor worth his dues is going to be able to take on Falmer PC's case in challening the Government solicitors and tell them they have a real chance of success?
Last edited:
