But surely it missed the deadline for submissions therefore it wasn't valid?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Falmer Parish Council requested to re-open the Inquiry just 2 months ago..
- Thread starter Jam The Man
- Start date
But surely it missed the deadline for submissions therefore it wasn't valid?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The letter that Falmer PC sent on 9 May may have been in response to the letter that the DCLG sent to all interested parties on 3 May.
The football club also wrote to the DCLG on 9 May. There was a deadline for final final representations on 11 May. That didn't stop LDC, Falmer PC, the South Downs Society and LDC (again) writing after that deadline.
And is it?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It doesn't matter what I think.
It's a question of whether the High Court MIGHT think it's reasonable grounds for appeal.
I dare say that both the Albion and DCLG would wish to say it wasn't reasonable, but they might have to wait until the Court set a date for their arguments to be heard. February or March next year, at a guess.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Not that Falmer PC would actually take it to Court, of course. All they need is a date.
It's ever so EASY this wasting time thingy.
It's ever so EASY this wasting time thingy.
balloonboy
aka Jim in the West
Not a happy prospect - but presumably by now the club will have a lot more confidence that the decision is absolutely water-tight, and could start to progress on the project "at risk", knowing that the chances of a succesful challenge are extremely remote?
If we have an achilles heel on this decision I think Ms Blears refusal to reopen the inquiry at the request of Falmer PC is it. Of all the comments made today by our opponents Falmer folk were the most upset. That's not surprising. But they do seem very willing to spend money as raised through their council tax on fighting us. My guess is that this was what Norman Baker was talking about tonight when he said someone, not Lewes DC, would appeal. Don't think they would win this point though but as Lord B says another delay into next year.
BensGrandad
New member
I am suprised that you lower your standards to drink that. I would have expected you to drink the proper stuff Vino Noble Di Montepulciano, which incidentally is my favourite wine.
I once had a publican in Midhurst, the landlady at the The Wheatsheaf actually tried to tell me that 'd'Abruzzo was the best wine available from Italy.
To get back to the point. Richard Linfield on SCR made a lot about one paragraph in which the minister stated that 'It would go against the interests of developement within the country side but sometimes this has to be overlooked or similar type wording. This he thought would give the long term effect of others trying to gain permission for developement and using this issue as their precedent. He thought that would be sufficient for an appeal.
Last edited:
ROSM
Well-known member
indeed LB - however the people in Withdean thought that and then that nasty judge went and asked them to put £100k up front. At that point they backed out.
But didn't FPC say publicly that THEY DIDN'T want another public inquiry?
Shurely Shome Mishtake??
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
I am sorry to say this but I really do think there will be another appeal of some sorts as there are some very well off people opposed to this.
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Because when you have got so far your rarely roll over till the point of no return and I don't think we are quite there yet (very close)
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I didn't choose the wine, BG.
I agree with you, though. Vino Nobile is a very fine wine - from the Montepulciano in Tuscany that I know very well indeed - not the place of the same name in the Abruzzo. Left to my own devices (and someone else's wallet), I would have chosen the Brunello di Montalcino that Donatello's were asking £47 a bottle for.
Donatello's also do a nice Sangiovese which is, after all, from the same grape variety as the Brunello and one of the main constituents of Vino Nobile.
ROSM
Well-known member
yes yes yes - but the big question is - did you have the Copa Carmen for Dessert?
More importantly did you have my share of the food and wine
?
More importantly did you have my share of the food and wine
And mine? When I got back to work my boss said, you should have stayed.
BensGrandad
New member
Either Lord B or ROSM do you have any views on the paragraph that Richard Linfield was on about as beinmg sufficient for an appeal.
ROSM
Well-known member
without having the exact wording in front of me it is difficult to say categorically. However i would think that if it were in terms of 'planing permission in AONBs are permissable if other criteria is met and although I do accept there will be damage to that particular aonb but the other tests are met, so I therefore approve' then I dont see that as an issue. It is within the realms of judgement of the SoS which they are allowed to have.
BensGrandad
New member
I think that Richard Linfield point was that by the wording, and I cannot remember the wording exactly, it could open the flood gates for other applications in AONB.
ROSM
Well-known member
well if they met the existing criteria:
in national interest
Local need
No other site
then they would be the same position as us. Those rules are in existence and we had to meet that criteria. If other plans do too then they will get planning permission - whether we had or not
Lord Bracknell
On fire
To expand on ROSM's point a little ...
The principle that applies to ALL major development in protected countryside is that EACH CASE HAS TO BE LOOKED AT ON ITS MERITS and in the light of national Planning Policy Statements.
The suggestion that LDC are making that this could open the floodgates is nonsense.
Besides which, LDC is only a local planning authority. Whatever they think, it is not their role to set themselves up as nationwide defenders of every AONB and National Park in England.
And (to top it off) if they want that role, they've already let themselves down by their flagrant disregard for national planning policy when they argued a case for the Toads Hole Valley piece of AONB as a suitable site.
The principle that applies to ALL major development in protected countryside is that EACH CASE HAS TO BE LOOKED AT ON ITS MERITS and in the light of national Planning Policy Statements.
The suggestion that LDC are making that this could open the floodgates is nonsense.
Besides which, LDC is only a local planning authority. Whatever they think, it is not their role to set themselves up as nationwide defenders of every AONB and National Park in England.
And (to top it off) if they want that role, they've already let themselves down by their flagrant disregard for national planning policy when they argued a case for the Toads Hole Valley piece of AONB as a suitable site.