I've got an ENORMOUS PACKAGE

[Publius Ovidius]

1.43

This sets a dangerous precedent, namely that proposed developments within an AONB -which on the “need” test are only local - may, simply because they bring incidental benefits which support a national aspiration, justify a grant of planning permission. An example of such a development might be the proposed major expansion or relocation of a locally-based factory into an AONB/National Park, or a new housing scheme (the initial construction jobs generated, and those arising from locally-generated Key Worker accommodation and/or live/work units, no doubt benefiting the locally deprived area), or even a new food superstore which provides jobs during and after construction. This cannot rationally amount to the “exceptional circumstances” identified in PPS 7 (Para 22).



I think this is the crux of the matter....A friend who works for ESCC recons that the "precedent " argument far outweighs any piddly little full stop in the document as it would drive a coach and horses through the Governments attempt to restict developments on greenb belt land. He is also convinced that there are people behind the scenes pushing this forward.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

How likely is this Rpid Transit system ??

Going by the city's recent planning history I'd confidently suggest that you won't need to start buying your tickets for the Rapid Transit System until 2065 at the latest.

I can't get my head round a Rapid Transit System without thinking of THIS though

Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?

Ned Flanders: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

Patty & Selma: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!

[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...

Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?

Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.

Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?

Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.

Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.

Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: Once again...

All: Monorail!

Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...

Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!

All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!

[big finish]

Monorail!

Homer: Mono... D'oh!

 

[TSB]

Couple of things about the transport assessment:

7700 people going by Park & Ride?!
4725 people walking?!

They reckon (based on 60% at the emirates stadium) that 70% of people would arrive more than 1 hour prior to kickoff? Simply not true, as Withdean proves. Where did they base that?

They KEEP referring to the stadium as in Falmer Village (LDC Spin?) when, obviously, it is not.

They say that the burden on traffic infrastructure would be worse at Falmer! Firstly: the traffic infrastructure is already in a whole different league to Sheepcote Valley. Secondly: I thought the whole point of this assessment was to make predictions and conclusions on SHEEPCOTE? Why are they even talking about Falmer (where they have NOT done a traffic assessment)?!

It's quite well written though. Any chance of any of this holding sway? Are the clubs submissions on Sheepcote Valley available online?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!

 

[TSB]

1.43

I think this is the crux of the matter....A friend who works for ESCC recons that the "precedent " argument far outweighs any piddly little full stop in the document as it would drive a coach and horses through the Governments attempt to restict developments on greenb belt land. He is also convinced that there are people behind the scenes pushing this forward.

Not really, as this is an "exceptional" situation and it is being built to improve East Brighton and provide a local need. I believe i'm right in saying that the site has been ear-marked for development anyway.

What people? Pushing what forward? That argument? Or the Stadium Yes?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

.

What people? Pushing what forward? That argument? Or the Stadium Yes?

that is the $64,000 question...people who have a vested interest on this application failing?

 

[TSB]

that is the $64,000 question...people who have a vested interest on this application failing?

Congratulations. You have won $64,000.

Other than the 'Interested Parties', who could that be? Toads Hole owners? Conservative/Lib Dem Head Office?(Labour losing Brighton)

If these people are not interested parties or Ruth Kelly, then surely they can have no impact on the decision.

If they are then Ruth will know about them.




........Unless of course we are talking about Political funding!!!

 

[Publius Ovidius]

........Unless of course we are talking about Political funding!!!

 

[TSB]

The people who pay for political campaigns and such.

Sure i saw something on 24 about it...

 

[Verily I Say Unto Thee]

From LDC's Sheepcote Valley submission about the traffic caused by a development there prior to 'sexing-up'

Detailed assessments have been undertaken for a typical
Saturday afternoon peak hour for the following junctions which RPS understand are freestanding
signal controlled junctions:
Wilson Avenue / Roedean Road;
Wilson Avenue / Warren Road;
Warren Road / Falmer Road (Woodingdean); and
Falmer Road / A259 (Rottingdean).

22. The results of this analysis indicate that these junctions would operate at or around saturation
level during the busiest hour prior to a Weekend afternoon kick-off.

And after:

22. The results of the junction analysis demonstrate that the additional traffic associated with the development proposals would not materially worsen the existing operational performance of the Wilson Avenue/ Roedean Road/Marina Way, Warren Road/ B2123 Falmer Road and B2123 High Street/A259 Marine Drive junctions. Regarding the Wilson Avenue/Warren Road signalised junction some mitigation measures will have to be introduced in order for it to operate within capacity

Nice one.

 

[Verily I Say Unto Thee]

And in response to the comment from LDC in the original document:

Again, as per main report, can you say it would be in a sustainable location in accordance with govt. policy etc.

The following para has been added by the so called consultants:

35.0 The Sheepcote Valley is therefore a highly sustainable location for a community stadium and locating the community facility there would therefore comply with transort and accessibilty policies articulated in PPG13: March 2001 (Transport) and PPG17: Planning for open Space, Sport and Recreation (July 2002).

 

[Yorkie]

1.43

This sets a dangerous precedent, namely that proposed developments within an AONB -which on the “need” test are only local - may, simply because they bring incidental benefits which support a national aspiration, justify a grant of planning permission. An example of such a development might be the proposed major expansion or relocation of a locally-based factory into an AONB/National Park, or a new housing scheme (the initial construction jobs generated, and those arising from locally-generated Key Worker accommodation and/or live/work units, no doubt benefiting the locally deprived area), or even a new food superstore which provides jobs during and after construction. This cannot rationally amount to the “exceptional circumstances” identified in PPS 7 (Para 22).



I think this is the crux of the matter....A friend who works for ESCC recons that the "precedent " argument far outweighs any piddly little full stop in the document as it would drive a coach and horses through the Governments attempt to restict developments on greenb belt land. He is also convinced that there are people behind the scenes pushing this forward.

They are mentioning a National Park which hasn't been decided yet and will overrule the AONB anyway so the precedent doesn't exist.

 

[The Large One]

How likely is this Rpid Transit system ??

5.17 There have been major new changes in circumstance since the First Secretary of State’s decision, particularly the identification by Brighton and Hove City Council and others of the coastal belt of the City as a hub for major, international level, developments and proposals for a Rapid Transit system to facilitate access between Brighton Station and the various sites involved.(Matter (d)).

5.18 The Sheepcote Valley site is in very close proximity to the eastern end of the hub, and thus would benefit from the ability of football fans to undertake multi-purpose visits to Brighton, thereby spreading the load in terms of transport accessibility.

Irrespective of the fact that any Rapid Transport System (RTS) is still years away - possibly as many as the re-development of Shoreham Harbour - and it will be prohibitively expensive, they are still only talking about an RTS on the coastal strip.

Fans arriving by train would still have to make the 2/3 mile - 1 mile trip from Brighton Station to the seafront, then a further 1/2 - 3/4 mile trip from the 'eastern hub' (wot?) to Sheepcote. So the RTS would cater for about half of the journey from Brighton Station to Sheepcote, taking in an enormous detour. Unless, of course, I've got these plans all wrong.

However, has the Council ever made any indications that it intends to proceed with this plan? Has anyone actually SEEN these RTS plans? What form do they take? Do they exist?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

1.43

This sets a dangerous precedent, namely that proposed developments within an AONB -which on the “need” test are only local - may, simply because they bring incidental benefits which support a national aspiration, justify a grant of planning permission. An example of such a development might be the proposed major expansion or relocation of a locally-based factory into an AONB/National Park, or a new housing scheme (the initial construction jobs generated, and those arising from locally-generated Key Worker accommodation and/or live/work units, no doubt benefiting the locally deprived area), or even a new food superstore which provides jobs during and after construction. This cannot rationally amount to the “exceptional circumstances” identified in PPS 7 (Para 22).



I think this is the crux of the matter....A friend who works for ESCC recons that the "precedent " argument far outweighs any piddly little full stop in the document as it would drive a coach and horses through the Governments attempt to restict developments on greenb belt land. He is also convinced that there are people behind the scenes pushing this forward.

LDC's position (and their interpretation of PPS7) is contradicted by the legal conclusions in at least one (and possibly two) recent planning cases that have gone all the way to the House of Lords.

They are desperately trying to argue that the needs identified for Falmer are purely "local". That simply doesn't stack up. The fact that the economic benefits accrue to a "deprived" community that has been prioritised for action at the national level seems to have escaped LDC.