LDC 16 Points

[Napper]

from argus today , what are the 16 ? surely they cant all be wrong ?

Council is set to drop Falmer court action
by Rob Hustwayte

Lewes District Council is poised to drop its High Court action against Brighton and Hove Albion's Falmer stadium.

It could mean an end to the delays which have been costing the club more than £50,000-aweek in lost revenue.

A month ago, the Government admitted it made a technical mistake when it approved the 22,000-seat arena and asked the major parties for their assent to quash the planning permission so it could reconsider its decision.

But Lewes District Council, which was challenging the planning permission in the High Court, was accused of delaying the saga by not making any announcement on how it intended to respond. A spokeswoman said as far as the council was concerned, the legal action was continuing and it was awaiting news of a court date.

Now the council has issued an ultimatum stating it will drop its court action as long as the Government promises to address 16 specific points it has raised when it considers the new planning application.

It also demands that John Prescott, who was recently replaced as Secretary of State by Ruth Kelly, would have no say in any new decision. The Government has indicated it agrees and the council's cabinet is expected to accept the request to overturn the planning permission when it meets on June 6.

Mr Prescott admitted he made a fundamental error in his Falmer decision last October by stating incorrectly that the entire stadium site was in the development boundary of Brighton and Hove.

A Lewes District Council spokeswoman said: "Whilst Mr Prescott has admitted to this particular mistake, he has failed to respond to any of the other grounds of the council's claim, of which there are 16 in total.

"We want a written assurance from the new Secretary of State that all the flaws identified in our challenge will be reconsidered before any new decision is issued. Provided the Secretary of State is willing to give us this assurance the case need not be heard in court."

A spokesman for the new Communities and Local Government department said Ms Kelly, who was promoted to the role following John Prescott's departure last week, would be considering all the evidence afresh, including Lewes District Council's 16 points. But he said the Government was only conceding on the boundary mistake issue.

The council spokeswoman added: "Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society have also asked for a written undertaking from Ruth Kelly that John Prescott will take no further part at all in the re-determination of the stadium application."

Among the 16 points that the council claims Mr Prescott got wrong are that he failed to acknowledge the strategic gap between Falmer village and the city of Brighton or the conflict with planning policies It alleges Mr Prescott wrongly concluded that the stadium is in the national interest and was unreasonable in attaching little weight to his first inspector's assessment of other sites.

Furthermore, the council says Mr Prescott wrongly took into account new evidence which it was not allowed to respond to and failed to consider other cases relating to large-scale development on protected landscapes

 

[Caveman]

I don't trust them one little bit and don't be fooled by this, they obviously know the 16 points are unreasonable to answer quickly or they have a something else up there sleeve.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

from argus today , what are the 16 ? surely they cant all be wrong ?

The Treasury Solicitor, the Government's top lawyer, says 15 of them are.

 

[Napper]

the major flaw of prescotts f up is surely massive when backed up by 15 other minor ones

 

[Bakesy]

Answers on a postcard please.......

 

[Rangdo]

The government aren't going to let a shitty local council tell them who should make the decision so the article is pointless.

 

[The Large One]

Bearing in mind, with the exception of the erroneous 'built-up area' statement, Lewes' challenge is tenuous at best, misguided in places and bollocks as a whole. The government does not agree with any of the other statements Lewes have made in their challenge, and it's therefore HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it will change its mind.

 

[Caveman]

It alleges Mr Prescott wrongly concluded that the stadium is in the national interest and was unreasonable in attaching little weight to his first inspector's assessment of other sites.

So when we play teams from Newcastle, Plymouth, Gillingham, Cardiff etc the people from these area are not interested in the Stadium and visiting Brighton?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I understood they only agreed 1 point was wrong everything else was fine


i think ldc are pissing in the wind


BTW cue Downloaded Pengiun complaining that this has been discussed in another thread

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: LDC 16 Points

The other one being......?

Is the 16th simply the incorrect boundary line?

No, it's saying that the site is in the built-up area, when only some of it is.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

It's actually much worse than that. What will happen is that the Government will consider all the issues that LDC raise which will take a long time. Likely that they will accept one of the points (the one about Falmer not being part of Brighton) but then reject the other 15 and provide their reasons and still grant permission.

Nothing at all to stop LDC then lodging a further application for Judicial Review and you're back where you started.

The only hope you have is that the Government have already drafted a response to LDC's points in which case they can submit a lot quicker

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LDC 16 Points

That's what I was trying to say! So of these 16 points, 15 of them the governement totally dismiss as being bollocks. The other one is the mistake regarding where the "built up area" is, which Big Johnny P admitted he got wrong, hence the current situation.

Am I right?

Yes. I posted this on another thread:-




The issue is about the boundary of the Built Up Area of the City,

The incorrect statement in the Decision Letter is this:-

"The Local Plan shows the site to be within the built-up area and therefore does not conflict with BHLP Policy NC6 or with ESSP Policy S13. It gains support from SR16, which seeks that major sporting and recreational facilities should be located within the built-up area".

I guess the correct statement would be something like:-

"The Local Plan shows the site to be mainly within the built-up area", followed by a statement as to why any conflict with BHLP Policy NC6 or with ESSP Policy S13 is considered to be minor and no reason to refuse planning permission.



BHLP Policy NC6 is the policy in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan that says this:-

NC6 Development in the countryside / downland

Development will not be permitted outside the built up area boundary as defined on the Proposals Map. Exceptions will only be made where there will be no significant adverse impact on the countryside / downland and at least one of the following criteria apply:
a. the proposal is specifically identified as a site allocation elsewhere in this Plan, the siting of which is shown and complies with the Proposals Map;
b. a countryside location can be justified, - for example, proposals are reasonably necessary for the efficient operation of farms, horticulture or forestry including the diversification of activities on existing farm units which do not prejudice the agricultural use;
c. in appropriate cases and where enhancements to the countryside / downland will result, proposals for quiet informal recreation e.g. walking, horse riding and cycling; or
d. proposals for the change of use of existing buildings which are in keeping with their surroundings and are of a sound and permanent construction.

Where development is permitted, it will be required to be unobtrusive and must respect the form, scale and character of the landscape. For example, through careful siting, design and use of materials. New buildings should be sited adjacent to existing buildings or building groups, rather than isolated in the landscape. Proposals should have no adverse effects on, and where appropriate enhance and expand, nature conservation features.

Proposals will not be permitted if they result in a level of light pollution, noise, traffic or activity which is out of keeping with its countryside location.

The conversion of existing farm buildings to residential use will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that every attempt has been made to secure a suitable business re-use with no success or where it is to provide social rented accommodation to meet an essential housing need within the locality.

Planning permission for development in the countryside may, if appropriate, be subject to a condition restricting development which would otherwise be permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995.

All planning applications for sites outside the built up area should be accompanied by a detailed written design statement which takes into account how the proposal integrates with the surrounding area and nature conservation. Where opportunities arise through development, the planning authority will seek the enhancement of the landscape and the removal of inappropriate development.



ESSP Policy S13 is a Structure Plan Policy that states that attention will be focussed on revitalising and regenerating the physical fabric of the urban area in a manner that strengthens its important role as an international resort and regional centre and enhances the townscape quality.

To protect the landscape and its setting, the Structure Plan envisages no further outward expansion of Brighton and Hove’s built-up area other than in exceptional circumstances where the early release of land for employment uses could be justified on economic grounds and in terms of environmental impact.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LDC 16 Points

That's what I was trying to say! So of these 16 points, 15 of them the governement totally dismiss as being bollocks. The other one is the mistake regarding where the "built up area" is, which Big Johnny P admitted he got wrong, hence the current situation.

Am I right?

That's about the size of it.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I'm scared, angry, bored, confused but mostly frustrated by this load of shithouse. Let's f*** the review and just scare the living daylights out of the councillors using BRICKS and HORSES HEADS until they f*** OFF.

 

[Rangdo]

was unreasonable in attaching little weight to his first inspector's assessment of other sites.

This is the bit that really pisses me off. The last inquiry, which I'm pretty sure LDC were at, was solely to look at these other sites. The reason that Prescott gives the first inspectors opinions little weight on this issue is that the first inspector didn't take a detailed look at them. However, the last inspector did and concluded that Falmer was the best.
I wish they'd just get over it and f*** OFF.

 

[dcseagull]

It's actually much worse than that. What will happen is that the Government will consider all the issues that LDC raise which will take a long time. Likely that they will accept one of the points (the one about Falmer not being part of Brighton) but then reject the other 15 and provide their reasons and still grant permission.

Nothing at all to stop LDC then lodging a further application for Judicial Review and you're back where you started.

The only hope you have is that the Government have already drafted a response to LDC's points in which case they can submit a lot quicker

This is what really worries me.

 

[The Large One]

It's actually much worse than that. What will happen is that the Government will consider all the issues that LDC raise which will take a long time. Likely that they will accept one of the points (the one about Falmer not being part of Brighton) but then reject the other 15 and provide their reasons and still grant permission.

The government already has done that - hence the situation we're in now - and they reject 15 of Lewes' 16 points of challange.

INothing at all to stop LDC then lodging a further application for Judicial Review and you're back where you started.

The only hope you have is that the Government have already drafted a response to LDC's points in which case they can submit a lot quicker

The main hope for that is that Lewes' concerns would have been taken into account by the government, thereby cornering them should they wish to challenge. That press release is carefully worded in a way which says that they will not go to court this time round, which some might take as implying they have no inclination to go to court at all.

However, that press release does not say that, and even if Ruth Kelly takes into account Lewes' concerns (and almost certainly rejecting them - "I hear what you say, LDC, but I disagree...") and still grants Falmer, as you rightly say, there is nothing to stop Lewes trying to take this to the High Court again.