LDC - 'Grounds for Appeal' document & possible Scrutiny Review of their Decision

[Lewesian Seagull]

LDC - Grounds for appeal document

If you're not completely Falmered out here is LDC's official Grounds for appeal document.

They sound confident, or are they just talking bollocks.

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/plan_FalmerGroundsForAppeal.pdf

 

[Curious Orange]

Mostly bollocks you'll find.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

Got to number 1 - then got angry and closed it!

 

[The Auditor]

Mostly bollocks you'll find.

Hope you are right ....What is Lord Bracknell view on it....he is up to speed on these things

 

[Curious Orange]

I expect a lot of the points have already been discussed here.

 

[The Oldman]

I can only go on their performance at the second inquiry which I sat through. When you first listened to the Lewes DC case you begin to think "Wow, that sounds good. Maybe they are right"

However, when you listened to the Albion's case it tore great big holes in what Lewes were saying, often proving that they had misquoted planning law or policies or been very selective in presenting their facts.

As one of the authors of this submission is Mr White, who represented Lewes at the Inquiry then this submission stands a reasonable chance of getting torn to shreds.

But wiser heads than mine will no doubt advise further.

 

[sparkie]

The thing is that both sides in any legal dispute have to sound confident otherwise they will undermine their own case. This is what worries me when the Albion say that the case is watertight, as if they said otherwise then it would be seized upon in court.

It would be nice to get some reassurance, but at the end of the day it's how strong the case is put by the Governments legal team in rebutting these allegations that counts, and what the Judge decides on the day in court.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I think that there delicate case is hidden in a lot of legal and planning jargon. The trouble is, will this become something of a political tussle if it hasn't already? If this comes to the national forefront, would there be national support for the decision of Yes?

They seem have made so many points that almost repeat themselves to bulk up their case.....

Was Stamner park taken into consideration when they built the Unis and main trunk road

 

[Heffle Gull]

According to todays Argus the Scrutiny committe will meet Thursday and may overturn the decision

Arguis Story

 

[The Oldman]

According to todays Argus the Scrutiny committe will meet Thursday and may overturn the decision

Arguis Story

I would be pleasantly surprised if they did!

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

According to todays Argus the Scrutiny committe will meet Thursday and may overturn the decision

Arguis Story

Nice one Lord B!!!!!

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

ps -are we allowed to go to the High Court if there is a hearing?

 

[Gwylan]

ps -are we allowed to go to the High Court if there is a hearing?

Normally yes. One side could ask for the case to be heard in camera but I can't see that being an issue here - unless LDC is worried about 100s of Albion fans turning up.

I think JRs are heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, which is just down the road from where I work.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

Normally yes. One side could ask for the case to be heard in camera but I can't see that being an issue here - unless LDC is worried about 100s of Albion fans turning up.

I think JRs are heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, which is just down the road from where I work.

Cool - think ill give it a viewing if it does go all the way.

Could we get lots of people going?? (suppose should probably think of this nearer the time)

 

[Dr Feelgood]

No doubt the scrutiny committe will be made up of LDC council members who support the decision to go to court to overturn the decision by Prescott, so don't hold your breath.

 

[Curious Orange]

Just read through the document and here are my non-legally trained thoughts about each of the points:

A: They are technically correct, however the boundary change occurred to no-longer classify the site as built-up when the Local Plan was adopted AFTER the second Inquiry closed, but before the decision letter was delivered.

B: "sensitive stretch of open downland" is pushing the description a bit, a plowed field is not the same as downland.

C: There will still be one field between the coach park and the dual-carriageway, so the gap isn't actually "closed".

D: It is a matter of National Interest, and there is a precedent to prove it.

E: If all there is no realistic possibilty of planning permission being granted at any of the alternative sites at a Public Inquiry where free reign was given to all and sundry to propose any alternative they chose, how can there possibly be ANY chance of there being a "realistic possibilty" of a better site coming forward? A bit like thinking you might get a seven the next time you rolled a six-sided dice.

F: So there wasn't enough evidence at the Inquiries then - contradicts point P somewhat.

G: How is that relevant?

H: There is no National Park, it is unreasonable to put planning applications on hold just because something might happen. In any case the National Park does not increase the protection already afforded the site by its AONB status.

I: They've mis-read the letter re-opening the Inquiry, it's about the effects of the NP on the sites, not the other way round.

J: Bollocks it does.

K: Since when is the Inspectors opinion a FACT.

L: Is this also true if the FSS disagrees with the Inspectors opinion?

M: Since when was Sheepcote Valley in the centre of Brighton?

N: What new evidence was that then?

O: Not sure about this one, don't know the details of this link road.

P: The whole point of the second Inquiry was to be sure about the alternative sites, that is why it has more weight then the first report you absolute cock-jugglers.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Having read the LDC Grounds For Appeal document I think they have a technically reasonable case.

However, the fact of the matter is that the Albion are proposing to build a stadium next to a dual carriageway, railway station and various university buildings, so however you dress it up that is not an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

LDC are taking the piss by claiming the area is AONB / National Park material. Anything south of the A27 is fair game in my book.

 

[The Large One]

Technicalities mainly.

For Point A, this is where some of the City Council's expenses are coming from. Unfortunately, BHCC's plan appears slightly ambiguous on this. It is to clarfiy that the designation of the the built environment in the Draft Plan (2001) actually carried into the Adopted Plan (2005). Whatever, the City Council will not accept the charge that this is open downland.

What Lewes District Council have wanted from Brighton & Hove Albion all along was for the club to present the same level of detail on planning, environmental etc on all of the other sites as they have done for Falmer. This would have cost the Albion something like £30m - totally unreasonable. Their opinion on the Albion's planning process jars with completely with their own policy to planning insofar as there is the fact that they have never asked for this level of detail from any other planning application before. It is completely two-faced, and they are claiming it's a breach of Human Rights to not have it discussed.

The Inspector and the FSS (Prescott) are not interested in this course of action. All are satisfied that the required information could have been (and was) obtained from the Public Inquiry.

There is absolutely no way I can be convinced that Lewes District Council have any other course of action in mind than seeing the Albion go to the wall - finishing the job that David Bellotti started.

 

[Hadlee]

This whole thing has gone too far.

The Lawyers are having a field day and all their arguments seem to be legal technicalities, I just wish the whole saga could be based on common sense.

The City of Brighton & Hove is sandwiched between the sea and the Downs, land is at a premium and all parties must make the best use of it.

The Field at Falmer is vacant, not used for anything, it is not beautiful and people do not take walks or picnic's there. LDC want the Stadium built at Sheepcote valley but that DOES have natural beauty, people use it.

I feel until a more mature attitude is taken the City will be held back from future major developments (eg King Alfred & Marina)
everyone needs to take a long hard look at all the available land in the area and decide what land can be developed and what land needs to be left alone regardless on ANOB boundaries etc.

 

[B.W.]

Just read through the document and here are my non-legally trained thoughts about each of the points:

A: They are technically correct, however the boundary change occurred to no-longer classify the site as built-up when the Local Plan was adopted AFTER the second Inquiry closed, but before the decision letter was delivered.

B: "sensitive stretch of open downland" is pushing the description a bit, a plowed field is not the same as downland.

C: There will still be one field between the coach park and the dual-carriageway, so the gap isn't actually "closed".

D: It is a matter of National Interest, and there is a precedent to prove it.

E: If all there is no realistic possibilty of planning permission being granted at any of the alternative sites at a Public Inquiry where free reign was given to all and sundry to propose any alternative they chose, how can there possibly be ANY chance of there being a "realistic possibilty" of a better site coming forward? A bit like thinking you might get a seven the next time you rolled a six-sided dice.

F: So there wasn't enough evidence at the Inquiries then - contradicts point P somewhat.

G: How is that relevant?

H: There is no National Park, it is unreasonable to put planning applications on hold just because something might happen. In any case the National Park does not increase the protection already afforded the site by its AONB status.

I: They've mis-read the letter re-opening the Inquiry, it's about the effects of the NP on the sites, not the other way round.

J: Bollocks it does.

K: Since when is the Inspectors opinion a FACT.

L: Is this also true if the FSS disagrees with the Inspectors opinion?

M: Since when was Sheepcote Valley in the centre of Brighton?

N: What new evidence was that then?

O: Not sure about this one, don't know the details of this link road.

P: The whole point of the second Inquiry was to be sure about the alternative sites, that is why it has more weight then the first report you absolute cock-jugglers.

Thank you, CO... well, if you can pick holes in their case as easily as that, then the Government's, City Council's and Albion's lawyers will have a field day...

Where is LB when you need him for confirmation?...