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

[The Large One]

There is a train of thought which says that the High Court may ask for one or two points Lewes have challenged to be reverted back to Prescott, probably the technical points ostensibly for clarification of planning policies. This would relieve some of the financial burden Lewes District Council would be asked to bear after the High Court hearings. A financial burden they are still SERIOUSLY under-estimating.

However, as sure as I am sitting here typing this, I am TOTALLY convinced that Prescott will do what it takes to ensure that the stadium is given permission. Norman Baker knows this, and hence wants Prescott removed from the process.

Don't forget, Norman Baker hasn't voiced public support for Lewes District Council's course of action - he believes that they will 'probably' lose, and was officially 'surprised' at what they are doing (this is Parliamentary-speak for 'utterly pissed off'. This is why he is instead gunning for Prescott, rather than aligning himself with LDC.

 

[sparkie]

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

....

I like this. Even if the gap was only 1 millimeter, or 1 nanometer even, it would legally still be there.

 

[Curious Orange]

Please don't take my opinions as gospel folks, they are just a layman's opinion. I'm fairly certain about some things, but not others. I know LDC are correct on at least a couple of their quibbles, however the question is are those quibbles significant enough to warrant referring the decision back to the ODPM?

 

[Lewesian Seagull]

Scrutiny Committee

Angela Craven (Chair),Tory, Ditchling and Westmeston
Helen Livings,Tory, Peacehaven West
Judith Ost,Lib Dem Newhaven Valley
Marina Pepper,Lib Dem, East Saltdean & Telscombe Cliffs
John Webber,Lib Dem, Lewes Priory

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Nice one Lord B!!!!!

Thank you.

The link to the Argus story seems to have been mangled (the way things happen on that website.)

The story is this:-

Council has rethink on Falmer case
by Rob Hustwayte

A council's decision to challenge the Falmer stadium planning permission in the High Court could be overturned by a panel of its own members.

Lewes District Council's scrutiny committee will meet on Thursday to decide if there is a case for the decision, taken behind closed doors by the cabinet last November, to be reviewed.

The investigation is being made following a request from Firle resident, Albion supporter and sophisticated man about town, Lord Bracknell.

If the group of five councillors finds the decision was taken improperly or procedures were not followed correctly it could recommend to the council or cabinet that it be reconsidered.

Lord Bracknell said: "It's a bit of a long shot but at least it is a foot in the door and means the way the decision was arrived at will at least be scrutinised by a supposedly non-political body of the council.

"It is a chance for a lastminute reprieve to stop this council wasting our money by pursuing this costly Judicial Review against John Prescott's planning permission.

A large number of local residents are against the decision ñ it was made without a public debate.

"In any case the council's grounds for appeal have already been overturned by the House of Lords in a test case involving the Pembrokeshire National Parks inquiry, which said building on an area of outstanding natural beauty can be permitted if it brings social and economic benefits to a deprived area."

The council says it has a duty to pursue the judicial review in its role as guardian of the countryside and has pledged it will not commit any more than £25,000 of public money.

But the football club's own legal experts have warned the cost of the legal challenge could rise to abount £160,000 if the council loses.

The district council has disputed a claim from Albion directors that, if unsuccessful, it would have to pay legal costs of the club and Brighton and Hove City Council.

If the scrutiny committee, made up of two Tory and three Lib Dem councillors, decides the decision was made properly and fairly a High Court hearing is expected in June.

Meanwhile the club insists the hard work of preparing the £50 million construction of the stadium will press ahead without delay.



If anyone wants to read my representation that is going to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee, it can be found

here

 

[Easy 10]

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.

Good work Mr Orange.
One thing is niggling at me though....how are we getting drawn back in to arguing the toss over all these details again ?
My understanding was that the purpose of a Judicial Review is NOT to go over, re-examine and pick to bits all the evidence presented over the two Public Inquiries. It is to scrutinise and ensure that the decision-making process has been adhered to. If something untoward has occurred during the Inquiry process, its then referred back to JP to revisist his decision.

If we're still arguing the toss over whether other sites are more suitable at a Judicial Review, then what the f*** was the point of the reopened inquiry ?

 

[BensGrandad]

Good work Mr Orange.


If we're still arguing the toss over whether other sites are more suitable at a Judicial Review, then what the f*** was the point of the reopened inquiry ?

That is my view I thought that this JR was only about whether the correct legal process had been followed not re examining the case for an alternative site.

 

[Curious Orange]

If we're still arguing the toss over whether other sites are more suitable at a Judicial Review, then what the f*** was the point of the reopened inquiry ?

It also beggars the question as to why, if they now think the test is wrong, didn't they say so at the start of the re-opened Inquiry (and if they did why did they then go along with the Inquiry so merrily)?

What it boils down to is that they still want there to be an "alternative site" even though there aren't any.

 

[Easy 10]

It also beggars the question as to why, if they now think the test is wrong, didn't they say so at the start of the re-opened Inquiry (and if they did why did they then go along with the Inquiry so merrily)?

What it boils down to is that they still want there to be an "alternative site" even though there aren't any.

I'm at a bit of a loss really. I must have drastically misunderstood the purposes of a Judicial Review, because all that document seems to be doing is dragging up arguments that have been utterly done to death over the course of the Inquiries. Where exactly are they pointing out flaws or irregularities in the Inquiry PROCESS ? Cos thats what I thought this was all about.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

The most galling thing about it all is that even if they do call off their action as a result of the Scrutiny Committee's work, it will fall just outside the transfer window, meaning that the £90,000 that might have been earmarked to buy a striker can no longer be used for that and we are still left in the lurch playing squad wise. Those criticising Mark McGhee and Dick Knight for the lack of transfer activity, please consider this point. They must be tearing their hair out

 

[Curious Orange]

I'm at a bit of a loss really. I must have drastically misunderstood the purposes of a Judicial Review, because all that document seems to be doing is dragging up arguments that have been utterly done to death over the course of the Inquiries. Where exactly are they pointing out flaws or irregularities in the Inquiry PROCESS ? Cos thats what I thought this was all about.

I suppose you could argue that reviewing the evidence to come to a conclusion might be regarded as a process, though I'm not sure that is what a JR is about.

With the Withdean seats the City Council lost the JR because they forgot to do some environmental impact assessment or something, I'm struggling to see something similar in this - maybe their point about the alternative sites test, but what they said there sounds spurious at best.

Needs a proper planning bod or lawyers opinion on this really. I'm just a Test Analyst after all!!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

The evidence will be used to show that the stadium will have an adverse effect on the area and how it is not of national interest at a cost of damaging the AONB. That is when they go for the kill, as "It is not in national interest as it will destroy part of the AONB, which is of national interest!"

Misuse of JPs discretion or something along those lines.

Perhaps they are looking to draw out the JR and sway the judge into making a decision in their favour. Then I guess we get a quashing order

 

[Rangdo]

If anyone wants to read my representation that is going to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee, it can be found

here

"That answer is on our website in Section H of the Constitution which
sets out the scrutiny procedure rules.
Paragraph 4 of Section H provides how a meeting of the Scrutiny
Committee can be called. Paragraph 14 explains how the Scrutiny
Committee can review any Council function. Paragraph 4 provides that
Scrutiny Committee Reports are considered by the Cabinet and/or the
Council depending on the subject matter.
It would be unproductive to set out all these provisions in an email.
You will find them easily enough if you search for the "Constitution
Part H" on our website.
In respect of your query about the report that was classed as exempt
information, the Council has adopted the National Code for Councillors
(also easily found on the website as Part 5 of the Constitution) which
says that a councillor must not disclose information of a confidential
nature."

Oooh. Get him:safeway

 

[adrian29uk]

Council has rethink on Falmer case, from the Argus

Council has rethink on Falmer case

by Rob Hustwayte

A council's decision to challenge the Falmer stadium planning permission in the High Court could be overturned by a panel of its own members.

Lewes District Council's scrutiny committee will meet on Thursday to decide if there is a case for the decision, taken behind closed doors by the cabinet last November, to be reviewed.

The investigation is being made following a request from Firle resident and Albion supporter Ed Bassford.

If the group of five councillors finds the decision was taken improperly or procedures were not followed correctly it could recommend to the council or cabinet that it be reconsidered.

Mr Bassford said: "It's a bit of a long shot but at least it is a foot in the door and means the way the decision was arrived at will at least be scrutinised by a supposedly non-political body of the council.

"It is a chance for a lastminute reprieve to stop this council wasting our money by pursuing this costly Judicial Review against John Prescott's planning permission.

A large number of local residents are against the decision ñ it was made without a public debate.

"In any case the council's grounds for appeal have already been overturned by the House of Lords in a test case involving the Pembrokeshire National Parks inquiry, which said building on an area of outstanding natural beauty can be permitted if it brings social and economic benefits to a deprived area."

The council says it has a duty to pursue the judicial review in its role as guardian of the countryside and has pledged it will not commit any more than £25,000 of public money.

But the football club's own legal experts have warned the cost of the legal challenge could rise to abount £160,000 if the council loses.

The district council has disputed a claim from Albion directors that, if unsuccessful, it would have to pay legal costs of the club and Brighton and Hove City Council.

If the scrutiny committee, made up of two Tory and three Lib Dem councillors, decides the decision was made properly and fairly a High Court hearing is expected in June.

Meanwhile the club insists the hard work of preparing the £50 million construction of the stadium will press ahead without delay.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS11.html

 

[Albion Dan]

If Marina Pepper is on the Scrutiny committe and is Anti Flamer then surely we are screwed in any hope of them stopping any action?

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Fix.................... Oh why do I bother?

 

[enigma]

Lord B- Albion Legend

 

[Edward Scissorhands]

Lord B

 

[glasfryn]

by the time they get to B they will be asleep,I'm no legal eagle but normally when the that many objections they are clutching at straws.

It seems that the whole thing is about how it will affect them and as it states eveywhere in the report it's in the city boundary.

I don't ever remember the nimby's complaining about the university and thats been mushrooming ever since I can remember.
PS if ed bassford gets his way someone kiss him for me.
I'll blow him one from wales.




edited to say 100 posts

 

[Yorkie]

I don't think it will stop LDC going ahead with it but take comfort from the fact that John Catt took the council to the High Court over the extra seats at Withdean.
All the HC did was tell the council to get the planning right, which they did and the work still went ahead.