Yoda
English & European
I think they don't consent to it going back to be re-worded. (From what I can gather. I'm getting lost).
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ldc Meeting
- Thread starter Kinky Gerbil
- Start date
The Large One
Who's Next?
The government wrote to the interested parties to see if they would agree to Prescott's letter being quashed and re-considered, while asking for further information on this one issue. The Albion and the City Council agreed. Lewes wrote back saying demanding caveats including the Prescott have no further role in this process, that the other 15 points be considered and so on.
Lewes believe that there are 16 points, and, because the government doesn't agree with the other 15, it may not take them into consideration.
Ruth Kelly wrote back to Lewes. Now we don't know the contents of that letter (Lewes won't tell anyone apart from their 'friends' - e.g. Falmer Parish Council), but as a result of this, Lewes intend to go to court anyway. Something I belive they wanted all along. So while they know that they will win on one point, they honestly believe that they will win on the other 15, and, because they have had a partial victory, will not get the costs awarded against them.
With that financial restriction done away with, then why not have their day in court? It only seeks to delay - so, hey GREAT! Know wot I mean?
That's the way I read it.
Lewes believe that there are 16 points, and, because the government doesn't agree with the other 15, it may not take them into consideration.
Ruth Kelly wrote back to Lewes. Now we don't know the contents of that letter (Lewes won't tell anyone apart from their 'friends' - e.g. Falmer Parish Council), but as a result of this, Lewes intend to go to court anyway. Something I belive they wanted all along. So while they know that they will win on one point, they honestly believe that they will win on the other 15, and, because they have had a partial victory, will not get the costs awarded against them.
With that financial restriction done away with, then why not have their day in court? It only seeks to delay - so, hey GREAT! Know wot I mean?
That's the way I read it.
Last edited:
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
So what could happen next is that everyone goes to court, the judge agrees that the boundary thing was a cock-up, finds that the other points are bollocks (which they are), and awards costs against LDC for wasting everybodys time when the decision letter could already have been re-drawn.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Correct, CO. Meanwhile, another four months have been added to the duration of the process. Which, as I said, was Lewes' point all along.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Lewes District Council's Press Release, issued this evening:-
Date: Tuesday 6 June 2006
PR 673
THE FALMER DECISION - THE JOINT CHALLENGE GOES ON
John Prescott’s discredited decision on the proposed Stadium at Falmer will be reviewed in the High Court. Government lawyers have refused to give a clear assurance that all the points in the Council’s legal challenge will be dealt with by the Government when the matter goes back to the new Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, for re-determination.
Falmer Parish Council, the South Downs Society and the Cabinet of Lewes District Council have unanimously decided that their joint legal challenge should proceed to Court. The first Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the applications at Falmer reported to John Prescott that the case against building the Stadium at Falmer was “overwhelming”. John Prescott disregarded his own inspector’s conclusion when he issued his decision.
Lead councillor for Planning Neil Commin said:
“We know that the High Court will quash the decision because the Government’s lawyers have admitted it was flawed on one key point, which Mr Prescott then uses repeatedly to justify his decision. But they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision. Anyone who looks objectively at John Prescott’s handling of these applications would have serious misgivings about the reasons behind that refusal to deal with the points in the challenge.
John Prescott’s decision contained a number of fundamental flaws. The High Court will look at each of the points in our challenge and decide whether or not they are justifiable. That means the issues will be sorted out once and for all instead of lingering on. That will be to the benefit of all the parties involved.
The costs for the hearing will be met by the Government, because their lawyers have admitted Mr. Prescott’s decision to be fatally flawed. Neither the Government or Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club have put in any evidence to court to counter the District Council’s challenge. Brighton and Hove City Council put in evidence confirming the mistake made by John Prescott over the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. The Council will continue to press for the earliest possible date for the case to be heard at the High Court”.
Ends/
Note to Editors:
A summary of the main flaws in John Prescott’s decision is set out below. The challenge in the High court will cover all of these points. Lawyers for the government have conceded that John Prescott’s decision on the first point was wrong. They will not admit that his decision on any of the other points was wrong.
1. Wrongly concluded that the application site for the stadium is located within the boundary of the built up area of the City of Brighton as identified by the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which was adopted in July 2005. The mistake was critical to his reasoning for attaching less weight than did his first Inspector to the considerable harm that the development would cause to the AONB.
2. Failed to deal with his first Inspector’s conclusions that the coach and bus interchange part of the development, which would fall outside of the built-up area boundary, would add appreciably to the harm caused by the stadium to the AONB.
3. Failed to have regard to the impact of the development on the existing gap between Falmer Village and the City of Brighton. Failed to mention this in his decision letter despite the fact that his first Inspector identified this as a relevant issue and stressed the importance of retaining a gap of countryside between the built up edge of Brighton and the village of Falmer, so as to prevent creeping development into rural surroundings and to preserve Falmer’s distinct character and separate identity.
4. Failed to have regard to the development’s conflict with the policies in the statutory development plan which prevents the erosion of strategic and other important gaps between settlements.
5. Failed to apply correctly his own policy guidance in PPS7 by wrongly characterising the development as amounting to a matter of national interest, and thus giving it disproportionate weight in balancing it against the harm caused by the development to the AONB. Wrongly concluded that because a particular development would support regeneration, which is an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest.
6. Failed to apply the appropriate test for determining whether a suitable alternative site was available (which is whether there is a “realistic possibility” of a better site coming forward) by setting too high a threshold for evaluating alternative sites.
7. Failed to take account of other recent cases relating to large scale development in the AONB in which he agreed that it was not possible, at that time, to determine whether other alternative projects would be approved or would proceed, but that there was no reason to rule them out as credible alternative proposals.
8. Failed to take account of the fact that part of the development site is included within the land designated to be included within the National Park and failed to deal with the effect of the development on the proposed National Park. Failed to deal with the parties’ arguments/evidence on this issue, despite having expressly said he wanted to hear these.
9. Wrongly concluded that in most views only the roof of the stadium would be the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. Wrongly contradicted (without giving reasons) the conclusion of his first Inspector who said that:
a. the stadium as a whole would be highly visible and it was only from Stanmer Park, to the north-west, that views would be limited to the roof structure;
b. the coach and bus interchange would be just as visible as the stadium site from most nearby vantage points;
c. the coach and bus interchange would be seen from medium-distance locations on higher ground as a further encroachment of the built-up area into this sensitive stretch of open downland separating Brighton from Falmer;
10. Contrary to the Inquiries Procedure Rules, contradicted his first Inspector’s finding of fact on the issue of visibility without giving any reasons and without advising the Claimants of that disagreement and offering them the opportunity to comment on it.
11. Wrongly concluded that a stadium development at Sheepcote Valley would lead to severe overcrowding on the streets of Brighton’s centre posing serious problems in terms of congestion, crowd control and policing, when there was no evidence on which he could reasonably reach that conclusion. Wrongly took into account new evidence to which the Claimants did not have the opportunity of responding.
12. Misunderstood and failed to have regard to his first Inspector’s findings that the formation of the new link road and the scale of its use by stadium-related traffic would have an unacceptable impact on the historic Stanmer Park and would not have the effect of protecting the historic park.
13. Wrongly and unreasonably attached “very limited weight” to his first Inspector’s assessment of alternative sites, in which the first Inspector concluded that there were other potential sites outside the AONB which could be developed for the stadium.
Date: Tuesday 6 June 2006
PR 673
THE FALMER DECISION - THE JOINT CHALLENGE GOES ON
John Prescott’s discredited decision on the proposed Stadium at Falmer will be reviewed in the High Court. Government lawyers have refused to give a clear assurance that all the points in the Council’s legal challenge will be dealt with by the Government when the matter goes back to the new Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, for re-determination.
Falmer Parish Council, the South Downs Society and the Cabinet of Lewes District Council have unanimously decided that their joint legal challenge should proceed to Court. The first Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the applications at Falmer reported to John Prescott that the case against building the Stadium at Falmer was “overwhelming”. John Prescott disregarded his own inspector’s conclusion when he issued his decision.
Lead councillor for Planning Neil Commin said:
“We know that the High Court will quash the decision because the Government’s lawyers have admitted it was flawed on one key point, which Mr Prescott then uses repeatedly to justify his decision. But they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision. Anyone who looks objectively at John Prescott’s handling of these applications would have serious misgivings about the reasons behind that refusal to deal with the points in the challenge.
John Prescott’s decision contained a number of fundamental flaws. The High Court will look at each of the points in our challenge and decide whether or not they are justifiable. That means the issues will be sorted out once and for all instead of lingering on. That will be to the benefit of all the parties involved.
The costs for the hearing will be met by the Government, because their lawyers have admitted Mr. Prescott’s decision to be fatally flawed. Neither the Government or Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club have put in any evidence to court to counter the District Council’s challenge. Brighton and Hove City Council put in evidence confirming the mistake made by John Prescott over the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. The Council will continue to press for the earliest possible date for the case to be heard at the High Court”.
Ends/
Note to Editors:
A summary of the main flaws in John Prescott’s decision is set out below. The challenge in the High court will cover all of these points. Lawyers for the government have conceded that John Prescott’s decision on the first point was wrong. They will not admit that his decision on any of the other points was wrong.
1. Wrongly concluded that the application site for the stadium is located within the boundary of the built up area of the City of Brighton as identified by the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which was adopted in July 2005. The mistake was critical to his reasoning for attaching less weight than did his first Inspector to the considerable harm that the development would cause to the AONB.
2. Failed to deal with his first Inspector’s conclusions that the coach and bus interchange part of the development, which would fall outside of the built-up area boundary, would add appreciably to the harm caused by the stadium to the AONB.
3. Failed to have regard to the impact of the development on the existing gap between Falmer Village and the City of Brighton. Failed to mention this in his decision letter despite the fact that his first Inspector identified this as a relevant issue and stressed the importance of retaining a gap of countryside between the built up edge of Brighton and the village of Falmer, so as to prevent creeping development into rural surroundings and to preserve Falmer’s distinct character and separate identity.
4. Failed to have regard to the development’s conflict with the policies in the statutory development plan which prevents the erosion of strategic and other important gaps between settlements.
5. Failed to apply correctly his own policy guidance in PPS7 by wrongly characterising the development as amounting to a matter of national interest, and thus giving it disproportionate weight in balancing it against the harm caused by the development to the AONB. Wrongly concluded that because a particular development would support regeneration, which is an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest.
6. Failed to apply the appropriate test for determining whether a suitable alternative site was available (which is whether there is a “realistic possibility” of a better site coming forward) by setting too high a threshold for evaluating alternative sites.
7. Failed to take account of other recent cases relating to large scale development in the AONB in which he agreed that it was not possible, at that time, to determine whether other alternative projects would be approved or would proceed, but that there was no reason to rule them out as credible alternative proposals.
8. Failed to take account of the fact that part of the development site is included within the land designated to be included within the National Park and failed to deal with the effect of the development on the proposed National Park. Failed to deal with the parties’ arguments/evidence on this issue, despite having expressly said he wanted to hear these.
9. Wrongly concluded that in most views only the roof of the stadium would be the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. Wrongly contradicted (without giving reasons) the conclusion of his first Inspector who said that:
a. the stadium as a whole would be highly visible and it was only from Stanmer Park, to the north-west, that views would be limited to the roof structure;
b. the coach and bus interchange would be just as visible as the stadium site from most nearby vantage points;
c. the coach and bus interchange would be seen from medium-distance locations on higher ground as a further encroachment of the built-up area into this sensitive stretch of open downland separating Brighton from Falmer;
10. Contrary to the Inquiries Procedure Rules, contradicted his first Inspector’s finding of fact on the issue of visibility without giving any reasons and without advising the Claimants of that disagreement and offering them the opportunity to comment on it.
11. Wrongly concluded that a stadium development at Sheepcote Valley would lead to severe overcrowding on the streets of Brighton’s centre posing serious problems in terms of congestion, crowd control and policing, when there was no evidence on which he could reasonably reach that conclusion. Wrongly took into account new evidence to which the Claimants did not have the opportunity of responding.
12. Misunderstood and failed to have regard to his first Inspector’s findings that the formation of the new link road and the scale of its use by stadium-related traffic would have an unacceptable impact on the historic Stanmer Park and would not have the effect of protecting the historic park.
13. Wrongly and unreasonably attached “very limited weight” to his first Inspector’s assessment of alternative sites, in which the first Inspector concluded that there were other potential sites outside the AONB which could be developed for the stadium.
Curious Orange said:
Sorry to say I have an uneasy feeling about what the High Court will do. We have been led down the garden path at every stage of this process by folk being too optimistic at outcomes.
Remember, the High Court will have before them 2 Planning Inspector's reports which say Falmer is quite unsuitable and 1 Inspector's report that says there is nowhere else. Prescott ignores the first 2 and says Falmer it is but then makes a procedural mistake. Any one of the remaining 12 points raised by Lewescould find favour with the Court. I know the Top Government Legal bod has said they are rubbish but that's an opinion not Fact and I for one would not put all my faith on a Government lawyer or civil servant to get anything right these days.
Sorry to be so defeatist but events of the past 7 or 8 years have shown it wise to b somewhat cautious.
Last edited:
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
f***ing wankers. The first inspector's decision was deeply flawed you inbred bunch of muppets.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
This bit of that Press Release is total and utter cock:-
The government's lawyers have not used phrases such as "fatally flawed". It's a technical error, which simply needs correction when the revised decision letter is issued.
And of course the Government and the Football Club haven't "put in any evidence to court". The Government have made an offer to LDC to avoid the need for the High Court to consider any evidence from anyone. LDC have simply rejected that offer.
When the case gets to Court, the best that LDC can hope for is that the decision will be quashed and Ruth Kelly will be asked to reconsider it. Since that is precisely what has been offered by the government already, it is certain that legal costs will mount unnecessarily - solely from the action of LDC.
I expect all the parties will claim those costs from LDC.
They are recklessly wasting Council Tax Payers' money in pursuing this further.
The government's lawyers have not used phrases such as "fatally flawed". It's a technical error, which simply needs correction when the revised decision letter is issued.
And of course the Government and the Football Club haven't "put in any evidence to court". The Government have made an offer to LDC to avoid the need for the High Court to consider any evidence from anyone. LDC have simply rejected that offer.
When the case gets to Court, the best that LDC can hope for is that the decision will be quashed and Ruth Kelly will be asked to reconsider it. Since that is precisely what has been offered by the government already, it is certain that legal costs will mount unnecessarily - solely from the action of LDC.
I expect all the parties will claim those costs from LDC.
They are recklessly wasting Council Tax Payers' money in pursuing this further.
Last edited:
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
Lets have a communist revolution. Then the stadium will HAVE TO be built.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Gaffer said:
I don't see how the report into the local plan is relevant anymore. The City Council, as is their right, rejected its conclusion regarding the Falmer site.
Which just leaves the reports directly related to the application. The first of these recommended against because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that there wasn't anywhere else more suitable. The second proved that there really wasn't - meaning that the AONB protection could be set aside in the National Interest.
Don't be too pessimistic Gaffer, just cautiously optomistic.
Last edited:
Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,122
They seem to love the phrase "fatally flawed". They have used it in previous press realeases in a way which makes it look like they are quoting directly from the ODPM letter - which they are not.
As for the Government paying ALL the court costs to cover the review of all 16 points - yeah right
Prepare for a shock LDC!
What bunch of clowns are giving these people the legal advice?
As for the Government paying ALL the court costs to cover the review of all 16 points - yeah right
Prepare for a shock LDC!What bunch of clowns are giving these people the legal advice?
Rich onesSuperseagull said:They seem to love the phrase "fatally flawed". They have used it in previous press realeases in a way which makes it look like they are quoting directly from the ODPM letter - which they are not.
As for the Government paying ALL the court costs to cover the review of all 16 points - yeah right
What bunch of clowns are giving these people the legal advice?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Item 1 has been conceded.
Items 2 - 13 refer to matters that fall within the province of the Secretary of State's discretion and judgment.
Read my signature:-
“If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the ... Secretary of State” - House of Lords Judgement in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Court will not interfere in those matters.
And if anyone is wondering where I found that quote ... it was on the website of the firm of lawyers that are representing LDC in their Appeal.
Last edited:
London Irish
Well-known member
Annoying but hardly unexpected.
Delays are what Lewes are all about, it's a shame the incompetent ODPM officials/lawyers gave them a free one to begin with, but no great shakes in the long-run.
Delays are what Lewes are all about, it's a shame the incompetent ODPM officials/lawyers gave them a free one to begin with, but no great shakes in the long-run.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
The thing that confuses me is
"But they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision. "
Isn't that exactly what the Government did say they would do?
"But they refused our reasonable request to guarantee that all of the other points in the challenge will be dealt with by the Government when it reconsiders the decision. "
Isn't that exactly what the Government did say they would do?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Yes. Commin is lying.Hatterlovesbrighton said:
Last edited:
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Can't believe they are persisting with number 8!! What National Park? And where in the letter re-opening the Inquiry did it say that the effects of a stadium on the proposed National Park would be considered? (nowhere is the answer to that one, it did ask about the effects of the National Park on the stadium however - no different to an AONB is the answer)