Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Lewes D.C and South Downs Society to appeal
- Thread starter Jonny Byrnes Ego
- Start date
I'm no expert , just hated what this women said on scr , almost cocky in the fact they will appeal as building on aonb + sets precedent , I did read report and it did concern me a bit that the new aonb hasnt been determined and could be delayed until they decide new boundaries ie up for debate.
Maybe I'm wrong , just my interpratation, please someone who heard this as well re-assure me
I am 99% sure it doesn't set a precedent and even if it was in the proposed National Park (which is isn't) there is a precedent for building which was in Wales which Lord B has quoted before.
All of the AONB arguments have already been considered. They would only be relevant in a High Court Appeal if they had been ignored by those making the decision.
Right?
Right.
"She considers that there would be harm caused to the AONB from a development of this scale in this location, but concludes that the mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to moderate that harmful impact to a degree that is acceptable."
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
It is a shame that we can't guarantee a minimal impact of cars. 3,000 spaces(?) does seem like a lot of traffic to add to the area. It would certainly appease the opponents if we could guarantee much less that 3,000. The trouble is, there will be so many out of towners and a lack of facilities to park and ride from mid-sussex. Perhaps SEEDA could magic up a huge park and ride site outside of Brighton and Hove.
this is the very point that the horrible women from south downs was saying on the radio is up for debate.
Sullys posted the bit re the AONB, heres the bit re the National Park...
Blears has addressed that very issue in point at no. 11 (i believe from my yet unfinished reading of Lord B's post) She says this: "As no final decision on designation has yet been taken, and as the precise boundary may yet be subject to change, the Secretary of State has afforded the proposed National Park only limited weight as a material consideration in the determination of these applications."
Hazel Blears says that the development can cause harm to the aonb, but that the application has provided measures to mitigate that harm to an acceptable level...(just to paraphrase Sullys post again really)....so I can't see that being contentious really...
Lord Bracknell
On fire
3,000 cars WON'T be "traffic added to the area" to any extent that it will be noticed.
Cars parked at Sussex University will be served by a new access road that will be available seven days a week - thereby relieving the congestion that occurs EVERY WEEKDAY on the approach road to Falmer village.
And cars parked at Falmer High School will be served by new highway infrastructure that will be purpose-built to minimise the impact on existing traffic flows. Again, this infrastructure will be a permanent feature and will improve access to and from Southern Water (again, REDUCING traffic on the approach road to Falmer village). It will also enable Woollard's Field to be opened up for development, which will bring economic benefits to Moulsecoomb and the city generally.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
There is NO basis for delaying a decision until the AONB/National Park status of the stadium site has been settled. Planning law requires decisions to be taken on the facts that prevail at the time.
Hazel Blears has taken her YES decision in the full knowledge that the stadium site currently enjoys the protection of AONB status. What she has (correctly) said is that AONB status does NOT mean absolute protection from any development whatsoever - a point that I assume LDC understand, since they have recently granted planning permission for a wind turbine in the AONB near Glyndebourne.
supaseagull
Well-known member
Lord B, I guess you've read through the report a few times by now - do you think the decision is ok this time?
Last edited:
Dick Head.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It was interesting to hear Tony Allen on Southern Counties Radio this afternoon.
He's the DMH Stallard planning expert who has been leading on the application ever since it was first made (and the guy to whom the decision letter was addressed). His opinion was that there didn't seem to be any obvious weaknesses in the decision letter (unlike last time - when he, and other people, picked up very quickly on the error about the "built-up area").
But that isn't to say that one of our opponents might not pick up on something completely spurious and try to get it into the High Court. Even if an appeal is based on complete RUBBISH, it still has to be dealt with. And that can delay progress.
Jonny Byrnes Ego
Banned
- Sep 15, 2006
- 65
- Thread starter
- #38
We'll see, we'll see...............:yahoo:
supaseagull
Well-known member
Am I right in saying that if an appeal did take place then the appeal, if the judge did think the opponents of the stadium were just wasting time and had no real grounds for appeal, could in fact not even let it get to court?
Silly boy.