Lewes District Council and the Falmer Inquiry...

[Robot Chicken]

Shamelessly ripped from their website:

Falmer inquiry
Land North of Village Way Falmer. Application by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club for Community Stadium, coach and bus interchange and associated road works.

These applications are to be determined by the Secretary of State. They were the subject of a Public Inquiry which started in February 2003 and finished in October 2003. By a letter dated 26 July 2004 the Secretary of State gave notice that the Public Inquiry is to be re-opened.

The Inquiry will re-open at 10.00 am on Wednesday 2 February 2005 at the Council Chamber, Brighton Town Hall, Bartholomews, Brighton, BN1 1JA.

The Secretary of State has concluded that he should seek further evidence concerning the availability or otherwise of alternative sites, ie sites other than Falmer. The scope of those matters to be considered at the re-opened Inquiry is restricted to those matters set out in the Secretary of State's letter of 26 July 2004.

Anyone wanting to make representations on those matters should write to the Planning Inspectorate's Case Officer before 26 November 2004. The Case Officer is Ms Sian Evans, Room 3/17 Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 9PN. Please quote refs APP/P1425/V/02/1099113 and APP/Q1445/V/02/1097287

Falmer Inquiry - Proof of evidence (329.215kb, plan_falmer_inquiry_proofev.doc)

Inspector's conclusions on planning applications (251.637kb, plan_falmer_report.pdf)

26 July 2004: Letter from Secretary of State - public inquiry to be re-opened (134.356kb, plan_falmerinquiry_ODPMletter_040726.pdf)

Reopening of the Falmer Inquiry

Proof of Evidence - Dereck Wade (631.899kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev.pdf)

Proof of Evidence - Dereck Wade (117.247kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev.doc)

Appendices Content (546.18kb, plan_falmer_reopened_app_content.pdf)

Appendices Content (45.055kb, plan_falmer_reopened_app_content.doc)

Appendix 2 of Dereck Wade's Proof (389.526kb, plan_falmer_reopened_app2.pdf)

Proof of Evidence - James Woodrough (252.145kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_jw.pdf)

Annexes to James Woodrough's Proof (536.652kb, plan_falmer_reopened_jw_app_ab.pdf)

Proof of Evidence - Tony Harrision (264.657kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_th.pdf)

Proof of Evidence - James Woodrough - Fig 2.1 (587.263kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_th21.doc)

Proof of Evidence - James Woodrough - Fig 3.1 (214.527kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_th3.doc)

Proof of Evidence - Tony Harrision - Fig 3.3 (27.135kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_th33.xls)

Proof of Evidence - James Woodrough - Fig 4.1 (223.231kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_th41.doc)

Proof of Evidence - Tony Harrision - Fig 4.3 (27.135kb, plan_falmer_reopened_proofev_th33.xls)

 

[Robot Chicken]

Some interesting stuff amongst all that.

 

[ShorehamGull]

I will have a good read through it all tomorrow

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well, I've just spent 45 minutes perusing several of those documents, and it's not pleasant reading.

Effectively these reports say Toads Hole Valley and Sheepcote Valley are better sites where the stadium can be built more cheaply.

However, the conclusions that many fans will be prepared to walk 6 to 8 kilometres to the ground, or walk 35 mins to an hour to catch a train home are just bollocks.

The key to the issue is the impact having the stadium at Falmer will have on the Falmer village residents, not whether it is actually feasible to build it.

 

[Robot Chicken]

The club can save £7,600,000 by building on Toad's Hole Valley....

"In summary the additional cost of car parking and infrastructure is therefore substantially less than the premium incurred at Falmer associated with limiting the visual impact at that location."

"In conclusion there are no unaffordable development costs associated with a stadium at Toad's Hole Valley subject to the land aquisition cost"

Does anyone know how much it would cost to aquire the land at Toad's Hole Valley? My fear is that the anti-Falmer brigade could prove that THV is cheaper than Falmer.

 

[perseus]

Reads plausible rather than realistic.

The weak points of Toad's Hole are the cost of the roads infrastructure (£2 million a kilometre single carriageway) which are excluded. Also, if the owner was willing to sell they would have said.

Toad's Hole is currently AONB just like Falmer.

Given three sites, one with sustainable transport provisions (19% by train) and the other two without, which one would be sensible? Falmer.

 

[beorhthelm]

Does anyone know how much it would cost to aquire the land at Toad's Hole Valley? My fear is that the anti-Falmer brigade could prove that THV is cheaper than Falmer.

Thats just it, as i understand it the owner simply wont sell, see's the land as his little nature reserve. Only way would be if the council compulsary (sp?) purchased, but they'd never be able to justify that for a football ground (the site is supposedly earmarked for commercial/light industy if they did go down this road).

It is a non starter, and it beggers belief that the resources of Lewes District Council can not muster the intelligence to understand this, similar to those who propose the Greyhound Stadium or Brighton Station. Ownership or the potential aquisition of any site is a fairly important matter.

 

[Yorkie]

I thought the land at Falmer was being given to the club by the council so how could buying land at Toad's Hall be cheaper?

 

[The Large One]

I haven't read those PDFs.

However, the bit about the fans walking 6-8km came from the disturbed mind of John Collyer. There is, of course, no evidence to support this. A few may be prepared to do this - the vast majority are not.

However, the main problem with Lewes' case appears to be that they still believe, and indeed are still DEMANDING that Hoile's and Collyer's reports be binding (mainly because they come down on their side). However, in re-opening the Inquiry, it is clear that Prescott has rejected them, which is something that has always been within his power - Lewes just haven't cottoned on to that yet.

One of the other points that Lewes DC is making clear is that it holds little store the concept of sustainable public transport. If any of their proposals don't match up to the government policy on this, Prescott will reject it.

Yorkie, you are right. The city council's contribution to the stadium is in non-cash terms. They have made the land available to the Albion. Of course, on the continent, many local authorities would be footing a fair chunk of the bill as well - but that just doesn't happen here.

As I understand it, the landowner of Toad's Hole has said he has no intention of selling. I don't know whether he is due to stand up at the Inquiry to say so, or whether a letter stating his intentions will be presented. Even if he does sell, the land would cost a fortune.

 

[perseus]

What I really meant to say. Lewes Council actually paid out money for that load of crap!

The arrogant tosspot must have been briefed to write any amount of crap down to cloud the issues.

But that is what the reconvened Public Inquiry is about. The Inspector will not be able to recommend an alternative site because it would prejudice another Planning Permission.

The Public Inquiry is about Falmer and that is it.

However, the Inspector and Prescott can still refuse Falmer without recommending another site.

 

[Halftime Oranges]

Downloaded all of them lets go

 

[The Wookiee]

By the time I have read through that lot, we should be in our new stadium!!

Also does anybody know if the new stadium has sufficient access for the elderly?

I ask because at the age of 33 now, by the time we are in our stadium that will be my main concern!!

 

[perseus]

The Albion stadium was designed before electric buggies. There is no special electric buggy provision for the elderly or not so fit.

No electric buggy race tracks installed (unless this is the cycle track). Newer buggies for faster speeds and inclines and mowing down pedestrians.

 

[The Large One]

But that is what the reconvened Public Inquiry is about. The Inspector will not be able to recommend an alternative site because it would prejudice another Planning Permission.

The Public Inquiry is about Falmer and that is it.

However, the Inspector and Prescott can still refuse Falmer without recommending another site.

f*** SAKE. You really are not at the races, are you Judas? The Public Inquiry is being used to answer the questions Prescott asked in the letter announcing this Inquiry. The Inspector re-confirmed this yesterday.

It will not prejudice a planning application (get your phrases right), it will influence it. That is the idea behind it. And this part of the Inquiry is about everywhere EXCEPT Falmer.

Also, Prescott has recognised the need for a 22,000 capacity stadium in Brighton & Hove; it's purely a case of where. That is a fact. If not Falmer, then it will be somewhere else. But it will NOT be 'nowhere'.

Now f*** off until the Inquiry has finished you treacherous turd.

 

[Easy 10]

But that is what the reconvened Public Inquiry is about. The Inspector will not be able to recommend an alternative site because it would prejudice another Planning Permission.

The Public Inquiry is about Falmer and that is it.

The current inspector will not be recommending anything full stop. He has already said that himself. He's overseeing the proceedings and presenting a more detailed report on the relative merits of the alternate sites, as a supplement to the original Inquiry - it has nothing to do with "prejudicing" other planning permissions (whatever you mean by that).

The reconvened public inquiry isn't about Falmer either - that battle has already been won. It is about the alternative sites, and whether any of them is SUPERIOR to Falmer.

 

[Easy 10]

Tch, already covered (more aggressively) by TLO.

 

[The Large One]

The reconvened public inquiry isn't about Falmer either - that battle has already been won. It is about the alternative sites, and whether any of them is SUPERIOR to Falmer.

Not quite 'superior'. The buzzwords are 'suitable' and 'available'. Suitable covers a multitude of sins, including cost in comparison to Falmer, transport, environment, safety etc. Available speaks for itself, and therefore writes off Brighton Station, Coral's, Shoreham Harbour (although Lewes DC, Falmer PC and the Sussex Downsmen haven't cottoned on to that yet).

 

[Easy 10]

Not quite 'superior'. The buzzwords are 'suitable' and 'available'

Is that a definate TLO ? Can I call a stewards inquiry on that ? (ie Lord B)....? I've been reading so much gumph over the last few months on this god-forsaken process, but I could have sworn that the thrust of this reconvened inquiry was to ascertain whether any of the alternative sites are SUPERIOR (or, if you like, "more suitable" to Falmer in terms of government planning requirements), thereby acknowledging that IF no other site is decreed superior to Falmer, then in a nutshell, we get Falmer.

That was my understanding on the whole basis of this reconvened Inquiry anyway. Does anyone have that letter from the ODPM from last July which annouced the reopening of the Inquiry ?

 

[Marc]

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0184

there ya go Easy

Link to the letter is down the bottom

 

[Robot Chicken]

See my first posting above...

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/plan_falmerinquiry_ODPMletter_040726.pdf