Jam The Man
Well-known member
Poster found on bulletin boardof Brighton & Hove Council Offices
Got this from a mate...Can you believe this tosh.. can you believe Brighton & Hove Council are allowing info to be in their building!?
STOP PRESS... turns out that it's a Unison bulletin board message. I'm in UNISON.. how very DARE they represent me!
Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to confirm the award of planning permission for Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club to build a new stadium in the village of Falmer. Lewes District Council is challenging the decision in the High Court. They will be supported there by several conservation bodies, and by the village parish council. Villagers will be required to pay £25 000 up-front for their share of the legal costs, and are urgently seeking donations. Please make cheques out to "Falmer and the South Downs Appeal", and send them to
Falmer and the South Downs Appeal
Falmer Parish Council
Falmer Parish hall
South Street
Falmer
Easy Sussex
BN1 9PQ
The parish council has said that cheque donations will be refunded if the challenge is successful (so write your name and address on the back).
There are many reasons why you should support the appeal. Here's a handful that influenced me.
Planning. Lewes DC say in their press release that the DPM's decision "conflicts with his own government's planning guidance... [and that] a number of important planning issues were either overlooked or not properly considered". In particular, the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (some on the pro-stadium case have argued that perhaps it shouldn't be; nevertheless, it is) and (partially) in the new South Downs National Park. The executive of the South Downs Joint Committee, commenting on the DPM's decision, said "the implications ... are very worrying for all organisations involved in caring for protected landscapes... [the government has] set aside strict national planning policies in favour of local considerations".
The Campaign to Protect Rural England puts it stronger: "... [the] transport interchange on land close to the proposed stadium site [will be] within the proposed boundary of the National Park and within the boundary of Lewes District Council. The proposed stadium site is within the boundary of the existing Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and immediately adjacent to the proposed National Park boundary. [...] Both National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty... [According to PPS7] development should not take place in these areas except in exceptional circumstances ... of national need ..." "Highest status" means exactly that; you cannot get more protected than Falmer. In planning terms, building there is equivalent to building in the middle of the Peak District or the New Forest.
The CPRE adds caustically: "The football club has limited its search for possible development sites to those... not considered suitable for development [and therefore whose price is low]. [...] If the proposed stadium is given the go-ahead, the planning system would effectively be subsidising the football club by relaxing clear planning policies by which everyone is expected to abide." It is interesting that the club has not attempted to get the site's protected status removed; that of course would push up the price of the land.
The planning implications were considered by two independent inspectors appointed by the DPM himself, the first of whom "recommended the Falmer stadium be rejected as unsuitable" and the second of whom "drop[ped] a massive bombshell in his report, ripping apart almost every claim made in support of [a stadium at] Falmer and recommending it be refused" (both quotes from the Albion-friendly Argus). Lewes DC again: "[local plan policies leaving Falmer protected] were endorsed by Government Inspectors through two Public Inquiries, leading to their formal adoption in March 2003. Therefore, they carry great weight in planning decisions.... In planning policy terms, the Football Club rely mainly on the draft planning policy put forward by Brighton & Hove City Council (SR25) for a football stadium at Village Way in [B&H's] Local Plan. This policy was roundly rejected by another Planning Inspector in January 2004, and was recommended to be struck out. Accordingly, it carries very little weight in planning decisions."
Conservation groups also oppose the new stadium because of the DPM's own principle that green-field sites should only ever be built on "in exceptional circumstances" and when brown-field sites are not available. I myself am surprised that we still build on green-field sites at all, for whatever reason; but, in any case, a football stadium is hardly exceptional, and there are brown-field sites available (they may be too expensive for the club, or not to their taste for other reasons, but that's irrelevant to the rules).
The transport concerns - one of the main reasons I personally oppose the stadium (I live in Woodingdean, and expect to be completely grid-locked in on match & special event days, as will Rottingdean, Ovingdean, Falmer, the Universities... - and anywhere east of Wilson Ave, really). Here's Lewes DC's Dereck Wade in his 2003 "proof" [that is, analysis or test] of the evidence: " ... [in] the Withdean data published by [B&H] City Council, only 43.7% use of sustainable transport was achieved against the original forecast target of 75% for the season 1999 to 2000.... This target [has] been reduced to 55% [but it still isn't being met, as evinced by the] fundamental breaching of the parking cordon around [Withdean] on match days... [Similarly, in the case of Falmer,] notwithstanding all the proposed measures aimed at discouraging the use of individual vehicles, ... a significant number of visitors and fans ... will travel by private car.... In this context, the traffic projections as contained in the [club's] Transport Assessment are fundamentally flawed, being based on predicted levels of 71% of non-car use and 29% by private car. But the actual usage at Withdean ... clearly indicates that the Assessment`s assumptions are ... over-optimistic ... I consider therefore that the sustainable transport choices promoted by the Club are no more than theoretical proposals as opposed to hard and fast guaranteed elements as part of their application ... a hope that fans coming to the Football Club and other [users] of the stadium will [not use their cars]." In short, wishful thinking - the club's philosophy ever since they sold their ground in Hove, I'd say.
The club has lost the planning argument. It would now be unjust for them to win by chicanery and electoral blackmail. The place to test the DPM's decision is the High Court, away from grimy everyday politics. If Albion are right, they have nothing to fear and legitimacy to gain from a further review. If they are afraid of this final step, it must be because in their hearts they know there has been something improper and ugly about the DPM's decision.
For the pro-Falmer case see: www.falmer.org.uk.
Got this from a mate...Can you believe this tosh.. can you believe Brighton & Hove Council are allowing info to be in their building!?
STOP PRESS... turns out that it's a Unison bulletin board message. I'm in UNISON.. how very DARE they represent me!
Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to confirm the award of planning permission for Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club to build a new stadium in the village of Falmer. Lewes District Council is challenging the decision in the High Court. They will be supported there by several conservation bodies, and by the village parish council. Villagers will be required to pay £25 000 up-front for their share of the legal costs, and are urgently seeking donations. Please make cheques out to "Falmer and the South Downs Appeal", and send them to
Falmer and the South Downs Appeal
Falmer Parish Council
Falmer Parish hall
South Street
Falmer
Easy Sussex
BN1 9PQ
The parish council has said that cheque donations will be refunded if the challenge is successful (so write your name and address on the back).
There are many reasons why you should support the appeal. Here's a handful that influenced me.
Planning. Lewes DC say in their press release that the DPM's decision "conflicts with his own government's planning guidance... [and that] a number of important planning issues were either overlooked or not properly considered". In particular, the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (some on the pro-stadium case have argued that perhaps it shouldn't be; nevertheless, it is) and (partially) in the new South Downs National Park. The executive of the South Downs Joint Committee, commenting on the DPM's decision, said "the implications ... are very worrying for all organisations involved in caring for protected landscapes... [the government has] set aside strict national planning policies in favour of local considerations".
The Campaign to Protect Rural England puts it stronger: "... [the] transport interchange on land close to the proposed stadium site [will be] within the proposed boundary of the National Park and within the boundary of Lewes District Council. The proposed stadium site is within the boundary of the existing Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and immediately adjacent to the proposed National Park boundary. [...] Both National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty... [According to PPS7] development should not take place in these areas except in exceptional circumstances ... of national need ..." "Highest status" means exactly that; you cannot get more protected than Falmer. In planning terms, building there is equivalent to building in the middle of the Peak District or the New Forest.
The CPRE adds caustically: "The football club has limited its search for possible development sites to those... not considered suitable for development [and therefore whose price is low]. [...] If the proposed stadium is given the go-ahead, the planning system would effectively be subsidising the football club by relaxing clear planning policies by which everyone is expected to abide." It is interesting that the club has not attempted to get the site's protected status removed; that of course would push up the price of the land.
The planning implications were considered by two independent inspectors appointed by the DPM himself, the first of whom "recommended the Falmer stadium be rejected as unsuitable" and the second of whom "drop[ped] a massive bombshell in his report, ripping apart almost every claim made in support of [a stadium at] Falmer and recommending it be refused" (both quotes from the Albion-friendly Argus). Lewes DC again: "[local plan policies leaving Falmer protected] were endorsed by Government Inspectors through two Public Inquiries, leading to their formal adoption in March 2003. Therefore, they carry great weight in planning decisions.... In planning policy terms, the Football Club rely mainly on the draft planning policy put forward by Brighton & Hove City Council (SR25) for a football stadium at Village Way in [B&H's] Local Plan. This policy was roundly rejected by another Planning Inspector in January 2004, and was recommended to be struck out. Accordingly, it carries very little weight in planning decisions."
Conservation groups also oppose the new stadium because of the DPM's own principle that green-field sites should only ever be built on "in exceptional circumstances" and when brown-field sites are not available. I myself am surprised that we still build on green-field sites at all, for whatever reason; but, in any case, a football stadium is hardly exceptional, and there are brown-field sites available (they may be too expensive for the club, or not to their taste for other reasons, but that's irrelevant to the rules).
The transport concerns - one of the main reasons I personally oppose the stadium (I live in Woodingdean, and expect to be completely grid-locked in on match & special event days, as will Rottingdean, Ovingdean, Falmer, the Universities... - and anywhere east of Wilson Ave, really). Here's Lewes DC's Dereck Wade in his 2003 "proof" [that is, analysis or test] of the evidence: " ... [in] the Withdean data published by [B&H] City Council, only 43.7% use of sustainable transport was achieved against the original forecast target of 75% for the season 1999 to 2000.... This target [has] been reduced to 55% [but it still isn't being met, as evinced by the] fundamental breaching of the parking cordon around [Withdean] on match days... [Similarly, in the case of Falmer,] notwithstanding all the proposed measures aimed at discouraging the use of individual vehicles, ... a significant number of visitors and fans ... will travel by private car.... In this context, the traffic projections as contained in the [club's] Transport Assessment are fundamentally flawed, being based on predicted levels of 71% of non-car use and 29% by private car. But the actual usage at Withdean ... clearly indicates that the Assessment`s assumptions are ... over-optimistic ... I consider therefore that the sustainable transport choices promoted by the Club are no more than theoretical proposals as opposed to hard and fast guaranteed elements as part of their application ... a hope that fans coming to the Football Club and other [users] of the stadium will [not use their cars]." In short, wishful thinking - the club's philosophy ever since they sold their ground in Hove, I'd say.
The club has lost the planning argument. It would now be unjust for them to win by chicanery and electoral blackmail. The place to test the DPM's decision is the High Court, away from grimy everyday politics. If Albion are right, they have nothing to fear and legitimacy to gain from a further review. If they are afraid of this final step, it must be because in their hearts they know there has been something improper and ugly about the DPM's decision.
For the pro-Falmer case see: www.falmer.org.uk.
Last edited:
