South Downs Joint Committee

[The Large One]

They were formerly known as the South Downs Conservation Board. These are one of the players who have chipped in with Lewes District Council to challenge Prescott's decision into Falmer. Their report from their Executive Committee meeting on December 13 makes for mildly interesting reading. Here are one or two extracts...

5.4 Your officers consider that the decision raises a number of nationally important planning issues that should be challenged and/or clarified, so that the Government’s view on major developments in AONBs and National Park can be clearly understood. As the AONB organisation for the Sussex Downs AONB (and East Hampshire AONB), the Joint Committee will be reasonably expected to pursue this issue and seek clarity because of the implications for other development within the South Downs. Even if the legal challenge is not successful, the Joint Committee should feel that it had fulfilled its responsibilities to the AONB in achieving greater clarity of the planning issues. If the challenge is successful and the matter is remitted back to the first Secretary of State for redetermination it is acknowledged that he may still grant permission but his reasoning would be clarified.
.
5.6 There is also a need to consider the value of committing expenditure to challenging a planning decision of the First Secretary of State and the potential difficulty this might cause in terms of funding from local authority partners and the need to work closely with central government towards a successor body.


From those two paragraphs, I would ascertain that they feel obliged to join a challenge, rather than having a real conviction that they will win the case outright. They question the value in committing funds to this, as they believe they wouldn't see them again. In short, they are only putting funds up for this to seek clarification of Prescott's letter in AONB matter, not for the sake of honestly believing Prescott will change his mind.

They do not appear overly committed to this particular cause.

 

[Yorkie]

I did read somewhere else that LDC felt that they had to seek a JR on a matter of principle rather than actually thinking that they would win.

 

[The Large One]

I did read somewhere else that LDC felt that they had to seek a JR on a matter of principle rather than actually thinking that they would win.

And spending in excess of 100 grand doing it?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

But it's only their Council Tax Payers money - not their own.

It would have been different then methinks

 

[Screaming J]

Mods:-

I am trying to show a link to the previous thread on this issue but I'm not sure I've done it right:-


http://85.234.132.19/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63986


Ooh! Perhaps I have!

 

[sullyupthewing]

Whilst we are on the subject of JR when do we find out who the beak will be.
Lets hope he is not a hunt loving waxed Barbour jacket wearing at weekends type of judge.

 

[Screaming J]

Whilst we are on the subject of JR when do we find out who the beak will be.
Lets hope he is not a hunt loving waxed Barbour jacket wearing at weekends type of judge.

That doesn't matter. He is not there to preside over whether Pressa was right or not; just whether or not he complied with the law in making his decsions, ie that he considered all the evidence.

 

[sullyupthewing]

That doesn't matter. He is not there to preside over whether Pressa was right or not; just whether or not he complied with the law in making his decsions, ie that he considered all the evidence.

Well I hope you are correct, I dont like judges they always find me guilty.

 

[The Large One]

 

[Dave the OAP]

That is how I understand this process.

Its really nothing to do with us, its a spat between the secretary of state and LDC.

Assuming LDC lose, I am really sure the Government will be very happy to look at anything they submit in future in a favourable light......after all, this govt certainly do not give the impression they are vindictive..LOL

Also, with Mr baker making himself popular with Mr Prescott, it all bodes well for an interesting judgement


Baker=Belotti

 

[Faldo]

Perhaps I am getting soft in my old age, but reading TLOs post, it looks as though they are saying - 'fair enough. if we cant bloack the stadium we'd like re-assurances from the OPDM that this will not set a precedent so we can sleep safely at night knowing there will not be further developments in an apparant AONB'.

The principle is possibly quite valid - its just unfortunate for us that we are being held up as setting the precedent.

Unfortunately, the way LDC and Baker have gone about it is to attack the club directly and slyly.

To summarise - there is the makings of a good point behind all this. Its just that the stupidest people involved are the loudest mouthpieces....

Happy to be proved wrong, but thats how I read TLOs post.

 

[The Large One]

Perhaps I am getting soft in my old age, but reading TLOs post, it looks as though they are saying - 'fair enough. if we cant bloack the stadium we'd like re-assurances from the OPDM that this will not set a precedent so we can sleep safely at night knowing there will not be further developments in an apparant AONB'.

The principle is possibly quite valid - its just unfortunate for us that we are being held up as setting the precedent.

Unfortunately, the way LDC and Baker have gone about it is to attack the club directly and slyly.

To summarise - there is the makings of a good point behind all this. Its just that the stupidest people involved are the loudest mouthpieces....

Happy to be proved wrong, but thats how I read TLOs post.

I'd pretty much go along with that summary.

The tone of the report to their Executive Committee wasn't exactly one of outrage, more of disappointment. It does appear on certain levels that this Falmer decision may well be setting a precedent. SDJC are concerned, whereas Lewes are blabbing that it's wrong and illegal. Clarification is what is being sought from SDJC.

But as one wag put it, 'for f*** sake, if they want to see anything any clearer, go to Specsavers...'

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Perhaps I am getting soft in my old age, but reading TLOs post, it looks as though they are saying - 'fair enough. if we cant bloack the stadium we'd like re-assurances from the OPDM that this will not set a precedent so we can sleep safely at night knowing there will not be further developments in an apparant AONB'.

The principle is possibly quite valid - its just unfortunate for us that we are being held up as setting the precedent.

Unfortunately, the way LDC and Baker have gone about it is to attack the club directly and slyly.

To summarise - there is the makings of a good point behind all this. Its just that the stupidest people involved are the loudest mouthpieces....

Happy to be proved wrong, but thats how I read TLOs post.

That's how I read TLOs oringal post too - the committee are not against the club, not necessarily against building the stadium either, they just want clarification. the application could have been for anything and they would have behaved the same. Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.

 

[Easy 10]

Their main concern is that they don't want this setting any precedents for granting permission to build on AONB's - which is a fair enough principle in itself. However, having gone through 2 exhaustive public enquiries over the course of nearly 5 years, its pretty obvious that actually achieving permission to build on an AONB is not something that can be considered straightforward or easy (nor should it be). As we now know, its a hugely complex, expensive and time consuming process, and there are about a thousand hoops the club have had to jump through in putting this application together. This isn't a housing estate or a retail park that you see springing up all over the place. It is a unique development that has been exhaustively researched and painstakingly designed to blend in as much as is humanly possible with the environment.

Granting permission to build this on an AONB doesn't set any precedents at all - any application of this kind will stand or fall on its own individual merits, and in this case, the Government has agreed that the need for a community stadium for Brighton & Hove exceeds the environmental issues put against it.

 

[attila]

South Downs Joint Committee? Are they the NIMBY branch of the Legalise Cannabis Campaign? They are complete dopes, after all...

 

[B.W.]

I still don't understand how SDJC can justify 'throwing good money after bad' by supporting LDC's spurious JR with funds...

The hoops that ANY developer has to jump through to build on a designated AONB are clear to me...

 

[The Large One]

I still don't understand how SDJC can justify 'throwing good money after bad' by supporting LDC's spurious JR with funds...

The hoops that ANY developer has to jump through to build on a designated AONB are clear to me...

I think the 5 grand is a purely nominal token gesture. They've got to be seen to be promoting the environment, but I honestly don't think their hearts are in it. If they thought there was a real chance of a decision reversal, they'd be committing more funds.

 

[B.W.]

I think the 5 grand is a purely nominal token gesture. They've got to be seen to be promoting the environment, but I honestly don't think their hearts are in it. If they thought there was a real chance of a decision reversal, they'd be committing more funds.

I suppose so, but 5k is not to be sniffed at from where I am standing...

 

[TSB]

when will it go to court?

 

[sullyupthewing]

Nothing to do with setting precedents, they want the stadium stopped.

We have asked the Court to quash the decision made by Mr Prescott on 27 October 2005 and to send it back to him for reconsideration.