The CPRE gets a bit mixed up

[Gwylan]

The Campaign to Protect Rural England appears to be suffering from amnesia.

According to a BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3788901.stm), local councils should be given control over whether building schemes should be given the go-ahed in protected areas.

Let me get this right. This is the same CPRE that has protested against the stadium in Falmer after the local council gave it the go-ahead? Not much of a belief in giving local people a voice there.

 

[sully]

Lets just hope they gave that advice to Prescott, too.

Is it too late, Lord B to point out this statement from them to the DPM. After all, their representative is directly quoted thus:



Head of Rural Policy at the CPRE, Tom Oliver, said: "The government claims local landscape designations are preventing 'necessary' development.

"But they have offered no evidence of this, which begs the question: Who should be deciding local planning issues - the locally elected council, which knows its patch, or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in Whitehall?"




Clearly, our local planning department know their patch best and have said we should have a stadium at Falmer. Thank you for your assistance CPRE!

 

[Gwylan]

I think this shows what wankers the CPRE are. They're nothing to do with giving local people a voice or preserving rural England, but are a pressure group for rich property owners.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Why not email the chairman, Sir Max Hastings, and tell him this?

info@cpre.org.uk

Or fax 020 7981 2899

 

[Yorkie]

I saw Tom Oliver (representing the CPRE) being interviewed on Breakfast tv, just outside Aylesbury this morning, and he mentioned the same thing.

We picked up on that comment too.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Dear CPRE,

I'm rather curious about a couple of your recent public statements. On BBC
Online today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3788901.stm) you assert the
right of local councils to make planning decisions about sensitive parts of
the countryside.

Yet in the Times on June 5th, you protested against plans currently under
review by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to build a stadium for
Brighton and Hove Albion FC at Falmer. This plan was supported by the local
authority. It was also supported by more than sixty per cent of those who
voted in a local referendum on the issue.

Why are you so keen to see democracy prevail in some cases yet not in
others?

Yours faithfully

The Clown
Pevensey Bay.

 

[balloonboy]

Sorry for being dense here, but what LEGAL status does Hoile's report have at the mo? At some stage I assume that the draft Local Plan will be adopted - but in what form? Maybe these questions are irrelevant as far as the CPRE issue is concerned, but perhaps they would simply say that the Local Plan is still all up in the air, and that there are conflicting views. I am sorely tempted to write to the CPRE, but don't have the confidence that I understand the planning issues.

 

[whitelion]

Sorry for being dense here, but what LEGAL status does Hoile's report have at the mo? At some stage I assume that the draft Local Plan will be adopted - but in what form? Maybe these questions are irrelevant as far as the CPRE issue is concerned, but perhaps they would simply say that the Local Plan is still all up in the air, and that there are conflicting views. I am sorely tempted to write to the CPRE, but don't have the confidence that I understand the planning issues.

I'm led to believe that Hoile's report is advisory only.

 

[007]

:falmerspi

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Brighton and Hove City Council are legally required to take Hoile's report into account in moving towards adopting a new Local Plan.

Taking into account isn't the same thing as agreeing with it. However, if the Council wish to disagree with the Local Plan Inspector's Report, there are statutory procedures that they will have to go through.

I gather we have to "await further developments".

From the City Council's website:-

The Brighton & Hove Local Plan - the next stages

The Inspector's Report has now been received.

From receipt of the Report, the Council has 8 weeks in which to publish its plan to the general public and to send copies to adjoining planning authorities and various statutory bodies.

The Inpector's Report is available on the web and printed copies will be available in public libraries and City Direct offices shortly.

The City Council will then have to consider whether or not it accepts the Inspector's recommendations, in all, in part or not at all. If it does accept them, then it will need to set out the proposed modifications and advertise them for 6 weeks to allow for expressions of support and objections from the public to be recieved.

The City Council will then have to decide whether any objections should be taken to a further Inquiry or proceed to adoption.

 

[balloonboy]

Thanks Lord B - but surely more than 8 weeks have passed since Hoile's report was published - shouldn't the City Council have published it's "plan" by now - or have I misunderstood things?

 

[Yorkie]

I am sure I read somewhere recently that Bodfish had written to John Prescott about Hoiles report?

 

[Beach Hut]

FFS just tell us one way or the other - this is getting very tiresome now.

 

[Brovion]

FFS just tell us one way or the other - this is getting very tiresome now.

Surely you don't mean that? I'd rather be told 'Yes' at Christmas than 'No' now.

 

[sully]

I am sure I read somewhere recently that Bodfish had written to John Prescott about Hoiles report?

I'm absolutely certain that Bodfish did write to the DPM immediately the report was published, pointing out one or two inconsistencies not limited to the Falmer issue. The letter was published somewhere, coz I'm sure I read it. I guess it was in the Argus and someone posted it on here.

 

[sully]

Yep. Thread started by Yorkie!

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18275&highlight=bodfish

Also on the club's website:

http://www.seagulls.premiumtv.co.uk/page/StadiumDetail/0,,10433~493676,00.html

 

[Wardy]

It almost seems that they are making this drag on as long as posible in the hope that we go away. I still find it hard to understand how the views of a hand full of people can be taken over that of 60% of people that voted. I think we should be thankful to DK for continuing the fight, despite the many obsticals that have been put in his / our way. A lesser man might have given up ages ago.