The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

[bhafc99]

Apart from the delay - which is potentially VERY serious - I think it is.

You mean the delay given to LDC to compile new 'evidence'? Do you mean it's serious because it could take us into a General Election period?

 

[BensGrandad]

As I mentioned in another thread people like myself travelling from anywhere north of the A27 are going to go via Falmer to Rottingdean road with that dreadful right rturn at the The Downs Public House which will cause immense problems and congestion, it is already a nightmare during normal times.

Should we write and tell her or leave it to the club and Falmer for All etc.

 

[Collar Feeler]

Great work LB! If you ever need a friendly copper for advice you know where to find me

It's people like you that keep the momentum going and spirits up re: Falmer

 

[tedebear]

Because there's only one logical route to Sheepcote for anyone travelling from east or west on the A27. And that's the route through Falmer that is...

Made me smile, that did!

 

[Lammy]

Coming from Newhaven I'd probably ATTEMPT to go down the A259 to Sheepcote. After trying that once and realising that it is infact IMPASSABLE I would go on the C7 to Kingston, Down the A27 to FALMER, join a queue of traffic (probably backed up onto the A27), passing the pond I would be able to leave my car and take a piss and return without feeling in danger of holding anyone up. I would then park on the streets near Shepcote. If I could.

If the Stadium was at Falmer I would take the train to Lewes, get my pert arse into the Gardeners for a bit of throat oil then onto Falmer on the train. I doubt I'd even see the village.

 

[Brovion]

Coming from Newhaven I'd probably ATTEMPT to go down the A259 to Sheepcote. After trying that once and realising that it is infact IMPASSABLE I would go on the C7 to Kingston, Down the A27 to FALMER, join a queue of traffic (probably backed up onto the A27), passing the pond I would be able to leave my car and take a piss and return without feeling in danger of holding anyone up. I would then park on the streets near Shepcote. If I could.

If the Stadium was at Falmer I would take the train to Lewes, get my pert arse into the Gardeners for a bit of throat oil then onto Falmer on the train. I doubt I'd even see the village.

All very funny but it will never happen. The reason LDC are proposing Sheepcote is because they already know we'll NEVER get planning permission for it - they may as well suggest we build it at Devil's Dyke.

It's just a useful tool for them to bash the Falmer application, that's all.

 

[Lammy]

All very funny but it will never happen. The reason LDC are proposing Sheepcote is because they already know we'll NEVER get planning permission for it - they may as well suggest we build it at Devil's Dyke.

It's just a useful tool for them to bash the Falmer application, that's all.

But I really wanted to piss in their pond!

 

[The Oldman]

What seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants is that the consultant mentioned in paragraph 10.46 had been engaged by the promoters of an alternative site, who had a vested interest in rubbishing the expertise of the Club's transport consultant and the City Council's transport consultant, not because of anything they had to say about Sheepcote Valley or Falmer, but because they had concluded that Toads Hole Valley was unsuitable on traffic grounds. Why on earth his opinion should be given any weight at all escapes me completely - particularly since his performance at the Inquiry was, quite frankly, pathetic.

ion.

Ed this has been puzzling me. In the end I put it down to a civil servant not fully understanding all that has gone on. and mixing up his consultants. Perhaps the same one who wrote that the whole site was in Brighton!

On the other hand could it be that Lewes DC highlighted this in their submission to Ms Kelly ? Whatever I think you know better than most that you can usually brief a consultant in such a way that he will find "facts" to support your desired outcome. It's then a case of whether those conclusions stand up to scrutiny which makes me fear that Ms Kelly will order a new Inquiry to settle the Falmer v Waterhall debate.

I still think this week has seen a real dent in our hopes of getting out of Withdean for the forseeable future.

 

[Yoda]

Make's good reading Ed. Perhaps we could PROVE to LDC how much traffic problems there would be by all driving to SCV and aiming to arrive at the same time.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Perhaps we could PROVE to LDC how much traffic problems there would be by all driving to SCV and aiming to arrive at the same time.

That's actually a FANTASTIC idea. Is it doable?

 

[The Auditor]

Make's good reading Ed. Perhaps we could PROVE to LDC how much traffic problems there would be by all driving to SCV and aiming to arrive at the same time.

count me in

 

[Lammy]

count me in

I'm up for this.

How about the saturday before Xmas, everyone to get there AND PARK by 3:00pm?

 

[Biscuit]

This is all well and good but will someone tell me what the hell is going to happen to the BATS?!?

 

[jakes right boot]

Make's good reading Ed. Perhaps we could PROVE to LDC how much traffic problems there would be by all driving to SCV and aiming to arrive at the same time.

I like the sound of that. Maybe when the Albion are away to Oldham?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants is that the consultant mentioned in paragraph 10.46 had been engaged by the promoters of an alternative site, who had a vested interest in rubbishing the expertise of the Club's transport consultant and the City Council's transport consultant, not because of anything they had to say about Sheepcote Valley or Falmer, but because they had concluded that Toads Hole Valley was unsuitable on traffic grounds. Why on earth his opinion should be given any weight at all escapes me completely - particularly since his performance at the Inquiry was, quite frankly, pathetic.

More importantly ... no convincing evidence was produced by Lewes District Council to counter the transport evidence of the Club or the City Council. Para 10.158 of Brier's Report makes this very clear.

None of this seriously questions the quality of the Club's case against Sheepcote Valley. All that LDC are being invited to show now is that serious traffic congestion associated with a stadium at Sheepcote Valley CAN be overcome.

With respect Lord B, it doesn't matter two hoots 'what seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants...'. Looks for all the world like the cicil servants/Ruth Kelly have already formed the opinion that Sheepcote Valley needs a closer looking at. Which means we can more likely than not look forward to another three years in a formal talking shop discussing the relative merits of Sheepcote Valley and Falmer. Again. Then another nine months waiting for the verdict. Then another year of objections. Sorry to appear negative about it, but it's shaping up for another long haul and it's just so damn depressing.

 

[Beach Hut]

I am so depressed about this I am afraid it hurts now really badly.

We appear to take a few steps forward but then several back each time this happens.

The longer the delay the more serious is becomes for the club to continue to trade.

I really hope Junior and Mini have a BHAFC to support when they reach my age

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

With respect Lord B, it doesn't matter two hoots 'what seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants...'. Looks for all the world like the cicil servants/Ruth Kelly have already formed the opinion that Sheepcote Valley needs a closer looking at. Which means we can more likely than not look forward to another three years in a formal talking shop discussing the relative merits of Sheepcote Valley and Falmer. Again. Then another nine months waiting for the verdict. Then another year of objections. Sorry to appear negative about it, but it's shaping up for another long haul and it's just so damn depressing.

Don't get me wrong, Mr Hark.

I'm as angry as you are about the delay.

The thing to cling on to is that, however long it takes, it'll be Falmer - and that will be quicker than any alternative.

The bit of the correspondence I haven't yet quoted gives us much more grounds to be cheerful.

LDC wrote to Ruth Kelly's department on 21 November, seeking clarification of something that the DCLG had written the previous day:-

In paragraph 3b you [the DCLG] set out three bullet points as follows:

"+ any national considerations
+ the need for regeneration
+ the impact of permitting the proposed development, or refusing it, upon the local economy"

We can see where the first and third of these bullet points have come from in that they are lifted directly from paragraph 22 (i) of PPS7 [the statement of government planning policy on development in rural areas and AONBs]. We do not know where the second bullet point ie "the need for regeneration" comes from. It forms no part of the public interest test set out in PPS7. So why is it included here?

The answer from Ruth Kelly's department was this:-

The need for regeneration is a matter on which the Secretary of State has asked parties to make representations. While not mentioned in paragraph 22 of PPS7, regeneration and sustainable economic growth are mentioned in the list of the Government's Objectives and in the section "Sustainable Rural Communities, Economic Development and Services". The regeneration benefits of the proposeal were also a matter referred to in your authority's [ie LDC's] claim to quash the original decision on this case, and are a matter on which the Secretary of State would like to see more information.

In other words ... Ruth Kelly's people are telling LDC that the council don't understand the planning process and that the undoubted regeneration benefits of Falmer ARE a factor that can and will influence Ruth Kelly's decision.

Which is very good news.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Re: Re: Re: The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

Don't get me wrong, Mr Hark.

I'm as angry as you are about the delay.

The thing to cling on to is that, however long it takes, it'll be Falmer - and that will be quicker than any alternative.

The bit of the correspondence I haven't yet quoted gives us much more grounds to be cheerful.

LDC wrote to Ruth Kelly's department on 21 November, seeking clarification of something that the DCLG had written the previous day:-

In paragraph 3b you [the DCLG] set out three bullet points as follows:

"+ any national considerations
+ the need for regeneration
+ the impact of permitting the proposed development, or refusing it, upon the local economy"

We can see where the first and third of these bullet points have come from in that they are lifted directly from paragraph 22 (i) of PPS7 [the statement of government planning policy on development in rural areas and AONBs]. We do not know where the second bullet point ie "the need for regeneration" comes from. It forms no part of the public interest test set out in PPS7. So why is it included here?

The answer from Ruth Kelly's department was this:-

The need for regeneration is a matter on which the Secretary of State has asked parties to make representations. While not mentioned in paragraph 22 of PPS7, regeneration and sustainable economic growth are mentioned in the list of the Government's Objectives and in the section "Sustainable Rural Communities, Economic Development and Services". The regeneration benefits of the proposeal were also a matter referred to in your authority's [ie LDC's] claim to quash the original decision on this case, and are a matter on which the Secretary of State would like to see more information.

In other words ... Ruth Kelly's people are telling LDC that the council don't understand the planning process and that the undoubted regeneration benefits of Falmer ARE a factor that can and will influence Ruth Kelly's decision.

Which is very good news.

Thanks

 

[moggy]

i think what most people want to know is the best and worse case scenarios.

we all know falmer will go ahead so i think people want to know when the builders go in.

so the best case would be how long and the worse case how long?

 

[Fungus]

Re: Re: Re: The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

The regeneration benefits of the proposeal were also a matter referred to in your authority's [ie LDC's] claim to quash the original decision on this case, and are a matter on which the Secretary of State would like to see more information.

In other words ... Ruth Kelly's people are telling LDC that the council don't understand the planning process and that the undoubted regeneration benefits of Falmer ARE a factor that can and will influence Ruth Kelly's decision.

She also seems to be saying that LDC have forgotten what was in their own case!