Was the original yes to Falmer sabotaged?

[mona]

and the wording made deliberately inaccurate.

Not wishing to enter the Norman Baker world of conspiracy theories, but could this have happened?

A nimby civil servant?
A government plan to delay making a decision on an awkward issue?
A simple cock-up?

 

[The Large One]

and the wording made deliberately inaccurate.

Not wishing to enter the Norman Baker world of conspiracy theories, but could this have happened?

A nimby civil servant?
A government plan to delay making a decision on an awkward issue?
A simple cock-up?

Nimby Civil Servant? Possibly, but someone who is probably now not a Civil Servant, seeing as they didn't follow their masters' policies.

Govt plan? Unlikely. They have taken far harder decisions than that. 135,000 new homes in the South East for one.

A simple cock-up? Yup, I'll buy that.

 

[¡Cereal Killer!]

Just a cock up in Prescotts Secretary

 

[mona]

Just a cock up in Prescotts Secretary

 

[BensGrandad]

With the number of legal beagles looking at it, it is inconceivable that they should make such a glaring error as to word the letter wrong.

Still I suppose that sums up a labour government for you.

 

[Gully]

It might sum up a Labour government, but I am convinced that if we had had a Tory one the closest we would get to seeing the Albion play now is at home during a game of Subbuteo.

 

[Yorkie]

With the number of legal beagles looking at it, it is inconceivable that they should make such a glaring error as to word the letter wrong.

I work with lawyers. It doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I work with lawyers. It doesn't surprise me one bit.

I am related to a former Lawyer and these cases are rare. To be fair, there is a huge amount of information in a planning case. I was hoping to cover Falmer Stadium in my dissertation, but the planning office informed me that it was 20,000 pages, so to get that down to 10,000 words.... Anyway, there is a great deal of information and even though the mistake seems trivial, it is undertsndable.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The cock-up was quite simple. It was in this sentence:-

"... the Local Plan shows the site to be within the built-up area and therefore does not conflict with BHLP Policy NC6 or with ESSP Policy S13".

The problem is that, at the time of the second Inquiry, the Brighton & Hove Local Plan ("BHLP") only existed in draft form. Between the preparation of the draft Plan and the adoption of the final Plan, the City Council changed the criteria it used to define the boundary of the built up area - for good reasons that were nothing whatsoever to do with the Falmer stadium case.

No-one realised that Prescott would use any definition of the built-up area as one of the factors that he would put forward as justifying the YES decision. But he did. And therefore that particular factor turns out not to be consistent with the facts at the time of the decision. That's why the government lawyers had to concede that this particular element of the decision didn't stack up.

The fact that part of the site is outside the built up area does not, of course, prevent the go-ahead being given to the stadium. The flaw is a technical one, not a fatal one - as claimed by LDC.

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

Based on a VERY reliable source within that Dept, it was a genuine mistake. The individual concerned was "devastated" at the mistake & I had to comment, not as devastated as the Club & its thousands of supporters!!

It would have happened regardless of what political party was in power as this was down to the civil servants.

You'd hope that they'd now check everything in triplicate three times over to ensure there wasn't a repeat of such a "school-boy" error. However, the recent news that the Dept didn't copy all the submissions / evidence for sharing with all interested parties hence delaying the final submission date & squeezing their "window" to review all final submissions, come up with a decision, document that decision & check it 3 times in triplicate to ensure it's water-tight, doesn't sound like they've exactly learned from their mistake (inexcusable in my view).

 

[perseus]

I think it was sabotaged.

It does have to be deliberate though. Just have to put somebody incompetent on the job and not check it properly.

NOT just one person makes the mistake, it has to legally checked as well for errors. So it is a conspiracy.

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

Perseus, you're entitled to your view. However I'm going to continue to trust my friend who very very close to the work, people concerned & the whole saga over the years.

For obvious reasons I can't reveal any more. But if it were a conspiracy, then those in that Dept weren't aware of it!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Can the club SUE the government if they screw up the wording this time? Cos this delay is costing needless millions

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

To be honest I don't know & I've not asked the question before. I'll see if I can find.

However, I'm sure that if it possible, the odds would be stacked against the club, the costs would be massive & it would put any favourable Government view at severe risk.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

To be honest I don't know & I've not asked the question before. I'll see if I can find.

 

[withdeanwombat]

I am related to a former Lawyer and these cases are rare. To be fair, there is a huge amount of information in a planning case. I was hoping to cover Falmer Stadium in my dissertation, but the planning office informed me that it was 20,000 pages, so to get that down to 10,000 words.... Anyway, there is a great deal of information and even though the mistake seems trivial, it is undertsndable.

"Oh fcuk it" written x 3,333 should cover it,then.Get typing!

 

[perseus]

Perseus, you're entitled to your view. However I'm going to continue to trust my friend who very very close to the work, people concerned & the whole saga over the years.

For obvious reasons I can't reveal any more. But if it were a conspiracy, then those in that Dept weren't aware of it!

Doesn't the external checking go outside the office (to a different office)?

No one person (or group) working on the job gets the full picture.

However, it might not be a conspiracy as much as the system. A mistake always creeps in somewhere

Myself, I think the error is too minor to make a reconvened Public Inquiry even necessary.

 

[Nobby's Betamax Video]

Myself, I think the error is too minor to make a reconvened Public Inquiry even necessary.

Perseus. Unsure of the external review part, but I'd certainly agree with your view above!!

Here's keeping everything crossed

 

[perseus]

Yep, somebody delayed it deliberately!

I think they know they can do this (I have suspected this before) when the Government are not really satisfied with the plan, but can find no legal or planning reason to stop it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The interesting thing about the "error" is that, when the decision letter was published and LDC started getting hostile to the fact that Prescott had said YES, even LDC didn't notice that this particular mistake had been made.

The Falmer For All team realised fairly quickly (because, hey! - we're on the ball), but it took a while before someone in LDC realised that this particular factual error had some significance.

LDC's early hostile comments were all about how they disagreed with Prescott's assessment of the relative weight to be given to the various conflicting policies that apply to an application as complex as this - but those matters are "within the exclusive province of the Secretary of State", so count for nothing at the end of the day. It was some weeks before LDC found the Built Up Area error. And that's the only one with any legal weight.