What Case Have LDC Put To The High Court?

[Barrel of Fun]

I think what it means is that we have a national policy to regenerate areas that in need of it ie Moulescoomb, yet despite the regeneration effects, this does not necessarily mean the development is of national interest and therefore shouldn't be built on "open downland".

 

[perseus]

The farce continues.

What is the LDC legal advisor's name? Just in case I need some legal representation, make sure I keep well clear!"

 

[perseus]

Boring legal technical details:

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1213.htm#whenheard

LDC press release for 14 Dec:

14 December 2005: Why Lewes District Council is challenging the Falmer decision
Lewes District Council has decided to challenge Mr Prescott’s decision to grant planning permission for a football stadium for Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club and an associated coach and bus interchange at Village Way, Falmer, dated 27 October 2005.

The Council served appeal papers at the High Court on Thursday 8 December 2005 following a decision taken by Councillors at its Cabinet Meeting on 24 November 2005. Our claim is being made under s288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Two of the four applications decided by Mr Prescott are in Lewes District Council’s area.

Our action to challenge the decision is justified by significant issues at stake about the future of the South Downs. We are sure that a number of important planning issues have been overlooked, or not properly considered by Mr Prescott in making his decision. In terms of national and local planning policies, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the highest levels of landscape protection and Mr Prescott has set aside these policies.

We have not taken this decision lightly. We believe the football club should have a stadium and there are alternative sites available that are more suitable for this type of development.

In particular we believe that Mr Prescott either overlooked, or failed to deal with or explain a number of important issues:

- Mr Prescott completely overlooked the effect of the development on the proposed South Downs National Park. One of the reasons Mr Prescott gave for re-opening the Inquiry was that he wanted to hear evidence from the parties on the implications of a stadium for the new National Park. The District Council argued that it would be premature to grant planning permission at Falmer until the principle of the National Park was decided and its boundaries were confirmed. Despite specifically raising the issue in his letter and asking the parties to submit their views on it, Mr. Prescott failed to address it in his decision letter.

-The First Inspector had stressed the importance of retaining a gap of countryside between the built up edge of Brighton and the village of Falmer, so as to prevent creeping development into rural surroundings and to preserve Falmer’s distinct character and separate identity. Although the Inspector identified this as a relevant issue Mr Prescott has failed to mention it in his decision letter.

-Impact of the development on the historic Stanmer Park. The formation of the new link road and the scale of its use would have an unacceptable impact on this historic park. This was the conclusion of the first Inspector. Again, Mr Prescott has failed to mention it.

-Mr Prescott stated that the site for the stadium applications are located within the boundary of the built up area of the city of Brighton and Hove as identified by the Brighton and Hove Local Plan which was adopted in July 2005. This is simply not true. This is a crucial mistake by Mr Prescott. He has made a fundamental error of fact, yet repeatedly bases his conclusions on this error.

-The wrong test in law was used for assessing alternative sites by both the second Inspector and then by Mr Prescott. Additionally the test Mr Prescott used in the Falmer case was at odds with the test he has himself adopted in other recent cases relating to major development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Similar cases must be decided in a similar way to ensure consistency in decision making.

-In addition Mr Prescott concluded that in most views it would be the roof of the stadium that was the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. He also said that the proposed bus and coach park is tucked within a fold of the Downs. This is contrary to the first Inspector’s view, as he concluded the stadium as a whole would be highly visible from many different vantage points. Whether development is visible is a matter of fact and it was wrong of Mr Prescott to contradict his Inspector without giving any reasons.

-Mr Prescott misinterpreted his own planning policy in assessing whether the stadium development amounted to a matter of national interest. A stadium development would, of course, bring with it some regeneration benefits and would therefore fulfil an aim of national policy. It is wrong to suggest that just because a particular development fulfils an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest. Mr Prescott has interpreted his own policy in a way which is not logical or credible.


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.

Costs – We estimate the total costs for ourselves and Government legal costs to be a maximum of £65,000. If we win it will cost us nothing. It we lose it will cost us that sum. We have committed £25,000 from the Council’s General Fund Working Balance and contingency funds and this action will not affect next year’s level of council tax.