What Case Have LDC Put To The High Court?

[perseus]

Perseus, the main thrust of LDC's argument (to date - and thus my interest in what they actually put to the High Court), is that the decision goes against the GUIDELINES - it doesn't.

LDC don't know what they are doing. Somebody else put them up to it ?!

If you did decide to moor your boat in Falmer pond and the Lewes planning authorities decided that this was prohibited, you could say it was an aeroplane and that the rules do not apply.

Now the commonsense people may say if it looks like a boat, behaves like a boat and doesn't fly it can't be an aeroplane any more. But you can counter by saying when it was built in 1949 it was an aeroplane, but after they built the road and the university is was still an aeroplane even if the wings had fallen orf!

Captain Pugwash

 

[sparkie]

I don't know if they even have to specify their case at the momment in anymore than general terms. They'll only have to do that at the preliminary meeting with the Judge to decide if they're even allowed a JR challenge.

 

[sully]

There's nothing in that blurb that suggests that Prescotts decision was unlawful, so where do they start?

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

So is there anywhere where we can go and view their application for a judicial review?

Yes. Prescott's wastebasket.

 

[mona]

Will we be told the date when the Lewes Deception Crew are getting the ruling of a judge?

 

[Jim in the West]

As I understand things, The History Man specifically requested at the meeting on 7 December that LDC give an undertaking to ask for an early hearing. After a bit of prevarication, LDC agreed to do so. The club (and hopefully the ODPM) will also ask for an early hearing. LDC are expecting things to happen within 6 months (see their web site), but if all parties request an early hearing, then the JR could start sooner. It will be possibly be useful to keep pressing LDC on whether they have yet written formally requesting an early hearing - and if not, why not.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Why put it next to the A27 when we could moor it on Falmer Pond. We could even get some gypos to live in it.

Why would Palarse fans want to live on a houseboat moored on Falmer pond. Instead of feeding the ducks we could always throw Forfars buns at them.

 

[Bwian]

we could always throw Forfars buns at them.

That would mean buying them, there's a boycott going on dontcha know?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Who is better placed to decide what the national interest is?

The nation's Deputy Prime Minister or Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife?

 

[fozzie's headband]

Lord B - any idea when the initial court hearing is likely to take place?

 

[vauxhallexile]

I was under the impression that, unless LDC actually win their appeal, it won't make much difference to us?

The decision stands in the meantime, the Albion continue trying to get the capital in place, and the plans carry on until we hear otherwise.

The club have stated on several occasions that building is unlikely to commence until around this time next year, so it doesn't seem as though LDC will be able to delay things further.

In which case we should try and drag it out for as many weeks as possible, just to spite them, so when they lose, they get hit with a much larger legal bill and costs



And then get massive flak from the taxpayers of the area who have to fund it.

You're right there is no great problem in terms of the actual building date - but don't we all end up looking a bit hypocritical if on the one hand we are handing out leaflets slagging off Lewes for wasting council taxpayers money and then erm....back a course of action that will waste even more taxpayers money?

 

[perseus]

What Dick Knight and Martin Perry said "we are not counting our chickens yet".

The law may be logical, but it can seem absurd and it is definitely expensive.

 

[Seagull73]

The club (and hopefully the ODPM) will also ask for an early hearing.

The club won't be doing anything, this is nothing to do with them now. This is LDC taking on the government.

 

[Easy 10]

What Dick Knight and Martin Perry said "we are not counting our chickens yet".

The law may be logical, but it can seem absurd and it is definitely expensive.

When did they say that ?
The only quotes I've seen from MP is that despite LDC's actions, its still very much "full steam ahead" with regards to getting the finance in place etc.

 

[Rangdo]

Do we know if they have definately lodged the appeal?
It would be just like those tossers to string us along

 

[Curious Orange]

I take it everybody is still clueless about what LDC's argument is, or whether they've even bothered to lodge it?

 

[The Large One]

The club won't be doing anything, this is nothing to do with them now. This is LDC taking on the government.

Not quite true, Gaz.

Brighton & Hove Albion has been cited in the proceedings by Lewes District Council. The Albion can ask for (and probably WILL ask for) the case to be expedited. In other words, the case will be given the 'hurry-up' and can be heard much sooner than June.

This in itself shouldn't pose a problem, because Lewes will put their case to the High Court and ask for a Judicial Review. Assuming the judge grants this, the nature of the challenge is presented to the 'defendant' (not sure what the exact term is) - the Government.

The Government will get its team of solicitors and barristers together (not much change out of £5,000 a day for this lot) and blow Lewes' case out of the water. Unless the Government disagrees to this case being expedited (doubtless the Albion have sought advice as to whether this would be a wise course of action), Lewes really can't delay things much further, unless they keep adding bits to their challenge, or tell the High Court that 'we can't make it that day...', but seeing as they're playing with the big boys now, I don't know that they can piss about like that. Contempt of Court and all that, you know.

And all this for 65 Grand? My arse.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Who is better placed to decide what the national interest is?

The nation's Deputy Prime Minister or Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife?

That is wonderful I have pissed my pants.

 

[sparkie]

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.

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

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.

Could someone please interpret this passage for me please?