What Ruth Kelly wants to know about Falmer

[The Large One]

So, Lord B, presumably you'll be re-iterating the transport problems of Sheepcote yet again?

The weird thing about that is that one of LDC's main gripes is that Prescott didn't follow his own planning guidelines. Yet the point is, of course he did - and taking the instance of the high priority the government places on sustainable transport - Lewes still moan because they believe that transport for Sheepcote is not an issue. They think the Albion are exaggerating the problems associated with the excess traffic to the point that LDC don't place a high consideration on any traffic problems which will arise should the Albion hae to play at Sheepcote.

In other words, as far as LDC are concerned, traffic isn't really an issue at Sheepcote.

 

[tedebear]

I fully expect the LDC to launch another attack on the decision, should we get a 'YES'.

Indeed - but there will come a point when they run out of reasons to object, given the detail that the Falmer team have covered.....and to keep rehashing old excuses that have continually been struck off as irrelevant or not possible, will ensure they start to look very silly! and then of course Norman Baker, who never supported them in the beginning will finally realize he's attempting to float a sinking ship, will of course jump teams and they'll flounder....

Won't stop them moaning, but hey ho.. some people just can't stand change....

 

[magoo]

They can ask. The likelihood of them getting it would be slim in the extreme.

There would be no point. All of the evidence was heard at the Public Inquiries stretching back over far too long. Unless someone has some damning new evidence to say that everything that was presented at the Public Inquiry was wrong, there would be no point.

But they've fully admitted that all they can do is to delay the inevitable. So any chance to do it again...

 

[Wozza]

An interesting letter landed on my doormat this morning:-

20 November 2006

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 77)
APPLICATIONS BY BRIGHTON AND HOVE ALBION FOOTBALL CLUB LTD
LAND NORTH OF VILLAGE WAY, FALMER
APPLICATION NOs: BH2001/02418/FP, LW/02/1595, BH2003/02449/FP, LW/03/1618

1. I refer to the Order of the High Court dated 6 November 2006, quashing the decisions of the First Secretary of State contained in his letter dated 27 October 2005. The applications now fall to be re-determined by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

2. Rule 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 requires the Secretary of State to send to persons entitled to appear at the inquiry and who appeared at it a written statement of the matters with respect to which further representations are invited for the purposes of her further consideration of the applications. Her statement is as follows.

3. Having regard to the Order of the High Court and the evidence available to the Secretary of State at present, she wishes to invite representations on the following matters:

a) The location of the site of the proposed development in relation to the built-up area of Brighton and Hove as identified in the adopted Local Plan 2005; and the significance of that location for the purposes of the Secretary of State's further consideration of the applications, having regard to policies in the adopted Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005, the East Sussex Structure Plan 1991-2011 and the adopted Lewes District Local Plan 2003;

b) The interpretation and application to these planning applications of the Government's policy in relation to development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) as stated in Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7); including, in particular, consideration of the need for the proposed development, having regard to:

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

c) The approach to assessment of the alternative sites put forward for consideration by the Secretary of State; and the merits of those sites including, in particular, the accessibility of the Sheepcote Valley site;

d) Any new matters or changes of circumstances (including in relation to the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park) which the parties consider to be material to the Secretary of State's further consideration of these applications.

4. You are now afforded the opportunity of submitting written representations to the Secretary of State in respect of the above matters. The Secretary of State considers that a period of 35 days to submit representations is reasonable in the circumstances of this case. However, 35 days from today's date would give a response date of December 25th. Taking account of the Christmas holiday period, you are therefore asked to submit any representations you wish to make no later than 28 December 2006 to the address given on the first page of this letter. Alternatively, you may ask for the Inquiry to be re-opened. In deciding whether the inquiry should be re-opened, the Secretary of State will consider all views that may be expressed to her on this matter.

5. I am writing in similar terms to Brighton and Hove District Council, Lewes District Council, and other persons entitled to appear at the inquiry and who did appear at it. A copy of this letter is also being sent to other interested persons who appeared at the inquiry. Please note that any replies received may be copied to other parties for their comment.

Yours faithfully

Looks like the worst homework EVER.

Turn it over and there's probably five more questions.

 

[Goring Gull]

Is this good or bad? cant be bothered to read it all

Can't be bothered to read it!!!! future of our club... Bad, Bad fan.

 

[Kent Seagull]

Interesting that LDC raised 16 objections to take to the High Court but Ruth Kelly has only chosen to consult on 5 issues. Presumably this means that 11 of the issues raised by LDC are already discounted, or are they encompassed in broad terms in Kelly's letter?

 

[The Large One]

Interesting that LDC raised 16 objections to take to the High Court but Ruth Kelly has only chosen to consult on 5 issues. Presumably this means that 11 of the issues raised by LDC are already discounted, or are they encompassed in broad terms in Kelly's letter?

No, most (if not all) of Lewes' points of objection are covered in Ruth Kelly's letter, especially in part (b).

 

[Lord Bracknell]

LOrd B what will the timescale be after the 28th December 2006, how long b4 Ruth Kelly comes back with a conclusion etc?

The submissions will be at the Department for Communities and Local Government on 28 December.

They then have to copy the submissions received and send them out to all of the interested parties for comment. A deadline will be set for those comments to be received - my guess is something like the end of January.

The civil servants will then have to prepare a report (and a recommendation) for the minister to consider - by the end of February / March?

A decision in March ? ? ?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Whilst we are replying could we enquire if we are also expected to pay VAT on our building costs. Plus have heard steel is now the new eggs. Have you heard the price

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Is there anything that we (by that I mean the fans, not the club) should be doing?

Are we required to write to RK, or indeed anyone else at this time....?

 

[Screaming J]

The submissions will be at the Department for Communities and Local Government on 28 December.

They then have to copy the submissions received and send them out to all of the interested parties for comment. A deadline will be set for those comments to be received - my guess is something like the end of January.

The civil servants will then have to prepare a report (and a recommendation) for the minister to consider - by the end of February / March?

A decision in March ? ? ?

With local elections in May? I doubt it. Odds on this will get caught by the 'purdah' on politically contentious announcements in the run up to elections. Which means mid May at the earliest.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Purdah only happens during General Elections.

 

[Screaming J]

Purdah only happens during General Elections.

Are you absolutely sure?. I'll try and check but probably won't have the chance for a couple of days. I do hope you're right; but I could have sworn it was locals as well....

 

[The Large One]

Are you absolutely sure?. I'll try and check but probably won't have the chance for a couple of days. I do hope you're right; but I could have sworn it was locals as well....

This is a decision being made on a national level. This process went beyond local level in 2002.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Ruth Kelly has the most annoying voice EVER.

Cheers as always for relaying and explaining, Ed.

 

[Screaming J]

Are you absolutely sure?. I'll try and check but probably won't have the chance for a couple of days. I do hope you're right; but I could have sworn it was locals as well....

Just found this on the No 10 web site. Direct link at:-

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page2344.asp

Put to him that the Government wasn't supposed to put forward eye-catching initiatives in the week of the local elections, the PMOS(*) said that the rules pertaining to the local elections and Purdah meant that we were unable to announce things which were specific to local towns and particular areas.


(*) Prime Ministers Official Spokesman

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Just found this on the No 10 web site. Direct link at:-

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page2344.asp

Put to him that the Government wasn't supposed to put forward eye-catching initiatives in the week of the local elections, the PMOS(*) said that the rules pertaining to the local elections and Purdah meant that we were unable to announce things which were specific to local towns and particular areas.


(*) Prime Ministers Official Spokesman

The local election campaign starts in April, not March.

I suspect Ms Kelly is aware of this.

 

[dougdeep]

Less than four years to our first game at Falmer then.

 

[Porky]

I rather like the item that considers the impact on the local economy by permitting or refusing the building of the Stadium.

 

[Monkey Man]

God this is so DEPRESSING.

I can't see how anyone can find the stamina to go through all these arguments again. The fact that Ruth Kelly is still inviting comments just seems to take us back several moves. And how come she's only doing it now?

I appreciate that it's all vaguely positive etc etc but as others have said, we've heard these "looks like good news on the Falmer front" stories so often that you kind of get numbed by it all.

We're a pretty backward country at times.