What Ruth Kelly wants to know about Falmer

[Lord Bracknell]

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

 

[¡Cereal Killer!]

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

 

[Da Man Clay]

So what does that mean in basic English?

 

[Rangdo]

So what does that mean in basic English?

Yes, an English version would definately be appreciated.

 

[Robot Chicken]

Alternatively, you may ask for the Inquiry to be re-opened.

Yes, do that.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So what does that mean in basic English?

It means that the Football Club, the City Council, Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the other interested parties have been invited to make written representations by 28 December.

Kelly is particularly interested in what they have to say about the fact that part of the Falmer site is outside the built-up area of Brighton and Hove. She is also interested in what the parties have to say about the fact that government policy allows development in AONBs in certain circumstances, and whether the possible National Park makes any difference. And she's interested in hearing more about the traffic issues that would arise if a stadium was built at Sheepcote Valley.

The bit about there being an option to ask for the Inquiry to be re-opened is a standard form of words that applies in all cases covered by the Planning rules. It doesn't imply that she is seriously considering another Inquiry.

 

[London Irish]

c) The approach to assessment of the alternative sites put forward for consideration by the Secretary of State

Can't quite understand this sentence

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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

Good.

For example ... it allows the Club and the City Council to spell out the damage that NOT having a stadium at Falmer would do to the local economy.

 

[British Bulldog]

Re: Re: What Ruth Kelly wants to know about Falmer

Can't quite understand this sentence

Think yourself lucky fella it's all jibberish to me.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: What Ruth Kelly wants to know about Falmer

Can't quite understand this sentence

I think it refers to one of the complaints made by LDC - that Prescott (allegedly) had not followed his own planning guidance.

 

[London Irish]

Kelly is particularly interested in what they have to say about the fact that part of the Falmer site is outside the built-up area of Brighton and Hove.

Logically she would have to ask this given that what her useless clowns of departmental officials cocked up in the first place. It presumably doesn't imply she thinks it's that important or determining, but just something that the relevance of has to be judged before permission can be granted. Hope so anyway!

 

[fozzie's headband]

So the decision making process will be up and running from December 28th - can we expect a fairly quick decision in the new year? Are we still on course for a final decision around March/April time?

 

[British Bulldog]

Re: Re: Re: What Ruth Kelly wants to know about Falmer

I think it refers to one of the complaints made by LDC - that Prescott (allegedly) had not followed his own planning guidance.

Well if you & LI dont fully understand it then i'm certain the LDC wont either so maybe we should'nt worry about that bit eh!

 

[The Large One]

It means that the Football Club, the City Council, Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the other interested parties have been invited to make written representations by 28 December.

Kelly is particularly interested in what they have to say about the fact that part of the Falmer site is outside the built-up area of Brighton and Hove. She is also interested in what the parties have to say about the fact that government policy allows development in AONBs in certain circumstances, and whether the possible National Park makes any difference. And she's interested in hearing more about the traffic issues that would arise if a stadium was built at Sheepcote Valley.

Surely that was covered in the Public Inquiry. Has there been new evidence submitted to think that Brighton & Hove Albion, Brighton & Hove City Council's transport advisors and Mr Briers, the second inspector all got it wrong?

 

[Rangdo]

Good.

For example ... it allows the Club and the City Council to spell out the damage that NOT having a stadium at Falmer would do to the local economy.

Does it also allow the opposing parties to drag it out even longer by going over the same old shit over and over again?

 

[London Irish]

Good.

For example ... it allows the Club and the City Council to spell out the damage that NOT having a stadium at Falmer would do to the local economy.

And the other really good bit is the fact that the uselessness of the alternative sites can also be put front and centre, specifically the traffic issues at Sheepcote. Worm you way out of that one Lewes, dear old Norman admitted he'd have to drive to Sheepcote to see a match

 

[The Large One]

Does it also allow the opposing parties to drag it out even longer by going over the same old shit over and over again?

No, they've got til December 28. That's all.

 

[London Irish]

Re: Re: Re: What Ruth Kelly wants to know about Falmer

I think it refers to one of the complaints made by LDC - that Prescott (allegedly) had not followed his own planning guidance.

The criteria that Prescott laid out to judge the alternative sites? Have to say that always struck me as very favourable to us, almost guaranteeing a Falmer victory. Hope there was indeed some basis for Prescott's approach in planning law or precedent.

 

[Rangdo]

No, they've got til December 28. That's all.

Yeah, we've heard that before.

Then it'll be decision, appeal, decision, appeal, quash, appeal, decision, appeal, quash, decision, appeal ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Surely that was covered in the Public Inquiry. Has there been new evidence submitted to think that Brighton & Hove Albion, Brighton & Hove City Council's transport advisors and Mr Briers, the second inspector all got it wrong?

LDC claimed that Inspector Briers based his conclusion that Sheepcote Valley was unsuitable on factors that weren't fully explored at the Inquiry. For example, he took the trouble to walk to Sheepcote Valley from the surrounding railway stations and reached the conclusion that people wouldn't do that on matchdays. LDC seem to think that Brier should have allowed them to challenge his own experience of checking the routes out.

I think Kelly is allowing them to do that now - although, in my opinion, it's inconceivable that they will succeed in overturning his quite obviously sensible conclusions.