Lord Bracknell
On fire
Read my signature. The Secretary of State is entitled to make planning judgments. It's why cases get referred to her.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Falmer Parish Council requested to re-open the Inquiry just 2 months ago..
- Thread starter Jam The Man
- Start date
The Large One
Who's Next?
And, surely, approving a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty...?
BensGrandad
New member
Thank you for your clarification as I was a little concerned that Richard Linfield seemed fairly sure that the one paragraph was sufficient to warrant an appeal, which was rather worrying as he is a staunch fan.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
... as they are perfectly entitled to do, providing they can satisfy themselves that the criteria for development in an AONB are met.
Screaming J
He'll put a spell on you
Opened your post yet Lord B - why did they want to re-open?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Parcel Force turned at lunchtime. I've just got back home from work and have opened a large package of papers - mostly from the NIMBY camp. In amongst them was this from EarthRights Solicitors (who act on behalf of Falmer PC):-
9 May 2007
... we write to formally request the re-opening of the Inquiry. The information provided by the Applicants and the City Council is not accepted by the Parish Council, as is clear from our previous representations. Significant factual differences exist, particularly in respect of regeneration and transport issues which are crucial to the proper determination of this issue. It is highly likely that these differences will be increased following this latest round of representations. In these circumstances the only sensible and reasonable means of testing the evidence is by the appointment of an independent Inspector who can then report back to the Secretary of State.
Given that successive Government Ministers with responsibility for the determination of these applications have seen fit to inquire into this matter by way of a public inquiry to resolve factual and evidential disputes between the parties, given the continuing factual disputes, and the volume of evidence now newly submitted, it would be manifestly unreasonable for the Secretary of State to now depart from the inquiry process and simply determine these outstanding matters by way of written representations alone. In our view such a decision would fail to comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and be susceptible to legal challenge...
12 June 2007
... With regard to the decision of the Secretary of State of 7 June 2007 to not reopen the Inquiry, we are taking instructions and will revert to you in due course...
Screaming J
He'll put a spell on you
I think EarthShites are going to have to do better than that. I suspect that Mr Justice Cocklecarrot won't be that impressed by that one for a judicial review. Truly they are getting desperate.
Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,123
Its the classic last ditch quote the Human Rights Act 1998 that Lawyers fall back on when all else has failed.
BensGrandad
New member
For what it is worth my view is that anything that is done now can only delay the building of the stadium but cannot change the Yes to a No, so as Norman Baker said on SCR when asked about his advice it would be to get on with it and not appeal anymore and try to build bridges. Would that be a fair summing up.
Seagullible
Super Keeper
I thought the AONB arguement was no longer an issue as the site no lnger has this status, or am I wrong?
Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,123
What about my Human Rights to watch a football match in a modern stadium, under cover, without being prevented from doing so by a bunch of narrow minded NIMBY's.
If you were a lesbian Muslim immigrant with 17 children, you'd have a point. But as you're a law abiding (?) white Brit, you got diddly squat rights.
I blame the NIMBYs
cjd
Well-known member
Given that successive Government Ministers with responsibility for the determination of these applications have seen fit to inquire into this matter by way of a public inquiry to resolve factual and evidential disputes between the parties said:
Rangdo
Registered Cider Drinker
It still has the AONB status as the proposal to exclude it from the National Park and drop it's status is not a final decision, just a proposal.
However, the AONB argument hasn't been an issue for anyone with half a brain for a long time as it was accepted a long while back that we had met the main criteria for building there. The second inquiry was to nail it home by proving that there was no viable site other than the AONB.
The fact that we focused on the facts and real issues and the anti's couldn't let go of the non-existent AONB argument even though it was long since lost did nothing but help our cause.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Exactly. Classic scraping the bottom of the barrel.
You can just imagine these eejits sitting round shoulder high in papers and case law.
"f*** it. Let's try the Human Rights Act"
They were probably hoping the 'First Lady' would offer to help out.
What are you going to do Paul when Falmer is built? You hardly ever go to away matches and since Withdean is practicially on top of you Falmer will be like an away match for you
I'll hold your hands
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
What are you going to do Paul when Falmer is built? You hardly ever go to away matches and since Withdean is practicially on top of you Falmer will be like an away match for you
I'll hold your hands
I managed getting to Falmer for 3 months working at Southern Water, so I am sure I can muster up the courage to jump on a train to Falmer again, Spencer.
You'll hold my hand? I thought all men that hold hands were worthy of stoning?
Captain Haddock
Active member
Am I correct in thinking that Earthright acted for objecters to The Emirates Stadium and took their case to the European Courts ........and lost?