Falmer Shock! - No Need for the Case to go to Court

[London Irish]

I was relieved when I saw the Argus headline today. We've known about the ODPM f***-up for a few months now and today's decision will expedite the time it takes to clear that out of the road.

I strongly disagree that we are back where we started last October. Not at all, back then we had only an optimistic hunch that Prescott would back our planning case. Now, we are absolutely sure that he will.

That said, I think this only clears a technicality out of the road, and there will still be a big appeal battle to fight with Lewes. Their main case I think is that the jobs/economic benefit does not rise to the level of national benefit to set aside the countryside planning protection policy. I think there will still be a lot of wrangling over that with the judge asked to rule on whether the ODPM's decision is consistent with legislation.

Waiting for this potential court delay will still delay us, but there you go, shit happens, I'd still rather be where we are now than where we were last October, when we still didn't know how much backing we were going to get from the government.

We now know its 100 per cent, and I say it feels bloody good to have such a powerful ally when all Falmer/Lewes can dredge up is a bun maker and a few countryside snob groups

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I suspect that if LDC agree to take the Government's offer to concede on the one point, they'll also concede the opportunity to argue the other points by default - hence the dilemma I mentioned in my previous post.

Let’s look further at LDC case (as it now stands).

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 Government’s top lawyers have looked at this and decided that it doesn’t amount to a reason to quash the planning permission. The re-issued letter will address the issue.

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.

Ditto.

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.

Ditto.

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.

A fair cop. The re-issued letter will state that “part of the site is 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”. It will also state that, while we’re on the subject of the Local Plan, it’s worth taking into account the fact that the Local Plan allocates the site for development, regardless of where the current boundary line of the built up area lies.

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.

Wrong. Recent High Court and Appeal Court decisions have allowed development in areas with protected landscape designations (eg the Pembrokeshire National Park case). Granting planning permission is wholly consistent with case law.

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.

The revised decision letter will address this issue and make it clear that it isn’t a reason not to grant planning permission.

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.

As above. The Government’s top lawyers have looked at this and decided that it doesn’t amount to a reason to quash the planning permission. Using the arguments successfully put forward in the Pembrokeshire case, the re-issued letter may clarify the issue.

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.

Prescott will reconsider. And he’ll confirm his original decision.

And LDC will have NO case for any further Appeal.

 

[Yorkie]

That won't stop them from appealing though will it?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lewes will still be able to argue that permission granted is incorrect according to planning law and policies. Whether they will win is another matter. Meanwhile Lawyer for LDC income goes up and up and up and up

But remember Councillor Neil Commin's promise to resign if LDC have to commit more funds to fighting this case.

 

[Brixtaan]

tick-tock-tick-tock until Prescotts name has reached new lows and he's replaced.I'm with the realist.

 

[Woodchip]

I was relieved when I saw the Argus headline today. We've known about the ODPM f***-up for a few months now and today's decision will expedite the time it takes to clear that out of the road.

I strongly disagree that we are back where we started last October. Not at all, back then we had only an optimistic hunch that Prescott would back our planning case. Now, we are absolutely sure that he will.

That said, I think this only clears a technicality out of the road, and there will still be a big appeal battle to fight with Lewes. Their main case I think is that the jobs/economic benefit does not rise to the level of national benefit to set aside the countryside planning protection policy. I think there will still be a lot of wrangling over that with the judge asked to rule on whether the ODPM's decision is consistent with legislation.

Waiting for this potential court delay will still delay us, but there you go, shit happens, I'd still rather be where we are now than where we were last October, when we still didn't know how much backing we were going to get from the government.

We now know its 100 per cent, and I say it feels bloody good to have such a powerful ally when all Falmer/Lewes can dredge up is a bun maker and a few countryside snob groups

Well said LI. :thud:

 

[Dave the OAP]

Let’s look further at LDC case (as it now stands).

The Government’s top lawyers have looked at this and decided that it doesn’t amount to a reason to quash the planning permission. The re-issued letter will address the issue.



Ditto.



Ditto.



A fair cop. The re-issued letter will state that “part of the site is 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”. It will also state that, while we’re on the subject of the Local Plan, it’s worth taking into account the fact that the Local Plan allocates the site for development, regardless of where the current boundary line of the built up area lies.



Wrong. Recent High Court and Appeal Court decisions have allowed development in areas with protected landscape designations (eg the Pembrokeshire National Park case). Granting planning permission is wholly consistent with case law.



The revised decision letter will address this issue and make it clear that it isn’t a reason not to grant planning permission.



As above. The Government’s top lawyers have looked at this and decided that it doesn’t amount to a reason to quash the planning permission. Using the arguments successfully put forward in the Pembrokeshire case, the re-issued letter may clarify the issue.



Prescott will reconsider. And he’ll confirm his original decision.

And LDC will have NO case for any further Appeal.

ED.having been away for some time and looking at this afresh, you dont think you are wrong and the might of the LDC and its legal representatives may actually be right do you..

After all, all we have heard since the first day Falmer was mentioned as a spot for our beloved stadium, is how we are 100% right in all of this and everyone else is wrong.

Justa thought as I wind my weary way up to bed...

 

[dcseagull]

But remember Councillor Neil Commin's promise to resign if LDC have to commit more funds to fighting this case.

But they haven't spent the funds they have got ringfenced for a court case yet have they? I think what everyone is concerned about is that today's news will just delay the start of the inevitable high court battle. And that could be true even if your analysis of LDC's case above is spot on.

The escape route for us and LDC is LDC's legal advice. If, as you say, Prescott issues a new letter addressing all of LDC's concerns that doesn't affect LDC's ability to go to the High Court. They could even make up new objections!. What it does mean is that LDC, as a responsible public authority, would have to seek a revised legal opinion as to the chances of success. Presumably, LDC's legal advice concluded that they had a reasonable prospect of success and, another assumption, presumably that was based in part on Prescott's factual error over the boundary.

If the new opinion is,"given the new letter from Prescot you haven't got a cat in hell's chance" they would be completley irresponsible to proceed with the case and, I would think, the district auditor would be sniffing around.

Perhaps LDC residents should now be seeking a committment from councillers to :

a) Seek a new legal opinon on receipt of the revised decision letter from Precott

B) Hold the debate whether to proceed with the court action in public.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

ED.having been away for some time and looking at this afresh, you dont think you are wrong and the might of the LDC and its legal representatives may actually be right do you..

After all, all we have heard since the first day Falmer was mentioned as a spot for our beloved stadium, is how we are 100% right in all of this and everyone else is wrong.

Justa thought as I wind my weary way up to bed...

So ... to summarise:-

You are tired.

Therefore LDC's lawyers might be right.





Planning doesn't work like that, Dave. Get a good night's sleep. See you in H Block tomorrow.

 

[mona]

Perhaps the Lewes LibDems will start to feel a bit isolated. It's all very well for Norman Baker to shove his nose up the arse of the Sussex gentry while the tories under Cameron are desperate to be seen as liberal, democratic, environmentalist and not class-ridden. We all know that Lewes would not have objected to a huge concert hall or rugby venue on the site. So, all this anti-football nonsense (obviously individuals are entitled to hate the game) is pure hatred of the lower classes.
Fine. This is what provincial South East England is all about. But do the leadership of the LibDems really want their party to destroy a football club that does a lot for the local community in education and works hard to produce good, local players?

The more publicity the better for the Albion. Norman and Ann will be shown for the snobs they are. They deserve political oblivion for using the environment in order to toady to wealthy property holders. If they genuinely cared for the environment or the South Downs they would have paid more attention to the activities of some downland golf clubs. Oh dear! They can't upset the toffs can they!
A long battle is bad news for the Albion. It is possibly worse news for stressed-out DeVecchi whose pet monkey is likely to attack more pressmen and Baker whose calling Prescott a buffoon is a bit sad for a man who is no longer in the shadow/shadow cabinet.
Lewes DC could well be considering a second call for a JR when their party is in the spotlight at their Brighton conference.
Let's be positive.

 

[Curious Orange]

Prescott will reconsider. And he’ll confirm his original decision.

And LDC will have NO case for any further Appeal.

Having read a lot of the documentation I've always thought their argument was mostly bollocks (I can't be arsed to dig up the old threads mind). The boundary issue was the only obvious weak point, and that has proved to be the case.

I think it would be wrong of the ODPM not to address the other issues raised by LDC in the revised decision; and extremely churlish if LDC decide to then challenge for new reasons when that arrives. They've been offered the political out, they should take it.

 

[Roger Mellie]

The wording of the consent order signed by the parties in this is very important (I have some knowledge of this as i am a solicitor). If it says that the parties agree that ODPM has made one mistake and that all the other grounds for appeal are rubbish then LDC will not be able to argue the same points at a later date and get another judicial review. If it just deals with the one area of appeal then thats a worry. Anybody know the wording?

 

[Jim in the West]

The wording of the consent order signed by the parties in this is very important (I have some knowledge of this as i am a solicitor). If it says that the parties agree that ODPM has made one mistake and that all the other grounds for appeal are rubbish then LDC will not be able to argue the same points at a later date and get another judicial review. If it just deals with the one area of appeal then thats a worry. Anybody know the wording?

One would hope that the ODPM and it's lawyers will spend the time to get this right....after all, the original terms of the last Public Inquiry were drawn very tightly by the ODPM to pretty much ensure that Falmer was given the green light, despite all it's problems.

 

[Yorkie]

Mark McGhee's comments today in the Argus

Albion manager Mark McGhee today brushed aside the latest blow to the club's stadium bid by insisting: "Nothing has changed."

Fans are still digesting yesterday's front page story in The Argus, which revealed planning permission for Falmer had been shelved after John Prescott owned up to a mistake in his letter of approval.

The Seagulls still expect to move into their new home after three more seasons at Withdean and McGhee is untroubled by the setback as he prepares his relegation-threatened team for the south coast derby against Southampton.

He said: "My understanding of it is that, almost to the day the document arrived from Mister Prescott's office, our lawyers understood there was an anomaly and that therefore Lewes District Council would probably challenge that.

"It doesn't change the decision, it's a technical thing. They may see it as some sort of victory but it's only a victory in terms of the delay.

"Now it will go back to Mr Prescott's office to be re-submitted and he has no reason to do anything other than re-confirm he has given us permission to build the stadium.

"Obviously then the document will be put in order and I think it will be fairly watertight by then.

"I suspect, given their stubborness so far, Lewes will probably challenge it further, but we feel it will be totally futile.

"It may cause another delay, but ultimately there is still going to be a stadium at Falmer, so nothing has changed for me. Even if it's a year later so what?"

McGhee is confident battle-hardened fans will also put the Falmer saga to one side as the Seagulls fight for Championship survival.

"I don't think, given the timescale we've put on the new stadium at Falmer anyway, that it is significant, it's just frustrating," he said.

"I think the supporters will continue the way they have done, tolerating Withdean until such time as the stadium is built.

"I've got in my mind that it is going to be three years or whatever, so for me it is not an issue. I've got a job to do with the team until then and we can't be distracted by these issues.

"This is about the supporters and that is the sad thing, it's not about me wanting to manage a team in a fancy stadium on a fancy pitch.

"That would be great, to have nice facilities, but this is about supporters of both teams who in the last home game against Luton got soaked. That is a disgrace."

 

[ROSM]

ED.having been away for some time and looking at this afresh, you dont think you are wrong and the might of the LDC and its legal representatives may actually be right do you..

After all, all we have heard since the first day Falmer was mentioned as a spot for our beloved stadium, is how we are 100% right in all of this and everyone else is wrong.

Justa thought as I wind my weary way up to bed...

Keep calm Dave - you'll be pleased to know that Rusco has played the reactionary role very well while you've been away

The fact that we've got through a planning session at the council and public enquiries with a yes kind of indicates that we were right and everybody else is wrong.

Also, from day 1 on here people were commenting on the errors of the decision letter. It was not material to the decision but it was a technicality. That technicality will be closed, the treasury solicitor feels there is no value to the other elements raised by LDC - so whilst we may still have to fight this in court, there are more people lining up to back us and the decision.

Hope you had a good night sleep - my little soldier

 

[eastlondonseagull]

"Even if it's a year later so what?"

 

[Yorkie]

Being older than you, I should have more cause to worry.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Very true Yorkie, you old fogey

 

[Dave the OAP]

I am now awake and fully refreshed.

So can the people who know everything on here ( ie ED and SM) tell me this:

1. Did this decision come in court? ie did it cost LDC anything at all?

2. I was told by many people that the Government had NEVER lost an appeal...do I take it you will revise your comments as it appears to me they have now lost this one.

3. As you are so confident that the GVT will just amend the wording, are you also as confident that LDC are just going to lay down and accept it, or do you believe they will appeal further?

4. Just what the f*** is it to do with Mark macghee anyway. Can someone tell him that this is a B&HAFC matter and 100% of his efforts must be concentrated on keeping the club up.

5. Why are we always so confident about something that two inspectors have turned down and now a judge has agreed that the wording was flawed. Blind stupidity or blind optimism?

 

[ROSM]

I am now awake and fully refreshed.

So can the people who know everything on here ( ie ED and SM) tell me this:

1. Did this decision come in court? ie did it cost LDC anything at all?

NEVER WENT TO COURT - THE GOVERNMENT AFTER SUBMISSIONS FROM ALL PARTIES AGREED THAT THEY WERE INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE STADIUM SITE WAS WITHIN THE BRIGHTON AND HOVE BUILT UP AREA. THE MAP CHANGED BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THIRD ENQUIRIES AND HIS INFORMATION WAS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL ONE. THAT WILL NOW BE CORRECTED

2. I was told by many people that the Government had NEVER lost an appeal...do I take it you will revise your comments as it appears to me they have now lost this one.

TECHNICALLY THEY HAVEN'T LOST AS THEY ARE CORRECTING AN ERROR WITHOUT HAVING IT EXAMINED (VERY POLITICIAN ANSWER)

3. As you are so confident that the GVT will just amend the wording, are you also as confident that LDC are just going to lay down and accept it, or do you believe they will appeal further?

I RECKON THAT THIS WAS THE KEY STRUT OF LDC'S ARGUMENT - I.E. THEY WERE HOPING ON A TECHNICALITY. THEY MAY DECIDE TO PUSH ON, THEY MAY DECIDE TO ACCEPT THE TECHNICALITY IS AMENDED BUT PUSH ON WITH THE REMAINDER, THEY MAY DECIDE TO ACCEPT THE 'VICTORY' AND BACK AWAY. THE FIRST WOULD MAKE THEM STUPID, THE THIRD IS SENSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY, SO THEY MAY GO FOR THE THIRD WHICH WOULD TAKE TIME BUT CARRIES IN MY OPINION, NEGLIGABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS

4. Just what the f*** is it to do with Mark macghee anyway. Can someone tell him that this is a B&HAFC matter and 100% of his efforts must be concentrated on keeping the club up.

I ACTUALLY THOUGHT HIS COMMENTS WERE WELL THOUGHT OUT - AND WHEN I LAST LOOKED HE WAS STILL OUR SECOND BIGGEST PUBLIC FACE AT THE CLUB


5. Why are we always so confident about something that two inspectors have turned down and now a judge has agreed that the wording was flawed. Blind stupidity or blind optimism?


THE FIRST INSPECTOR ADVISED AGAINST THE B AND H LOCAL PLAN. THE SECOND REJECTED BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES (THAT WAS THE KEY STRUT OF HIS ARGUMENT - HE DIDN'T LIKE FALMER AS A SITE AND IF THERE WERE OTHERS THEN WE SHOULD LOOK AT THEM). THE THIRD REJECTED THE POTENTIAL FOR ANOTHER SITE HENCE WHY ODPM SAID YES.