Important Questions for Lord Bracknell

[seagull inde away stand]

Questions for anyone who has good knowledge on the enquiry procedure. Hoping to get shot down on this one but need to eliminate possibilities.
A bit of background:- At the Falmer AGM it was admitted that the LDC would be highly unlikely to win all 16 of their objections in the high court but they were hopeful of winning 2 or 3. Also mentioned was an example "Old Trafford" as one of the largest football stadiums in the Country but sitting in the middle of an economically deprived suburb of Manchester. What was also said was High Court Action could lead to another public enquiry This was not played down at all in any way e.g. a remote possibility or i.e. small risk of etc. etc. and I personally took this statement as a warning to their supporters attending to be prepared.
My questions refer to number 13 and 6 of LDC's objections
13. Wrongly and unreasonably attached very limited weight to his first inspectors assessment of alternative sites in which the first inspector concluded that there were other potential sites outside the AONB which could be developed for the stadium
6. Fail to apply the appropriate test for determining whether a suitable alternative site was available (which is whether there is a realistic possibility of a better site coming forward) by setting to high a threshold for evaluating alternative sites.
Out of memory, I recall North Quay, Newhaven as being one of the possible sites before the enquiries began.
QUESTIONS
1. Could the objections 6 and 13 be directly applied to the Newhaven North Quay site?
2. Was the North Quay site identified in the first enquiry as a potential site?
3. Why was the North Quay site eliminated from being considered in the second enquiry?
4. Did LDC object to the North Quay site being eliminated from the enquiry?
5. How big is the North Quay site? Was it eliminated because it was too small? but looking round the site, it looks quite big, maybe not for coach park included, but there may be close adjacent sites which could be used. Could this be argued in court?
6. Had the North Quay site been included in the second enquiry I feel sure that LDC would have supplied most of the evidence to eliminate it. So would it be more of an advantage for an experienced barrister to save North Quay as his "last bullet" if the battle over Falmer was being lost?
AND FINALLY.................
7. The site is also the planned site for Newhaven Incinerator, another plan LDC would love to stop. How would high court action affect the incinerator enquiry?
Hope I'm barking up the wrong tree! The place is a dump! Clearly unaffordable to the Club but in the words of world renowned scholar Baldrick, "They have a cunning plan" its somewhere in those 16 objections.
Hope this is not IT!!!!!!

 

[Screaming J]

I'm not Lord B but before he replies can I add my two penn'oth. My understanding is that at the High Court LDC will not be allowed to introduce new evidence on any matter, including alternative sites. The test is whether the decisions were right in law and whether all the evidence considered at the Inquiries had been taken into account. The 2nd Inspector concluded that sites at Newhaven would only add to the amount of travelling involved, ruled them out and the decision letter agrees with this conclusion.

So they can't use the court case to plug Newhaven as an alternative to Falmer and to replace the incinerator.

Mind you if I'm right I suppose it doesn't rule out them TRYING to do this. After all; they are bloody thick.

 

[Screaming J]

This second post posted in error; sorry. How do I delete it?

 

[seagull inde away stand]

Thanks for that. Their court case does seem a bit too weak to be true.
I was going on the saying "If its too good to be true, THEN IT ISN'T"

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

I thought it was ruled out very simply because Newhaven is not within the conurbation of Brighton & Hove and is therefore unsuitable due to football league rules.

 

[The Large One]

Point 13 that LDC has no basis in law (the government's words, not mine - In fact, none of the point except the one the have conceded to Lewes 'have any basis in law'). Prescott could attach as much or as little weight as he deems fit to each of the considerations the Inspector's report. The first inspector's report concludesd that they were sites outside the AONB which could have been suitable - he mentions Sheepcote Valley. That opinion is given very little weight in Prescott's consideration because there was very little information to back it up. However, the second inspector's report has far more detail, and concludes that nowhere else is suitable and available. The fact that Lewes consider Prescott's opinion on the first inspector as unreasonable is not a point of law.

As regards Point 6, Lewes District Council demanded at the Public Inquiry (and in their letter here) that Brighton & Hove Albion submit the same level of detailed planning application, including transport impacy, environment impact, noise and light pollution, health & safety conisderations and so on, for ALL the alternative sites that they did for Falmer. The inspector said that this was not necessary, but Lewes still insist. Now if ever this was a local authority with no idea of planning considerations, and purely wanting Brighton & Hove Albion to spend in excess of £20m on planning applications which the club had absolutely no desire to utilise, this was it.

However, what this point pertains to is that, if the local authority is not minded to grant any alternative application (Is planning consent a realistic possiblity? was one of Prescott's questions which set the agenda for the second inquiry), it ought to be rejected from the list. Seeing as Brighton & Hove City Council only supports one site (Falmer), LDC deem BHCC's position to be disproportionately influential on the matter. And they want Prescott (or Ruth Kelly) to overturn the decision on that basis.



So, having a go at answering your questions... (Sorry, Ed)

1. No
2. Alternative sites were hardly dicsussed at the first inquiry. However, my recollection is that no it wasn't. But I could be wrong.
3. It wasn't eliminated. It was never considered in the first place. Do you think Lewes District Council actually want a football club in their environs?
4. See 3.
5. Nope. It wasn't discussed at the inquiry, so it's not coming up now.
6. Um, not sure what you mean there.
7. The two matters are totally separate.

Point is, North Quay (in the Albion's stadium terms) is a total irrelevance, and yes, you are barking up the wrong tree. The High Court CANNOT order a new public inquiry, only Ruth Kelly can do that, and she is not going to. All of the information required for the decision to be made is at her disposal, and she is hardly going to go against the policy decision of her deputy leader.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

only Ruth Kelly can do that, and she is not going to.

How can you be sure? lets face it this has had endless twist and turns!

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

How can you be sure? lets face it this has had endless twist and turns!

Because once she has re-made the decision, it will be legally watertight and any attempted further judicial review will get thrown out. So there's no need for any further evidence to be gathered in an inquiry.

I know that this whole process has turned into some sort of post-apocalyptic vortex nightmare, but there really isn't anywhere Lewes DC can go after the High Court.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

No party to the Inquiry came forward with any substantial case for Newhaven, but it was mentioned at the second Inquiry and there were written representations about it.

The second Inspector's report says this about the Newhaven site:-

"This land is some 15km to the east of the centre of Brighton as the crow flies, and Newhaven being a separate and distinct town in its own right, it is not within what I or, I imagine most people, regard as the Brighton and Hove conurbation. And, although Newhaven has a rail link, it is too distant from the City to be regarded as a sustainable location for a stadium in terms of accessibility. In overall terms a stadium here would be likely to increase rather than reduce the need to travel".

Prescott undoubtedly took the questions of sustainability and the impact on the need to travel into account in making his decision. The c;laim that he didn't is completely spurious.

 

[Lammy]

No party to the Inquiry came forward with any substantial case for Newhaven, but it was mentioned at the second Inquiry and there were written representations about it.

The second Inspector's report says this about the Newhaven site:-

This land is some 15km to the east of the centre of Brighton as the crow flies, and Newhaven being a separate and distinct town in its own right, it is not within what I or, I imagine most people, regard as the Brighton and Hove conurbation. And, although Newhaven has a rail link, it is too distant from the City to be regarded as a sustainable location for a stadium in terms of accessibility. In overall terms a stadium here would be likely to increase rather than reduce the need to travel.

Damn

 

[Dave the OAP]

Because once she has re-made the decision, it will be legally watertight and any attempted further judicial review will get thrown out. So there's no need for any further evidence to be gathered in an inquiry.

I know that this whole process has turned into some sort of post-apocalyptic vortex nightmare, but there really isn't anywhere Lewes DC can go after the High Court.

But the think I do not understand in all of this is, If LDC know that the Government were wrong on 1 point, ie the built up area bit, then they must also know that The Court will rule in their favour and Ruth Kelly will be asked to look at the 16 points again. If she then makes it 15 points, by taking out the offensing clause, then can LDC go back again to the court and want these 15 looked at again, or will the court rule on all 16 points in December.

If RK then says that all is OK, presumably LDC will have nowhere to go.

If that is the case, this is presumably the endgame as it where.

 

[Curious Orange]

But the think I do not understand in all of this is, If LDC know that the Government were wrong on 1 point, ie the built up area bit, then they must also know that The Court will rule in their favour and Ruth Kelly will be asked to look at the 16 points again. If she then makes it 15 points, by taking out the offensing clause, then can LDC go back again to the court and want these 15 looked at again, or will the court rule on all 16 points in December.

If RK then says that all is OK, presumably LDC will have nowhere to go.

If that is the case, this is presumably the endgame as it where.

Hopefully.

Sometimes the shortest distance can seem too far to run.

 

[110%]

But the think I do not understand in all of this is, If LDC know that the Government were wrong on 1 point, ie the built up area bit, then they must also know that The Court will rule in their favour and Ruth Kelly will be asked to look at the 16 points again. If she then makes it 15 points, by taking out the offensing clause, then can LDC go back again to the court and want these 15 looked at again, or will the court rule on all 16 points in December.

If RK then says that all is OK, presumably LDC will have nowhere to go.

If that is the case, this is presumably the endgame as it where.

The Government has conceded one of LDC’s points but maintains that the other 15 points raised by LDC have no merit. Therefore, the High Court will quash John Prescott’s decision, there is no real argument about that, because he made an error in the interpretation of local planning policy and therefore that part of his decision/reasoning was factually incorrect. What everyone hopes and expects is that the High Court will also pass comment on the other 15 points. There are instances where the Court will not feel the need to come to a firm conclusion on all the points raised in a High Court challenge once it is clear that the original decision on a planning application cannot stand and must be quashed. However, in a situation like Falmer it is very likely that the Court will address each of the points raised by LDC. I would expect both the Treasury Solicitor and LDC to ask the judge to this.

Therefore, we know that the application will be sent back to Ruth Kelly and she must make a fresh decision on the application. In reaching her decision she will have to take into account what the court said on each of the points raised by LDC.

Of course, Ruth Kelly has the option of holding a further inquiry before making her decision, although she might decide to seek further written representations from all the parties in the light of the Court’s decision rather than hold another inquiry. That is her decision.

Also, LDC (or the Treasury Solicitor) might seek leave to challenge the High Court’s decision if they feel the High Court judge has not come to a correct legal interpretation.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

How can you be sure? lets face it this has had endless twist and turns!

I have told me that Ruth Kelly is firmly behind the stadium and is keen to sort the issue out as soon as possible.

 

[seagull inde away stand]

Thank you for your comments and efforts in putting my mind at rest.