unnameable
New member
LDC have just issued a press release saying that...they have not decided what to do.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
LDC Press Release
- Thread starter unnameable
- Start date
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Wardy
NSC's Benefits Guru
So a press release to say that there is no press release 
typical council, 1 person to decide they don't know what to do, takes two weeks to have a meeting with the powers that be about the fact that he doesn't know what to do, call in a few "project management" types who inform them of all the options, have another meeting about all the options, decide they are still undecided, and then get the press office to issue a statement saying they are undecided. Another 6 months down the line before the next undecided buffoonery statement will be issued I reckon....
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Here: http://www.lewes.gov.uk/council/8034.asp
Or here:
10 May 2006:
Challenge to Falmer decision moving ahead
Media: 655
The combined challenge of Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society to John Prescott’s decision is moving closer to a conclusion.
Following the letter received from the Treasury Solicitor dated 6th April 2006 when John Prescott admitted that his mistake over the Brighton and Hove City Council Local Plan was a fatal flaw in his Falmer decision, the District Council has responded within just 19 working days.
We have asked the Treasury Solicitor to respond to us by 1 June at the latest. Whilst Mr. Prescott has admitted to this particular mistake, he has failed to respond to any of the other grounds of the Council’s claim, of which there are 16 in total. We want a written assurance from the new Secretary of State that all the flaws identified in our challenge will be reconsidered before any new decision is issued. Provided the Secretary of State is willing to give us this assurance the case need not be heard in court.
Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society have also asked for a written undertaking from Ruth Kelly, the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that John Prescott will take no further part at all in the re-determination of the Stadium application.
It is anticipated that the Cabinet of Lewes District Council will meet on 6th June 2006 to consider their decision whether to take the case to the High Court or agree the terms of a Consent Order as proposed in the letter of 6th April. The Treasury Solicitor’s response will be a crucial factor in the Cabinet’s decision.
Ends/
Notes to editors:
A Summary of the main flaws in John Prescott’s decision is as follows:
Wrongly concluded that the application site for the stadium is located within the boundary of the built up area of the City of Brighton as identified by the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which was adopted in July 2005. The mistake was critical to his reasoning for attaching less weight than did his first Inspector to the considerable harm that the development would cause to the AONB.
Failed to deal with his first Inspector’s conclusions that the coach and bus interchange part of the development, which would fall outside of the built-up area boundary, would add appreciably to the harm caused by the stadium to the AONB.
Failed to have regard to the impact of the development on the existing gap between Falmer Village and the City of Brighton.
Failed to mention this in his decision letter despite the fact that his first Inspector identified this as a relevant issue and 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.
Failed to have regard to the development’s conflict with the policies in the statutory development plan which prevent the erosion of strategic and other important gaps between settlements.
Failed to apply correctly his own policy guidance in PPS7 by wrongly characterising the development as amounting to a matter of national interest, and thus giving it disproportionate weight in balancing it against the harm caused by the development to the AONB. Wrongly concluded that because a particular development would support regeneration, which is an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest.
Failed 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 too high a threshold for evaluating alternative sites.
Failed to take account of other recent cases relating to large scale development in the AONB in which he agreed that it was not possible, at that time, to determine whether other alternative projects would be approved or would proceed, but that there was no reason to rule them out as credible alternative proposals.
Failed to take account of the fact that part of the development site is included within the land designated to be included within the National Park and failed to deal with the effect of the development on the proposed National Park. Failed to deal with the parties’ arguments/evidence on this issue, despite having expressly said he wanted to hear these.
Wrongly concluded that in most views only the roof of the stadium would be the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. Wrongly contradicted (without giving reasons) the conclusion of his first Inspector who said that:
the stadium as a whole would be highly visible and it was only from Stanmer Park, to the north-west, that views would be limited to the roof structure;
the coach and bus interchange would be just as visible as the stadium site from most nearby vantage points;
the coach and bus interchange would be seen from medium-distance locations on higher ground as a further encroachment of the built-up area into this sensitive stretch of open downland separating Brighton from Falmer;
Contrary to the Inquiries Procedure Rules, contradicted his first Inspector’s finding of fact on the issue of visibility without giving any reasons and without advising the Claimants of that disagreement and offering them the opportunity to comment on it.
Wrongly concluded that a stadium development at Sheepcote Valley would lead to severe overcrowding on the streets of Brighton’s centre posing serious problems in terms of congestion, crowd control and policing, when there was no evidence on which he could reasonably reach that conclusion. Wrongly took into account new evidence to which the Claimants did not have the opportunity of responding.
Misunderstood and failed to have regard to his first Inspector’s findings that the formation of the new link road and the scale of its use by stadium-related traffic would have an unacceptable impact on the historic Stanmer Park and would not have the effect of protecting the historic park.
Wrongly and unreasonably attached “very limited weight” to his first Inspector’s 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.
Or here:
10 May 2006:
Challenge to Falmer decision moving ahead
Media: 655
The combined challenge of Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society to John Prescott’s decision is moving closer to a conclusion.
Following the letter received from the Treasury Solicitor dated 6th April 2006 when John Prescott admitted that his mistake over the Brighton and Hove City Council Local Plan was a fatal flaw in his Falmer decision, the District Council has responded within just 19 working days.
We have asked the Treasury Solicitor to respond to us by 1 June at the latest. Whilst Mr. Prescott has admitted to this particular mistake, he has failed to respond to any of the other grounds of the Council’s claim, of which there are 16 in total. We want a written assurance from the new Secretary of State that all the flaws identified in our challenge will be reconsidered before any new decision is issued. Provided the Secretary of State is willing to give us this assurance the case need not be heard in court.
Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society have also asked for a written undertaking from Ruth Kelly, the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that John Prescott will take no further part at all in the re-determination of the Stadium application.
It is anticipated that the Cabinet of Lewes District Council will meet on 6th June 2006 to consider their decision whether to take the case to the High Court or agree the terms of a Consent Order as proposed in the letter of 6th April. The Treasury Solicitor’s response will be a crucial factor in the Cabinet’s decision.
Ends/
Notes to editors:
A Summary of the main flaws in John Prescott’s decision is as follows:
Wrongly concluded that the application site for the stadium is located within the boundary of the built up area of the City of Brighton as identified by the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which was adopted in July 2005. The mistake was critical to his reasoning for attaching less weight than did his first Inspector to the considerable harm that the development would cause to the AONB.
Failed to deal with his first Inspector’s conclusions that the coach and bus interchange part of the development, which would fall outside of the built-up area boundary, would add appreciably to the harm caused by the stadium to the AONB.
Failed to have regard to the impact of the development on the existing gap between Falmer Village and the City of Brighton.
Failed to mention this in his decision letter despite the fact that his first Inspector identified this as a relevant issue and 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.
Failed to have regard to the development’s conflict with the policies in the statutory development plan which prevent the erosion of strategic and other important gaps between settlements.
Failed to apply correctly his own policy guidance in PPS7 by wrongly characterising the development as amounting to a matter of national interest, and thus giving it disproportionate weight in balancing it against the harm caused by the development to the AONB. Wrongly concluded that because a particular development would support regeneration, which is an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest.
Failed 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 too high a threshold for evaluating alternative sites.
Failed to take account of other recent cases relating to large scale development in the AONB in which he agreed that it was not possible, at that time, to determine whether other alternative projects would be approved or would proceed, but that there was no reason to rule them out as credible alternative proposals.
Failed to take account of the fact that part of the development site is included within the land designated to be included within the National Park and failed to deal with the effect of the development on the proposed National Park. Failed to deal with the parties’ arguments/evidence on this issue, despite having expressly said he wanted to hear these.
Wrongly concluded that in most views only the roof of the stadium would be the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. Wrongly contradicted (without giving reasons) the conclusion of his first Inspector who said that:
the stadium as a whole would be highly visible and it was only from Stanmer Park, to the north-west, that views would be limited to the roof structure;
the coach and bus interchange would be just as visible as the stadium site from most nearby vantage points;
the coach and bus interchange would be seen from medium-distance locations on higher ground as a further encroachment of the built-up area into this sensitive stretch of open downland separating Brighton from Falmer;
Contrary to the Inquiries Procedure Rules, contradicted his first Inspector’s finding of fact on the issue of visibility without giving any reasons and without advising the Claimants of that disagreement and offering them the opportunity to comment on it.
Wrongly concluded that a stadium development at Sheepcote Valley would lead to severe overcrowding on the streets of Brighton’s centre posing serious problems in terms of congestion, crowd control and policing, when there was no evidence on which he could reasonably reach that conclusion. Wrongly took into account new evidence to which the Claimants did not have the opportunity of responding.
Misunderstood and failed to have regard to his first Inspector’s findings that the formation of the new link road and the scale of its use by stadium-related traffic would have an unacceptable impact on the historic Stanmer Park and would not have the effect of protecting the historic park.
Wrongly and unreasonably attached “very limited weight” to his first Inspector’s 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.
Last edited:
is there a synopsis BoF? 
Wardy
NSC's Benefits Guru
Will they ever give-up and die.
Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,123
Note to LDC.
You seem to forget that you are a small group of failed politicans & Nimbys with nothing else to do in your lives other than sit in village halls drinking tea & discussing whether the church graveyard needs a new wooden bench.
Don't try and tell the government what to do, how long they have to do it, and who can do it.
You seem to forget that you are a small group of failed politicans & Nimbys with nothing else to do in your lives other than sit in village halls drinking tea & discussing whether the church graveyard needs a new wooden bench.
Don't try and tell the government what to do, how long they have to do it, and who can do it.
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
tedebear said:is there a synopsis BoF?
I left that upto Unnameable!!
unnameable - "LDC have just issued a press release saying that...they have not decided what to do."
Woodchip
It's all about the bikes
They really are a bunch of ****s
What they seem to be saying is:
a) thanks for admitting that the stadium is not entirely within B&H i.e Prescotts mistake, BUT
that is not all we are saying is wrong.
b) we want all the issues in our original letter re-examined or we want our day in Court.
So LDC seem to confirm that they are not dropping this issue and want to go all the way to Court.
So that blows the "they have done as much as they can bit" out of the water.
They are hell bent on destroying us.
To be honest I think we are a bit weak and feeble in all of this. Too reasonable.
I really do think we should make fing big plans for their conference. Esp Mings big day. Lets ruin that.
a) thanks for admitting that the stadium is not entirely within B&H i.e Prescotts mistake, BUT
that is not all we are saying is wrong.
b) we want all the issues in our original letter re-examined or we want our day in Court.
So LDC seem to confirm that they are not dropping this issue and want to go all the way to Court.
So that blows the "they have done as much as they can bit" out of the water.
They are hell bent on destroying us.
To be honest I think we are a bit weak and feeble in all of this. Too reasonable.
I really do think we should make fing big plans for their conference. Esp Mings big day. Lets ruin that.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
What LDC don't seem to realise is that all their points HAVE been considered, but only one of them has any merit.
We could have told them that months ago.
We could have told them that months ago.