Letter from the Planning Inspectorate

[attila]

I presume some other people have had one of these?
It seems to me to suggest that Brighton & Hove Council can simply ignore Hoile's findings if they want to.
What do you think?


The Planning Inspectorate
Room 406 / Kite Wing Direct Line 0117-372 8906
Temple Quay House Switchboard 0117-372 8000
2 The Square Fax No 0117-372 6241
Temple Quay GTN 1371-8906
Bristol BS1 6PN e-mail: jane.huntbach@pins.gsi.gov.uk
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk


Your Ref:
Our Ref: DP 304
Date: 1 March 2004



Dear John

BRIGHTON AND HOVE LOCAL PLAN – INSPECTOR’S REPORT

Thank you for your recent letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, concerning the Inspector's recommendations relating to the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and the proposed community stadium.

I should explain that, although the Inspector is appointed by the First Secretary of State, the inquiry is held on behalf of Brighton and Hove Council. Because of this, it is not normal practice for the Planning Inspectorate to comment on correspondence once an inquiry has ended and the resulting report has been sent to the local planning authority. Any correspondence relating to the inquiry is a matter for the local planning authority, since under current legislation responsibility for subsequent action rests solely with them. We are also unable to seek comments from the Inspector, as once an inquiry has formally closed the Inspector cannot comment on further correspondence.

In the circumstances, you may wish to bring the points made in your letter to the attention of Brighton and Hove Council, asking that they take them into account in considering the Inspector’s report and recommendations. I am forwarding your letter to the Council accordingly.

Yours sincerely

David Halstead
Development Plans Division

 

[London Calling]

Yep, that is and was my conclusion.

 

[Caveman]

Yep RECEIVED

 

[Seagullmatt]

Yep

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What do we think of it?

As posted on an earlier thread....

This is actually somewhat amusing because it means that the ODPM's office is passing letters on to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol and then the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol is passing them on to Brighton & Hove City Council - so at least three postrooms are going to be completely log jammed!!

No-one should be discouraged however or think that their letter to John Prescott has not had an effect - this shows it certainly has. We need to maintain the pressure and keep the letters going in. The ODPM's office will be advising ministers about the weight of public feeling on this issue and if it keeps going it cannot be ignored.

Just because they have now worked out a route to pass the letters on doesn't mean that they are ineffective.

Keep those letters pounding in - get all your friends, relatives and colleagues to write and keep it going and support the other initiatives being put forward by the FFA team.

It is very encouraging and supportive to see so many people reacting so strongly to this issue and supporting what the Albion are trying to achieve.

 

[Curious Orange]

The point is that the volume of letters makes an impression irrespective of whose desk they end up on. And the fact that they are travelling around the country means that people in those parts of the country (Bristol and London) are being exposed to our plight too, surely not a bad thing.

 

[Comedy Steve]

Got exactly the same letter as well.

Have read it a few times, I'm a bit concerned that the letter implies we are questioning the contents of the Inspector's recommendations, which naturally we were, but I thought the overall gist of the letters to Mr Prescott was to ask him to take these considerations 'into account' when addressing the inspectorate's findings.

I.e., the planning inspectorate has taken this letter as questioning the inspector's recommendations, as opposed to what I thought was the real purpopse for it; imploring the Deputy Prime Minister to disregard the inquiry's findings.

Is this a slight cockup in our letter wordings, or do we need to address (sic) this slightly more formally to JP?

 

[Soton Seagull]

Same here. But mine was signed by a lady. Mmmmmm......

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is this a slight cockup in our letter wordings, or do we need to address (sic) this slightly more formally to JP?

The latest version of the "standard" letter is direct to Prescott, inviting him to approve the planning application.

If that gets a response, it should be from Prescott's Office not from the Planning Inspectorate.

Since it's a different letter from the first one, maybe people should write again, even if they've already written about the Local Plan Inspector's report.

You can download the "new" letter from here

 

[Lush]

Well thanks a bundle. I've just printed off 100 copies of the "old" letter for tomorrow.

Can we not have the whizzy logo on the bottom of the new one?

 

[Yorkie]

The latest version of the "standard" letter is direct to Prescott, inviting him to approve the planning application.

If that gets a response, it should be from Prescott's Office not from the Planning Inspectorate.

Since it's a different letter from the first one, maybe people should write again, even if they've already written about the Local Plan Inspector's report.

You can download the "new" letter from here

See my reply from my MP received today and signed by Keith Hill himself