Letter from The Planning Inspectorate

[maidstoneseagull]

Has anyone else received letter today from Planning Inspectorate ?

The Summary is
On balance the line has been drawn to include the land which meets the statutory criteria and excludes those features which would detract from this national designation.

The Countryside Agency recommends that the Inspector advise the Secretary of State to confirm the boundary as shown in South Downs National Park (Designation) Order in relation to land north of Village Way, Falmer.

 

[Lammy]

What does that mean in English?

 

[maidstoneseagull]

I'm not sure, I was hoping somebody might though.

 

[Lammy]

I'm not sure, I was hoping somebody might though.

 

[The Auditor]

What does that mean in English?

Glad I'm not the only thickie....Hopefully LB will tell us what it means in laymans terms

 

[Seagull Stew]

All it says is that the Countryside agency is recommending that the inspector includes Village Way North as part of The National Park, thus excluding buildings that would not fit in (I.E a football stadium).
But then we always new that the Countryside agency wanted this.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm not sure what this means.

The issue of the National Park boundary at Falmer has been very confused.

An early version of the Countryside Agency's proposals excluded the whole of the land at Village Way North from the National Park.

Then they came up with a second proposal to include the land north of Village Way that is within Lewes District (ie the coach park site, but not the stadium site). Under this proposal, land within the City of Brighton & Hove would still be excluded.

This second version of the proposed boundary is the one shown on the Countryside Agency's website:-

http://www2.countryside.gov.uk/images/proposednationalparks/sd_desig_images/map32.jpg

Now they seem to be saying they want to "include the land which meets the statutory criteria and excludes those features which would detract from this national designation". That seems to suggest that land already designated for development should be excluded. But the criteria also say that the boundary should be represented by a physical feature on the ground, not just by an invisible local authority boundary line (as in the second version of their proposals).

Either way, the final decision isn't one for the Countryside Agency - although they will have a view. The decision will be taken by the Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Alun Michael), when he has considered the Report of the Planning Inspector who is presiding over the Public Inquiry that is currently in progress at Worthing.

The boundary at Falmer was considered in detail at the beginning of November, with evidence being heard from all the usual suspects (including Lewes DC, Falmer PC, Friends of the Earth, the Albion &c). The NIMBYs, of course, want the whole of the stadium site included within the National Park. The Albion want the boundary to be drawn in a way that would put both the stadium and the coach park outside the National Park.



Maidstoneseagull - you say the letter is from the Planning Inspectorate and then quote a view from the Countryside Agency. Bearing in mind that these are two quite separate organisations, does the letter say what the Planning Inspector has concluded?

 

[Beach Hut]

Mine came this morning from the Planning Inspectorate from a "Babs" Bay no less (Program Officer and Inquiry Manager)

The minutes are loads of 4-digit numbers and it says South Downs National Park (Designation) Order 2002 with an address Countryside Agency, Dacre House, London.

 

[Brixtaan]

I'm not sure what this means.

The issue of the National Park boundary at Falmer has been very confused.

An early version of the Countryside Agency's proposals excluded the whole of the land at Village Way North from the National Park.

Then they came up with a second proposal to include the land north of Village Way that is within Lewes District (ie the coach park site, but not the stadium site). Under this proposal, land within the City of Brighton & Hove would still be excluded.

This second version of the proposed boundary is the one shown on the Countryside Agency's website:-

Now they seem to be saying they want to "include the land which meets the statutory criteria and excludes those features which would detract from this national designation". That seems to suggest that land already designated for development should be excluded. But the criteria also say that the boundary should be represented by a physical feature on the ground, not just by an invisible local authority boundary line (as in the second version of their proposals).

Either way, the final decision isn't one for the Countryside Agency - although they will have a view. The decision will be taken by the Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Alun Michael), when he has considered the Report of the Planning Inspector who is presiding over the Public Inquiry that is currently in progress at Worthing.

The boundary at Falmer was considered in detail at the beginning of November, with evidence being heard from all the usual suspects (including Lewes DC, Falmer PC, Friends of the Earth, the Albion &c). The NIMBYs, of course, want the whole of the stadium site included within the National Park. The Albion want the boundary to be drawn in a way that would put both the stadium and the coach park outside the National Park.



Maidstoneseagull - you say the letter is from the Planning Inspectorate and then quote a view from the Countryside Agency. Bearing in mind that these are two quite separate organisations, does the letter say what the Planning Inspector has concluded?

So whats that in English?

 

[Beach Hut]

Summary:

On balance the line has been drawn to include the land which meets the statutory criteria and escludes those features which would detract from this national designation.

The Countryside Agency recommends that the Inspector advise the Secretary of State to confirm the boundary as shown in South Downs National Park (Designation) Order in relation to land north of Village Way, Falmer.

 

[Brixtaan]

Summary:

On balance the line has been drawn to include the land which meets the statutory criteria and escludes those features which would detract from this national designation.

The Countryside Agency recommends that the Inspector advise the Secretary of State to confirm the boundary as shown in South Downs National Park (Designation) Order in relation to land north of Village Way, Falmer.

That's one of the funniest posts ever.

Please don't make me repeat myself.English please

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So whats that in English?

Seagull_Stew seems to think it means:-

"the Countryside agency is recommending that the inspector includes Village Way North as part of The National Park, thus excluding buildings that would not fit in (I.E a football stadium).
But then we always knew that the Countryside agency wanted this."

I'm saying that the Countryside Agency have never said this. They started off by saying that Village Way North should be outside the National Park. But then they decided that they wanted part of the land north of Village Way to be included in the National Park.

It's not obvious from the summary printed in the Planning Inspectorate's letter what they now want.

 

[Colbourne Kid]

Seems the Club don't know anything about this letter. Can someone who has received it fax the letter to the Club for the attention of Martin Perry 01273 648179?

 

[Seagull Stew]

Whatever it means, I'm sure it's yet another way of delaying the enquiry!

 

[The Large One]

Don't see how Stew. There is no obligation for the ODPM to wait until the SDNP inquiry has reported. Because of what Prescott has said about the new inquiry (only being allowed to discuss other sites), it would be a bit rich to throw in another condition regarding Falmer.

He has never mentioned the South Downs National Park as an issue before.

 

[perseus]

Is the orange line the same as the AONB line?

Brighton Council would have voted on the line for the National Park. Which one did they agree on? (if they are different)

I cannot see how there is anything to stop some jokerman to step up at the Public Inquiry and propose Village Way South as another alternative?

 

[The Large One]

I cannot see how there is anything to stop some jokerman to step up at the Public Inquiry and propose Village Way South as another alternative?

What, like you, you treacherous turd?

 

[Porky]

PLANNING DIRECTORATE?
It sounds like some secret department deep within the Kremlin run by th KGB.
DK goes through the door to plead his case and is never seen again.
I don't suppose any of you youngsters remember the Katyn Forest.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is the orange line the same as the AONB line?

NO. The whole of the stadium site, plus most of the Brighton University campus is within the AONB.

Brighton Council would have voted on the line for the National Park. Which one did they agree on? (if they are different)

I believe they supported the Countryside Agency's proposals to de-designate the AONB land that was required for the stadium and to remove the University land from the AONB.

I cannot see how there is anything to stop some jokerman to step up at the Public Inquiry and propose Village Way South as another alternative?

Technically speaking, neither can I.

But ... to the best of my knowledge, YOU are the ONLY person who has made any case for VWS since the Club withdrew its planning application for the site.

In terms of the Public Inquiry, you would have to demonstrate that the objection to VWN (that it is in the AONB) doesn't apply to VWS. This would be difficult, since there is a strong likelihood that the VWN site will be removed from the AONB and NO-ONE has suggested that VWS should be outside the National Park. The opportunity to do that has now passed, because the National Park Inquiry has now completed its consideration of boundary issues in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove.

 

[perseus]

What, like you, you treacherous turd?

Not me, I have no intention in getting involved in Brighton planning matters. It is up to the people of Brighton to decide (participate in the Public Inquiry).

Falmer is NOT in the national interest. Not in the regional interest (although Sheepcote may be?). It is just a bloody ploughed field of no interest to anybody much.

Prescott mentioned the AONB (Ay-o-nob) statutory boundaries, not the proposed NP boundaries, so these are the boundaries I would have thought are relevant (if you care for that sort of thing).

Then there is the statement of PPG something to do with the rural economy. What has Falmer village got to do with the rural economy? It is full of DINKYs who didn't earn their money ploughing up fields or milking sheep.

My only interest is getting the best stadium possible for the people of Sussex (excluding Crawley). If Falmer is not affordable I would be prepared to support an alternative. If the costs stack up, Falmer is going to happen anyway. It will not be as good as I would have liked but ....