Lord Bracknell
On fire
The next meeting of Lewes District Council’s Cabinet Committee is being held at 2.30pm on Wednesday 11 January at the Meridian Centre, Peacehaven.
It’s a long Agenda, but it includes this Report from the Chief Executive:-
Report Title: Proposed Brighton and Hove Albion FC Stadium at Falmer Decision by the First Secretary of State
Report To Cabinet: Date: 11 January 2006
Lead Councillor: Councillor N Commin
Ward(s) Affected: Kingston
Report By: Chief Executive
Contact Officer(s): John Crawford
Purpose of Report:
To note the grounds of appeal against the decision of the first Secretary of State and to consider the petitions delivered to the Council meeting on 7 December 2005
Officers Recommendation(s):
1 To note the grounds of appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that have been lodged with the High Court.
2 To note the conclusions of the District Auditor that the Cabinet took its decision in possession of all the relevant facts.
3 To consider the petitions delivered to the Council meeting on 7 December 2005.
Reasons for Recommendations
1 To advise the Cabinet of matters relating to the implementation of its decision on 24 November 2005.
Information
2 The decision of the Cabinet on 24 November has produced a substantial amount of interest including newspaper reports of varying accuracy and opinions for and against the Cabinet’s decision. Most of the comments relate to the cost of the action in the High Court.
3 There does not appear to be a general understanding that Mr Prescott’s decision to grant planning permission was contrary to the explicit recommendation of the Government Inspector who held the first part of the inquiry. He sent his report to Mr Prescott in December 2003 with the conclusion that the case against the Falmer site was overwhelming. Nor of the fact that the decision was contrary to the conclusions of the Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. Nor of the fact that the third Inspector, who assessed the alternative sites, made no comments on the merits of the proposals.
4 A number of comments were directed to the District Auditor who considered the issues raised and his conclusions are set out in Appendix A.
5 A number of organisations who opposed the planning applications throughout the inquiry process have decided to support the legal challenge and have committed funds to the potential costs as follows:
Falmer Parish Council has committed £30,000
Lewes District Council has committed £25,000
The Sussex Downs Society has committed £5,000
The South Downs Joint Committee has committed £5,000
6 The Campaign to Protect Rural England supports the action but has not been able to make any resources available.
The Council has consistently said that the football club should have a stadium but there are alternative sites available that are more suitable for this type of development. The case is that the challenge to the decision is justified by significant issues at stake about the future of the South Downs. A number of important planning issues have been overlooked, or not properly considered by Mr Prescott in making his decision. In terms of national and local planning policies, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the highest levels of landscape protection and Mr Prescott has set aside these policies. The appeal requests the Court to quash the decision made by Mr Prescott on 27 October 2005 and to send it back to him for reconsideration.
7 In summary, the challenge states that Mr Prescott either overlooked, or failed to deal with or explain a number of important issues:
7.1 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.
7.2 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.
7.3 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.
7.4 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.
7.5 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.
7.6 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.
7.7 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.
8 At the meeting of the Council on 7 December, a petition was handed in on behalf of the Falmer For All Campaign comprising 5,165 signatures. The signatures are accompanied by addresses that are located within the District.
The text of the preamble to the petition is set out in Appendix B. Most of the signatures were collected under Part A with about six hundred under part B.
The main thrust of the petition appears to be concern about the cost of the action in the High Court. Erroneous publicity at the time the petition was collected estimated the cost of the legal challenge to be ‘in hundreds of thousands.’ Part B of the preamble to the petition contains a similar erroneous comment.
The preamble to the petition did not contain any explanation of the reasons for the challenge to the decision.
A separate petition comprising 51 signatures from the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward (with the same wording as Part A) was handed in by Councillor Small.
Financial Appraisal
9 The decision of three organisations to commit funding to support the appeal is explained earlier in the report.
Environmental Implications
10 I have completed the Environmental Implications questionnaire and this Report is exempt from the requirement because it is a progress report.
Risk Management Implications
11 I have completed a risk assessment in accordance with the Council’s Risk Management methodology and have identified the following risks that I propose to mitigate in the following ways with the additional insurance/control costs outlined.
There is a risk that the action may be lost, in which case the costs would be payable and all of the contributions would be required. The best way to mitigate that risk is to make sure that everything possible is done to ensure that the action is successful.
There is a risk that the public do not understand all of the issues in the reasons for taking the action. The best way to mitigate that risk is to ensure that comprehensive information is available to the public explaining the reasons underpinning the legal challenge.
Background Papers
The Grounds of Appeal under Section 288 of the 1990 Act.
The report to the Joint Committee for the South Downs.
Comments by email and letter and the responses given.
Appendices
Appendix A: Decision of the District Auditor
Appendix B: Preamble to the Petitions
Petition Part A
We, the undersigned citizens and council taxpayers of Lewes District, object in the strongest possible terms to any expenditure by Lewes District Council in pursuit of a challenge to the Government’s decision on the Brighton & Hove community stadium.
The Government has made a decision taking all factors into account after a 62-day public inquiry. As Lewes District Council has already spent over £207,000 on this issue, we demand that the council abandons any challenge – whether it costs £40,000 or £400,000 – and instead uses its ratepayer’s money more wisely for the benefit of the residents of Lewes District.
4,558 signatures (Falmer For All Campaign) plus 51 signatures on a similar petition from constituents in the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward.
Petition Part B
Lewes District council has decided to launch an appeal for a Judicial Review against the Governments recent decision to grant planning permission for a Community Stadium to be built at Falmer. LDC has opposed the stadium plans from the outset, and subsequently spent £207,000 of local council taxpayer’s money on legal fees to take the stadium plans through two public inquiries. Following this exhaustive legal process, John Prescott found in favour of Brighton and Hove Albion, and granted permission for the stadium to be built.
LDC now wishes to challenge this decision, and are filing to take the Government to the High Court with a view to reviewing the public inquiry process by which the Government reached their decision. In the unlikely event of this being upheld, this in itself would not guarantee or obligate the Government to alter their decision on granting planning permission for the stadium. If unsuccessful, LDC will be responsible not only for their own legal costs of taking this to the High Court, but also the Governments.
This would unquestionably run into tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds of YOUR money.
If you object to LDC channelling further public funding towards pursuing this Judicial Review process, please sign your name and address below. Thank you.
607 Signatures (Falmer for All Campaign)
It’s a long Agenda, but it includes this Report from the Chief Executive:-
Report Title: Proposed Brighton and Hove Albion FC Stadium at Falmer Decision by the First Secretary of State
Report To Cabinet: Date: 11 January 2006
Lead Councillor: Councillor N Commin
Ward(s) Affected: Kingston
Report By: Chief Executive
Contact Officer(s): John Crawford
Purpose of Report:
To note the grounds of appeal against the decision of the first Secretary of State and to consider the petitions delivered to the Council meeting on 7 December 2005
Officers Recommendation(s):
1 To note the grounds of appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that have been lodged with the High Court.
2 To note the conclusions of the District Auditor that the Cabinet took its decision in possession of all the relevant facts.
3 To consider the petitions delivered to the Council meeting on 7 December 2005.
Reasons for Recommendations
1 To advise the Cabinet of matters relating to the implementation of its decision on 24 November 2005.
Information
2 The decision of the Cabinet on 24 November has produced a substantial amount of interest including newspaper reports of varying accuracy and opinions for and against the Cabinet’s decision. Most of the comments relate to the cost of the action in the High Court.
3 There does not appear to be a general understanding that Mr Prescott’s decision to grant planning permission was contrary to the explicit recommendation of the Government Inspector who held the first part of the inquiry. He sent his report to Mr Prescott in December 2003 with the conclusion that the case against the Falmer site was overwhelming. Nor of the fact that the decision was contrary to the conclusions of the Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. Nor of the fact that the third Inspector, who assessed the alternative sites, made no comments on the merits of the proposals.
4 A number of comments were directed to the District Auditor who considered the issues raised and his conclusions are set out in Appendix A.
5 A number of organisations who opposed the planning applications throughout the inquiry process have decided to support the legal challenge and have committed funds to the potential costs as follows:
Falmer Parish Council has committed £30,000
Lewes District Council has committed £25,000
The Sussex Downs Society has committed £5,000
The South Downs Joint Committee has committed £5,000
6 The Campaign to Protect Rural England supports the action but has not been able to make any resources available.
The Council has consistently said that the football club should have a stadium but there are alternative sites available that are more suitable for this type of development. The case is that the challenge to the decision is justified by significant issues at stake about the future of the South Downs. A number of important planning issues have been overlooked, or not properly considered by Mr Prescott in making his decision. In terms of national and local planning policies, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have the highest levels of landscape protection and Mr Prescott has set aside these policies. The appeal requests the Court to quash the decision made by Mr Prescott on 27 October 2005 and to send it back to him for reconsideration.
7 In summary, the challenge states that Mr Prescott either overlooked, or failed to deal with or explain a number of important issues:
7.1 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.
7.2 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.
7.3 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.
7.4 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.
7.5 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.
7.6 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.
7.7 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.
8 At the meeting of the Council on 7 December, a petition was handed in on behalf of the Falmer For All Campaign comprising 5,165 signatures. The signatures are accompanied by addresses that are located within the District.
The text of the preamble to the petition is set out in Appendix B. Most of the signatures were collected under Part A with about six hundred under part B.
The main thrust of the petition appears to be concern about the cost of the action in the High Court. Erroneous publicity at the time the petition was collected estimated the cost of the legal challenge to be ‘in hundreds of thousands.’ Part B of the preamble to the petition contains a similar erroneous comment.
The preamble to the petition did not contain any explanation of the reasons for the challenge to the decision.
A separate petition comprising 51 signatures from the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward (with the same wording as Part A) was handed in by Councillor Small.
Financial Appraisal
9 The decision of three organisations to commit funding to support the appeal is explained earlier in the report.
Environmental Implications
10 I have completed the Environmental Implications questionnaire and this Report is exempt from the requirement because it is a progress report.
Risk Management Implications
11 I have completed a risk assessment in accordance with the Council’s Risk Management methodology and have identified the following risks that I propose to mitigate in the following ways with the additional insurance/control costs outlined.
There is a risk that the action may be lost, in which case the costs would be payable and all of the contributions would be required. The best way to mitigate that risk is to make sure that everything possible is done to ensure that the action is successful.
There is a risk that the public do not understand all of the issues in the reasons for taking the action. The best way to mitigate that risk is to ensure that comprehensive information is available to the public explaining the reasons underpinning the legal challenge.
Background Papers
The Grounds of Appeal under Section 288 of the 1990 Act.
The report to the Joint Committee for the South Downs.
Comments by email and letter and the responses given.
Appendices
Appendix A: Decision of the District Auditor
Appendix B: Preamble to the Petitions
Petition Part A
We, the undersigned citizens and council taxpayers of Lewes District, object in the strongest possible terms to any expenditure by Lewes District Council in pursuit of a challenge to the Government’s decision on the Brighton & Hove community stadium.
The Government has made a decision taking all factors into account after a 62-day public inquiry. As Lewes District Council has already spent over £207,000 on this issue, we demand that the council abandons any challenge – whether it costs £40,000 or £400,000 – and instead uses its ratepayer’s money more wisely for the benefit of the residents of Lewes District.
4,558 signatures (Falmer For All Campaign) plus 51 signatures on a similar petition from constituents in the Ouse Valley and Ringmer Ward.
Petition Part B
Lewes District council has decided to launch an appeal for a Judicial Review against the Governments recent decision to grant planning permission for a Community Stadium to be built at Falmer. LDC has opposed the stadium plans from the outset, and subsequently spent £207,000 of local council taxpayer’s money on legal fees to take the stadium plans through two public inquiries. Following this exhaustive legal process, John Prescott found in favour of Brighton and Hove Albion, and granted permission for the stadium to be built.
LDC now wishes to challenge this decision, and are filing to take the Government to the High Court with a view to reviewing the public inquiry process by which the Government reached their decision. In the unlikely event of this being upheld, this in itself would not guarantee or obligate the Government to alter their decision on granting planning permission for the stadium. If unsuccessful, LDC will be responsible not only for their own legal costs of taking this to the High Court, but also the Governments.
This would unquestionably run into tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds of YOUR money.
If you object to LDC channelling further public funding towards pursuing this Judicial Review process, please sign your name and address below. Thank you.
607 Signatures (Falmer for All Campaign)
Last edited:
