Norman Baker

[sir danny cullip]

Came to talk to our college today and after 20 minutes of him rambling on about his paranoia about the way the government will use information on ID cards and how the large number of CCTV cameras in this country is a bad thing he was asked about his reasons for fiercly opposing the community stadium at Falmer. A shorter version of his very long and tedious political answer is below:

- AONB- agrees with LDC that this must be preserved so as not to create a dangerous precedent for the future cases that they aniticipate with the thousands of extra houses planned for the south east. Feels the impact of Falmer village is unfair.

- Says he has never heard a planning inspector in all his time in government feel so strongly that a site was the wrong one as the first planning inspectors did after the inspection of falmer and other sites.

- Was very proud to point out that actually the planning application and therefore the original decision was proven to be legally flawed as if we didnt already know that

- Says he will accept the decision of Ruth Kelly and feels the planning process is mainly at fault for the delay in the decision. Said it was a shame it has dragged on so long and hoped for a quick decision.

- Also had a little swipe at the referrendum held hinting that he felt it was wrong Falmer residents weren't able to vote and also hinted he felt the results were misleading as they didnt offer alternative sites as options.

Conclusion:

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It is amazing that Norm and Neighbour have managed to shift ALL of the blame on the government and the planning process. Certainly part of the blame has to fall on the LDC. Playing it perfectly.

Perhaps Norman would like to hold a 'fair' referendum of his own and see if the Lewes residents are happy to spend £1,000s of pounds on this assault on the club. They seem to be very quick to ask residents about every other issue!


It must have been an honour and a privelege DC, to hear Norman talking. I often wonder why none of his speeches are included in the book I got for Christmas. "Famous speeches that changed the world"

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Norman Baker , Go sit on a you , WE WANT

 

[The Large One]

- Says he has never heard a planning inspector in all his time in government feel so strongly that a site was the wrong one as the first planning inspectors did after the inspection of falmer and other sites.

Conclusion:

Well, he's a bulshitting liar then, because (1) the planning inspector saw SOME merit in building the stadium at Falmer, but felt that the detriments outweighed the benefits (plus he wrongly surmised that Sheepcote was better, without having any evidence to back that up), and (2) I doubt very much Baker actually read the Inspector's report, and (3) he's never been in government. If he did, he would eventually realise how much he himself is talking such shit by saying such a thing.

- Was very proud to point out that actually the planning application and therefore the original decision was proven to be legally flawed as if we didnt already know that

Well, he's a pratt then, because the decision approved by both the planning authority AND central government. The approval is NOT legally flwaed, so again he's a liar.

- Also had a little swipe at the referrendum held hinting that he felt it was wrong Falmer residents weren't able to vote and also hinted he felt the results were misleading as they didnt offer alternative sites as options.

You can blame Lewes District Council for Falmer resident not allowed their say in a referendum - not Brighton & Hove City Council. And he's lying about them being misleading.

Do you notice a pattern emerging here. My God, he's crap, isn't he? At telling anything remotely approaching the truth I mean.

 

[sir danny cullip]

Re: Re: Norman Baker

Well, he's a pratt then, because the decision approved by both the planning authority AND central government. The approval is NOT legally flwaed, so again he's a liar.

I thought that bit was true but just a little obvious and he took great pleasure in telling me it. Was it not the wording of the application or the approval stating that Falmer was in a built up area when actually only a section of it is?...or something along those lines.

 

[sully]

As your location is shown as Burgess Hill, what on earth was the c*nt doing at your college in the first place?

Which college is it, by the way?

 

[sully]

Re: Re: Re: Norman Baker

I thought that bit was true but just a little obvious and he took great pleasure in telling me it. Was it not the wording of the application or the approval stating that Falmer was in a built up area when actually only a section of it is?...or something along those lines.

In the decision, it was merely that it said it was shown to be in the built up area in the local plan, which part of it isn't.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with the application or B&H council's approval, as far as I know.

 

[sir danny cullip]

As your location is shown as Burgess Hill, what on earth was the c*nt doing at your college in the first place?

Which college is it, by the way?

St Pauls College, Burgess Hill. Not quite sure.....there's quite a large catchment area and a reasonably high percentage, given how far away it is, of the main school come from Seaford/Lewes, maybe about 10%.

He was supposed to come some time last year and we were told in advance so I had a list of questions including some that people on here posted for me to ask him but the c*nt didn't turn up and today he took me by suprise!

 

[The Large One]

It's a technicality - what it's NOT is legally flawed.

It hasn't broken any planning laws nor is it challengeable as a legal point. It's a small piece of supporting evidence, not a material consideration. The approval can quite easily be re-obtained without this.

You have to remember that Lewes District Council use phrases like 'fatally flawed' and 'legally flawed' in an effort to get big headlines and big reactions, but they are only fooling themselves if they honestly believe this. The point is, they are lying - it is NOT fatally flawed. They are attributing quotes and opinions to the Tresury Solicitor and to the now-defunct ODPM which were never made, and deliberately misquoting various individuals which is - in these circles - quite a disgraceful way to behave.

 

[sir danny cullip]

Another thing he said was he is happy to openly express his belief that Dr Kelly was murdered and there is a documentary coming up on the beeb about it in the next month.

Cheers TLO makes more sense coming from you than a politician

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Another thing he said was he is happy to openly express his belief that Dr Kelly was murdered and there is a documentary coming up on the beeb about it in the next month.

Cheers TLO makes more sense coming from you than a politician

The official explaination from the Government's exhaustive enquiry was that he somehow committed suicide by using a blunt penknife to cut his wrists - apparently you need to sever an artery to bleed to death. With Dr David Kelly out of the way, the powers that be know there is no comeback on Blair and his WMD masterpiece. Letting Norman Baker express an opinion on this matter only helps the Government cover up what really happened.

 

[110%]

It's a technicality - what it's NOT is legally flawed.

It hasn't broken any planning laws nor is it challengeable as a legal point. It's a small piece of supporting evidence, not a material consideration. The approval can quite easily be re-obtained without this.

You have to remember that Lewes District Council use phrases like 'fatally flawed' and 'legally flawed' in an effort to get big headlines and big reactions, but they are only fooling themselves if they honestly believe this. The point is, they are lying - it is NOT fatally flawed. They are attributing quotes and opinions to the Tresury Solicitor and to the now-defunct ODPM which were never made, and deliberately misquoting various individuals which is - in these circles - quite a disgraceful way to behave.

Er…I’m not sure you are quite correct. Prescott’s decision was flawed, he mis-identified the boundary of the built up area and then quoted that in his decision. I think all sides agreed that he was wrong and that legally his decision could not stand, which is why it’s back with Ruth Kelly.

In that sense he applied the existing planning situation and a material planning consideration incorrectly, so the decision was legally challengeable. Whether another approval can be obtained ‘quite easily’ is another matter, but lets hope so.

 

[The Large One]

I take your point, but I am not sure it's a material consideration, more a piece of supporting evidence.

I thought the material considerations were whether the stadium is in the national interest, or whether there is any economic/social benefit to satisfy it being built in an AONB, or whether there are environmental and transport considerations, rather than the technicalities of how the site can be interpreted as to its intended use - something the Local Plan identifies as being, in the first instance, put aside for the stadium.

 

[110%]

Pretty much anything is capable of being a material planning consideration although there are some notable exceptions (such as property values, competition). The issue for the decision maker is firstly to make sure they have considered all the material considerations and then to decide what weight to give the material considerations when making the decision.

I think the problem here is that the boundary of the built up area was more than capable of being a material consideration but it might not necessarily have been an important consideration in the overall decision, especially if the correct boundary had been used. However, Prescott applied the wrong boundary and (thinking that helped to support his decision to approve the application) used it as part of the basis for one of his reasons for approving the application.

By not applying the correct boundary he undermined one his reasons. One could argue that because it was only a small part of the overall decision to approve the application, it was only a technical error but once he had applied the wrong boundary and used that as the basis for his decision there was only ever going to be one result, legally at least, in terms of his decision.