Open question for Lord B (if you don't mind).

[larus]

As you seem to have a very good knowledge of the planning process, I was wondering if you could answer the following.

I assume that the first enquiry has proved that we need a stadium and it is in the national interest.

If my first assumption is correct, and we are now holding a second enquiry into all of the 'suitable' sites, and the outcome is that Falmer is not the most suitable (which I don't beleive will be the outcome), would there need to be a new enquiry into the alternative site?

If there was to be an new enquiry, would the sites that have been already examined be excluded on the basis that they have already been through a public enquiry into their suitability?

If that is the case, surely the costs of a third enquiry would be relatively low as the remit would be extremely narrow.

Lastly, can the process go on indefinately, or can the Club take legal action against the planning inspectorate if we end up going round in circles to reclaim costs?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I assume that the first enquiry has proved that we need a stadium and it is in the national interest.

That's my assumption as well. Any major development in an AONB has to pass those tests. If Falmer didn't, Prescott would have been bound to reject the application or invite the second Inquiry to look further into these matters.

If my first assumption is correct, and we are now holding a second enquiry into all of the 'suitable' sites, and the outcome is that Falmer is not the most suitable (which I don't beleive will be the outcome), would there need to be a new enquiry into the alternative site?

If an alternative site was found to be suitable and available, and Falmer was therefore turned down, the Club would need to submit a planning application for a stadium to be built on the alternative site. That would need to be considered by the Local Planning Authority (Brighton & Hove City Council). If they gave planning permission, construction could go ahead.

Theoretically, Prescott could call that planning application in for another Public Inquiry - but that would be extremely unlikely, since he would have already decided that the alternative site WAS suitable and available. And Public Inquiries are really only called if there is a doubt about the suitability of a site.

If there was to be an new enquiry, would the sites that have been already examined be excluded on the basis that they have already been through a public enquiry into their suitability?

The new Inquiry would only look at the application that had been made. The question of "alternative sites" only arises in the case of applications in the AONB or National Park.

If that is the case, surely the costs of a third enquiry would be relatively low as the remit would be extremely narrow.

Like you, I can't imagine what the remit of the new Inquiry would be.

Lastly, can the process go on indefinately, or can the Club take legal action against the planning inspectorate if we end up going round in circles to reclaim costs?

No-one can sue the Planning Inspectorate. They aren't the ones who are taking the decisions. If Prescott takes a perverse decision, it can be challenged in the Courts, through the Judicial Review process - but the challenger has to meet the full costs of doing this.




The worst imaginable scenario would be for Prescott to decide that an alternative site was suitable and available; for the Club to submit a planning application for that alternative site; and for the City Council then to turn that application down.

In that case, the Club would be able to appeal against the City Council's decision. That WOULD result in a further Public Inquiry, with the final decision being made by Prescott. It is difficult to see how the Club would lose that appeal (because Prescott would already have approved the site).

The City Council's professional planning officers would be certain to advise the Planning Committee of this before they considered the planning application in the first place. But, in the final analysis, there is nothing (apart from fear of the electorate) to stop councillors taking perverse decisions if they are determined to slow down the planning process.

 

[BensGrandad]

The final part of your post above would make it seem that for the Council to refuse permission for asite as recommended by JP would be purely a political refusal to hold up the process rather than actually refusing it on normal planning application grounds as unsuitability etc.

 

[FG aka FOOTBALL GENIUS]

looks likethe Albion are gonna spend every last penny on planning applicatiosnwithout actually getting anywhere another fine mess DICKtator Knight has got us into

DICK OUT

 

[larus]

Thanks LB.

I have been positive regarding Falmer since JP said 'Not yet lads' (poetic licence). However, with all of the doom & gloom being posted on here due to the financial constraints that we operate under, I was beginning to doubt my optimism.

Right, I can carry on being upbeat now. OK, DC may go, but BHA will go on.

 

[larus]

looks likethe Albion are gonna spend every last penny on planning applicatiosnwithout actually getting anywhere another fine mess DICKtator Knight has got us into

DICK OUT

FG, I don't know you, but you do come across as being a complete imbecile. Haven't you grasped my post and LB's reply. If you have, then you are just a complete wind-up. If you haven't, you must have an extremely low IQ.

Whichever it is, I pity you. If you're just a wind-up, you must have a very sorry existence. If you are of low intellect, then that can be forgiven more.

 

[supaseagull]

ffs FG for once show at least a thread of integrity

 

[m20gull]

looks likethe Albion are gonna spend every last penny on planning applicatiosnwithout actually getting anywhere another fine mess DICKtator Knight has got us into

DICK OUT

So when we were homeless and committed to 2 years at Gillingham, what EXACTLY should DK have done differently?

 

[Seagull Stew]

OK, if all the alternative sites were to be found less suitable than Falmer would John Prescott have any grounds to reject Falmer?
If so, would he have to give a reason as to why he re-opened the enquiry when Falmer would have been rejected anyway? Or can he just simply say that "he changed his mind"?
Would the club be able to seek compensation for the costs of the, therefore irrelevant, re-opened enquiry?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

OK, if all the alternative sites were to be found less suitable than Falmer would John Prescott have any grounds to reject Falmer?

This is going to sound very picky about the precise meaning of words (and I'm sorry about that). But, as I read the planning guidance that the Government works to, it is not a question of whether an alternative site is more or less suitable than Falmer. The test that is being set for Falmer is whether or not there is any alternative, suitable site available in the area.

If there is - then Falmer fails the test that is set for development in an AONB.

Everything hangs on the meaning of the words.

AVAILABLE - I think this rules out the Greyhound Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Brighton Station, Shoreham Airport

SUITABLE - This definitely rules out Shoreham Airport (again - transport access), the Greyhound Stadium (size), Waterhall (AONB) and Beeding Cement Works (transport access and AONB). It also rules out Withdean (if a 22,000 seater stadium is needed), Toads Hole Valley (transport access) and Sheepcote Valley (transport access).

So we SHOULD get approval for Falmer.

But ... if Prescott decides that transport access isn't important in this particular case (despite national planning policy that requires sustainable transport provision to be part of all major development schemes), then we could end up with a situation in which either Toads Hole Valley or Sheepcote Valley are considered "suitable" - even though they might not be as good as Falmer from a transport point of view.

That could lead Prescott to refuse Falmer on the grounds that an "alternative, suitable site" has been identified.

If so, would he have to give a reason as to why he re-opened the enquiry when Falmer would have been rejected anyway? Or can he just simply say that "he changed his mind"?

I really can't see how Prescott could reject all the other sites and then reject Falmer as well - unless there is some very obscure piece of planning law that no-one has yet identified.

The Secretary of State (whoever he is) always gives very detailed reasons why a decision has been made one way rather than the other. If he doesn't, he exposes himself to the risk of judicial review.

Would the club be able to seek compensation for the costs of the, therefore irrelevant, re-opened enquiry?

I very much doubt it. It is a well established principle in English planning law that the potential developer bears his own costs and carries the risk that no planning permission will be given at the end of the process.






Be a bit cautious about my interpretation of the law, though. I am a transport planner by profession, not a planning lawyer. Fortunately, the Albion are being advised by one of the best planning lawyers available.

 

[Marc]

But ... if Prescott decides that transport access isn't important in this particular case (despite national planning policy that requires sustainable transport provision to be part of all major development schemes), then we could end up with a situation in which either Toads Hole Valley or Sheepcote Valley are considered "suitable" - even though they might not be as good as Falmer from a transport point of view.

That could lead Prescott to refuse Falmer on the grounds that an "alternative, suitable site" has been identified.

So what happens then? if that were to happen, would inquirys be set up for either/both site/s?
Thats the bit I'm confooooosed about!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So what happens then? if that were to happen, would inquirys be set up for either/both site/s?
Thats the bit I'm confooooosed about!

It would then be up to the Albion to decide which site they wanted to build a stadium on. The Club would have to negotiate site acquisition and then submit a planning application to the City Council.

In my view, there would only be a Public Inquiry if the City Council refused planning permission and the Club appealed - but see my first reply on this thread as to why I think that refusal of planning permission would be unlikely.

 

[brighton rock]

whats the time scale for all this lb with funds running low can thing be moved along.

 

[London Irish]

But ... if Prescott decides that transport access isn't important in this particular case (despite national planning policy that requires sustainable transport provision to be part of all major development schemes), then we could end up with a situation in which either Toads Hole Valley or Sheepcote Valley are considered "suitable" - even though they might not be as good as Falmer from a transport point of view.

The whole inquiry, and our entire future, is going to hinge on this one question, you've nailed it. The Falmer Parish Council blathering will be an irrelevant sideshow, this one issue remains our gravest danger and I'm sure this is what the Lewes DC lawyers will be concentrating on, blurring the issue of sustainability with all kinds of mirrors and smokescreens.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

whats the time scale for all this lb with funds running low can thing be moved along.

As we've found, br, it is much easier to slow the process down than speed it up. Don't forget that one of the main reasons that Lewes District Council were able to get the re-opening of the Inquiry put back to February was that their expert witness had a ski-ing holiday to fit in.




But I'm still confident that the outcome will be a YES for Falmer - although London Irish is right about the likelihood of Lewes DC trying to blur the sustainable transport issues.

 

[Dave the OAP]

LB

Do you think the Brighton and Hove UA thought that they would have received so much opposition to this proposed development when the granted the land for development as a football complex?

There was always going to be opposition from Falmer PC, or they would not be doing their job, however, we have had opposition from the Downsmen, the Greens, the University et al.

My concern is still the fact that everyone shyes away from and that is, when the original PE was going on, everything that was coming out of the club, people who attended the PE etc, was that the Inspector was giving the NIMBY's a very hard time and our argument was being looked upon extremely favourably...then at the 12th hour, it turns out that both inspectors rejected the club's arguments and recommended it did not go ahead.

To be honest, all the crap that is written on here about Prescott being a wanker etc has proved very far from the mark as he has kept this application alive, when he could quite easily had said "sorry chaps, my Inspectors have said no, therefore its a no"

I am also not that sure that the transport implications of Shoreham Airport ( Pende...thanks Andy) are that a clear cut no.

 

[Hunting 784561]

Anyone who has been to Wycombe Wanderers will know that the only way in and out of that ground is through a very inaccesible industrial estate. There are no sustainable transport links there at all.

That site however, was the only place in the town where they could get the inspector to grant them planning permission.

Its very pc and green to ask for 'sustainable transport' links but when push comes to shove, these requirements can be dropped.

In any case, you may find that the new dedicated bus lanes on the seafront/coast road from Brighton to Telscombe will 'tick that box' when it comes to considering Sheepcote Valley, which now appears to be the least offensive site.

 

[perseus]

Miscellaneous transport comments and questions:

Are the road access routes to Sheepcote Valley running at full capacity out of the rush hour and on Saturdays?

NB: They are probably NOT at both at Falmer and to Lancing from the east. (To Lancing from the west it does not matter as it is the only traffic route to Falmer or Sheepcote from the west anyway.)
This is Lord Bracknell's expertise, but the roads have to allow for the "travel to work" traffic and these numbers are larger than the football crowds, so satisfying the traffic problems could be regarded as satisfying just the concerns of the public, rather than the actual figures.
Economic regeneration could be seen as more important than relatively minor traffic snarl-ups.

Neither Falmer or Pende have large amounts of traffic going past residential areas causing a noise nuisance.

Is the A259 coastal route running at full capacity out of rush hours and on Saturdays? It is on weekdays at the Shoreham end.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Anyone who has been to Wycombe Wanderers will know that the only way in and out of that ground is through a very inaccesible industrial estate. There are no sustainable transport links there at all.

That site however, was the only place in the town where they could get the inspector to grant them planning permission.

Its very pc and green to ask for 'sustainable transport' links but when push comes to shove, these requirements can be dropped.

Wycombe was a very peculiar case. The over-riding consideration was that the site of the old ground was needed to allow the local hospital to expand. That could only happen if the football club was relocated.

There was huge opposition to the new stadium site - even the local council opposed it. But the Public Inquiry resulted in the Secretary of State ruling that the need for the hospital development was so great that the stadium could go ahead, regardless of the access problems and its location on the edge of the AONB.

Travelling to the ground is a complete nightmare, of course. Personally, I think football fans are very badly served by the lack of decent transport access. Sustainable transport isn't just a polically correct fad, it's a consumer right. Dropping the requirement for it, by approving Sheepcote Valley or Toads Hole Valley, will condemn Albion fans and Brighton residents to a hundred years of Saturday afternoon traffic jams.

In any case, you may find that the new dedicated bus lanes on the seafront/coast road from Brighton to Telscombe will 'tick that box' when it comes to considering Sheepcote Valley, which now appears to be the least offensive site.

Ticking that box isn't going to be enough. Where will the buses come from to provide access to Wilson Avenue from Brighton Station to serve the 3,000 people who would travel by train if the stadium were to be built at Falmer? Expect to hear evidence from the bus company at the Inquiry that this would simply not be possible without severe cuts in the rest of the Brighton bus network whenever a match is played - enough to undermine the whole of the City Council's transport strategy (including the new bus lanes).

Another reason why Falmer is the ONLY site that will deliver the right answer.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

perseus - shut the f*** up. Your posting are indecipherable ramblings.