Perry v Baker

[Marc]

cant rememebr who but in that piece someone mentioned that eventually that area would've had development on it if we got a No. So a simple question & research for the NIMBYS is:

What would you rather have:

a) A Football Stadium
b) A 24hr Tescos/M&S/Petrol Station

Living right near the option B in Shoreham, I know which one I'd opt for!









for the DUMB, Option A!

 

[Gazwag]

The presenters had a nice wide stripy shirt on

 

[The Large One]

This is what Prescott said on the matter of 'ruining the village'.

46. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would cause considerable harm to the AONB. However, having regard to the Inspector's assessment of the site and surroundings, the Secretary of State attaches greater significance than the Inspector does to the existing quality of the landscape and the fact that the site is within the built up area of the City and has been urbanised to some extent by the existing University buildings. He has also considered the proposals for landscaping, bunding and other forms of screening that were submitted by the applicant. He agrees with the Inspector that the effect of these measures would be to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development to varying degrees. However, he does not agree with the Inspector that the measures proposed do not mitigate, to an acceptable degree, the harmful effects of the development on the AONB [IRa 18.22], given that the Secretary of State has accorded more weight to the fact that the site has been urbanised to some extent and the fact that it lies within the built up area. Given these factors, he concludes that the mitigation measures are sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. Accordingly, he does not consider that measures in addition to those proposed by the applicant are required.

48. Overall, the Secretary of State, agrees with the Inspector that a development of this scale in the AONB would run contrary to the primary objective to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape. However, for the reasons given above, he attaches less weight than the Inspector does to the harm to the AONB.




In short, Prescott acknowledges that there will be harm to the AONB, but because the site is already partly-built on, and can therefore be considered 'urbanised', plus the fact that the club intend to properly landscape it, thse two reasons are good enough to counteract this harm.

What Prescott DID NOT say was that the village would be ruined.

 

[Yorkie]

Have these anti people even read the report...?

Even to just read the gist one should get the idea!

I spent 3 hours reading the full document, I can't see how any judicial appeal can take place. Prescott has given a full and frank view of everything put before him.. he has agreed and disagreed with several items covered by the first inspector and agreed AND disagreed with everything covered by the latter inspector.

It's interesting reading, and it's clear that in the interests of fairness and rightfulness, Prescott has covered EVERY blade of grass...

It's all noise and sabre rattling.
Their arguements are based on half truths and twisting facts to suit their own purposes.