Read the Local Plan Inspector's Report Here

[perseus]

It could be that Inspector (Hoile) is just responding to the views of objectors to the proposed Local Plan. In the absence of any supporters of the community stadium zone allocation writing in, he came to an erronous conclusion.

This does not mean that the recommendation is not full of flaws.
The Secretary of State can overule the Local Council and could if he wanted order the Community Stadium provision be removed from the Local Plan. (This is technically wrong: see Lord Bracknell's corrections below.)

As the Falmer Public Inquiry relates to an amendment to the old plan, I cannot see it being relevant?

That is to say it would be like engaging in a legal activity which the Government made unlawful, and you got arrested for it when it was legal when you did it. It is unfair cause the dates are wrong.

(This might be wrong as well. There is a precedent in the Beeding Cement Works case, and since I wrote this Prescott has produced some new planning guidance.)

 

[perseus]

PS: I've just sussed out who was responsible for sending the objection and thinking up this strategy on the part of the objectors.

It has got to be a retired Planning Officer. It can only be a retired Planning Officer who would be out of date about agricultural land gradings being abolished. If he was still working in the business he would have got the Government circular about it.

That is why he was able to press the right buttons to get the Inspector to write the report as he did. Hoile should have checked out the facts properly though.

Disallowed goal.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Perseus - Planning law and procedures have changed in recent years. The Secretary of State no longer has powers to direct that Local Planning Authorities omit (or include) particular policies from their Local Plans. However, they are required to respond to the recommendations in the Inspector's Report of a Local Plan Inquiry.

As to Mr Hoile, he may or may not be a former planning officer. But it was clear from the way the Inquiry was conducted that the two Inspectors are fully conversant with the current government circulars and Planning Policy Guidance Notes.

Indeed, most of the professional and expert witnesses spent much of their time referring to the PPGs. I don't think it's planning policy that is Mr Hoile's weakness.

It's his knowledge of the city, football and the football club that lets him down.

 

[perseus]

Not Mr Hoile who was a former Planning Officer but the person who made representation (objection) about the Local Plan that came before Mr Hoile, and the ideas which he took on board. As the Planning Officer was at the Public Inquiry you can work out who I mean. This person engaged by the objectors.

I tried to work out how the report came about. If you have the transcripts of who produced what evidence before the Public Inquiry, you can probably work out yourself where Hoile got his opinion from. It might even be important? Or useful?

Thanks for informing me about the change in procedures.

PS: In other words it was not the Inspector that thought up that crap but he just wrote the crap based on information provided by the said third party (ex Planning Officer) which is my surmise.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Wading through your post again, perseus, I adur n'idea who you are talking about.

 

[perseus]

It is not the Inspectors job (Hoiles) to think up his own ideas.

He can interpret them in the light of public representations. The whole text of his case seems to have come from one objector.

You could check this with the Public Inquiry "proofs of evidence". I have just forgotten his name.

It is a small point, but it is may be Hoile's fault, but it was not his idea. In the light of this this new fuss means even less than I thought.

In the light of all the evidence produced at the Public Inquiry, one ill informed objector counts for naff all.

For the supporters: it does not represent Prescott's likely thinking in any way at all. (At best it looks like a disallowed goal by the opposition.)

The message was meant to be helpful. It was not meant to be obscure or clever either.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The message was meant to be helpful. It was not meant to be obscure or clever either.

Wading through your post again, perseus, I adur n'idea who you are talking about.

Sorry, perseus ... It was me who was being obscure. I thought you were referring to Dereck Wade, former District Planning Officer for Adur DC - who appeared as expert witness on behalf of Lewes DC.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

I've sent my letter to Prescott, but having read this report last night I feel pretty pessimistic. It seems to me there are two big problems raised by this report:

1. The report basically views Falmer as a no-go. It's too small, it's too beautiful, it's too near a village outside the city boundary, and there are a number of restrictions from the earlier local plan which prohibit such a development. What worries me is that IF these are the grounds on which a decision is made, there's not much we can counter with. It strikes me that most of the arguments the club has put forward would be regarded as irrelevant.

2. The second thing that worries me is that he suggests he has worked very closely with public enquiry inspector (who in fact was his deputy on this report?). This makes me feel it is unlikely they would completely disagree.

Got to say on the face of it it doesn't look good.

 

[Biscuit]

I want Brighton to DIE!

 

[perseus]

The new proposed Local Plan of course, not be the only document on John Prescott's desk (the Hoile report will not be on the desk before the Falmer Public Inquiry at all as it is NOT relevant, as it deals with a proposed Local Plan in the future):

http://tinyurl.com/2mv7m

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 77 AND 78 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990


COMMUNITY STADIUM FOR THE CITY OF BRIGHTON & HOVE


_____________________________


CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

on behalf of Brighton and Hove

Albion Football Club

_____________________________

is the pertinent document.


http://tinyurl.com/2mv7m (Hypertext document: this is the best one)

http://www.seagulls.premiumtv.co.uk/content/bhfc/media/db/DOC/258509.DOC

 

[East Preston Gull]

Charles hoile Soliciters and charles hoile planning inspecteo are 2 different people.


The decision stinks but i know there is something "old boys favour's going on).


Give me another day and then i will drop it.


Going nowhere but great fun and beats thinking to hard about our future.

 

[perseus]

Just in case anybody is in any doubt that Government is prepared to sacrifice valuable land for enterprises that by any stretch of the imagination is not in the public (national or otherwise) interest. Selling of the British Heritage to foreign Rank multinational companies:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~weaver/lyminge.htm

And sold for less than a price of a Chieftain Tank.

Now if Centre Parcs wanted to turn Beeding Cement Works into a holiday village complex, I would not complain. It might even be a good idea?

What has this got to do with football? The 440 acres of woodland is an AONB !

PS: I feel my letter to Prescott may get written soon.

 

[perseus]

Charles Hoile specifically states that his report on the proposed new local plan has NOT been coloured by the Falmer Public Inquiry.

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/localplan2001/inspectorsletter.pdf

If you look at the list of objectors to the local Plan that he is just representing their views. Also the new local plan has a smaller area allocated for the stadium than the Planning Application.
Nothing else could be expected from the Hoile.

I think everybody got angry and excited too soon. And I was guilty of this as well.

The report does not matter too much. The first Falmer Inquiry must take precedence as it was based on an amendment to the 1995 plan.

That is assuming that Brighton Planning have made all the correct public announcements in the press. I did not see them, but somebody must have checked up on the correct legal stuff? (I don't think we can rely on Brighton Planning doing this though.)

 

[Lord Bracknell]

His exact words on the matter are:-

I also sat, for all but a few days, at the Section 77 call-in Inquiry into applications by
Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club. This ran for a total of 38 days between 18
February and 23 October 2003. It concerned applications for development on the policy
SR25 site and land immediately to the east of that allocation, and was held by my
colleague, Mr J R Collyer. My report takes fully into account the written and spoken
evidence to that Inquiry concerning planning policy at national, regional, structure plan,
and district plan level as it affects a football/community stadium in this location.
However, the findings in my report concern the type of development described in the
words of Draft Local Plan policy SR25 and its supporting text, and the specific
objections made to the policy. They are not coloured by the particular nature and design
details of the proposals put forward to that Inquiry by Brighton and Hove Albion
Football Club Limited. Nevertheless, the proceedings did add to my understanding of
the practical issues that would be have to be addressed in any planning application
prompted by the allocation.

I'm not sure that I agree with perseus. His interpretation isn't shared by the Leader of the City Council, nor by the Football Club. The campaign to persuade John Prescott needs to be kept going until we get confirmation of a YES TO FALMER! decision.

 

[perseus]

I agree Lord Bracknell.

There is always a political component to planning issues, so the more fuss the better!

Inspector Chares Hoile said he did not include the Albion representations at the Section 77 Falmer Inquiry in his report on the local plan. "Not coloured" were his words.

I am not party to what was actually said or written in to the Local Plan Inquiry, but on the list of objectors there are two names M. Small and C. Todd and you can bet they made their objections known.

 

[perseus]

Just in case anybody is in any doubt that Government is prepared to sacrifice valuable land for enterprises that by any stretch of the imagination is not in the public (national or otherwise) interest. Selling of the British Heritage to foreign Rank multinational companies:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~weaver/lyminge.htm

Further research:

Why was planning permission given?

It appears that the extra jobs that would be created were thought to be in the national interest by the Government Inspector.

What happened?

Rank did not have the money to start the project and thanks to the protestors they did not embark on it.

So it was a big mistake for the SOS to give Planning Permission and although the jobs and regeneration issue could sway Prescott's office, I am apt to think that they would be very cagey about it.

This is how most plan's fail. The opponents delay it so long that the developers finally come to their senses. I am not suggesting that Albion's plan is similar. That is just statistically how most (25% or so) plans fail.

Conversely, this means that 75% of plans are financially sound and will see there way to fruition.

So if the Falmer plan is good, if the figures add up, the odds must be be that it should go ahead.

 

[perseus]

New Planning Guidance

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_027494.pdf

Entry number 18 on page 24 is relevant, or not relevant, to Falmer and the Local Plan according to your interpretation.

As I suspected and a few other people (at least one) did as well, the Inspector's report into the new Local Plan could have some significance. My interpretation says it does not, but it does give an excuse for Prescott to say No.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It was to avoid this situation arising that Prescott asked for the Public Inquiry into the planning application to run concurrently with the Public Inquiry into the Local Plan.

Prescott will make his decision on the planning application on the merits of the case. He isn't required to make a decision on the Local Plan. That is the responsibility of the City Council - who have already indicated that they might well reject Hoile's conclusions.

 

[perseus]

It was to avoid this situation arising that Prescott asked for the Public Inquiry into the planning application to run concurrently with the Public Inquiry into the Local Plan.

Prescott will make his decision on the planning application on the merits of the case. He isn't required to make a decision on the Local Plan. That is the responsibility of the City Council - who have already indicated that they might well reject Hoile's conclusions.

The point of the previous message is that the policy document said that planning permissions can be made in the context of the Local Plan (not just on the merits of the case).
It depends on your interpretation. I think the Falmer plan is too small to have any appreciable effect on traffic levels so the Local Plan will not make any difference.
But just in case you have not got your argument ready when needed to, the policy information is there (whether it makes sense is a different matter altogether).

 

[attila]

It is nothing short of a disgusting stitch up by an idiot with nothing but contempt
for us and our culture.
The interesting fact for me is that the letter we all received yesterday appears to state quite clearly the Council can ignore his findings if they chhose to do so.
So what's the point of a Local Plan Enquiry in the first place?