South Downs National Park. Government announcement July 2nd

[Lord Bracknell]

So, sorry for the repetition, but do we need to write in support of the exclusion of all the Falmer stadium development from the Nat Park?

Not at the moment.

Sorry to sound a bit secretive, but there is some quiet work going on at the moment that is best left to run its course before any letters are written.

 

[Screaming J]

There is no prospect of any early announcement about the final boundary of the National Park.

All that is happening is that Defra have invited comments from interested parties on the possible effect of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on the possible boundaries of the South Downs National Park. They are also seeking comments on a possible variation to the boundary between Petersfield and Pulborough.

They have floated a suggestion that the National Park Inquiry might be re-opened, possibly in late November.

The 2 July "announcement" is no such thing. All that will happen then is that Defra will officially publish the background papers on the 2006 Act and the maps of options in the Petersfield - Pulborough area. They will also publish the report on the earlier Public Inquiry - but that won't be a decision about the boundaries.

The reason the Argus published a story is that Defra have just written to the "interested parties" telling them about this further consultation exercise.

This will have no impact on the Falmer stadium announcement.

PHEWWWWWWW. Someone put this at the top of this thread so we don't all have heart attacks!!!!!!

 

[Superseagull]

Not at the moment.

Sorry to sound a bit secretive, but there is some quiet work going on at the moment that is best left to run its course before any letters are written.

Don't like the sound of this! Sounds like there are still problems with the Falmer plan? If the Coach park is a problem, could we now not use the land at Falmer High School that we can use on match days for coach parking?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Don't like the sound of this! Sounds like there are still problems with the Falmer plan?

Not at all.

 

[Superseagull]

Not at all.

Thanks for that. I can sleep easier tonight!

 

[NMH]

Are they going to stock this park with wildebeast? Gnu? (what's the bloody plural of gnu? gnus? No gnus is good gnus)
As a big fan of mirkats, and giraffes, and thompson's gazelles, I would like a say in this here national park.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Are they going to stock this park with wildebeast? Gnu? (what's the bloody plural of gnu? gnus? No gnus is good gnus)
As a big fan of mirkats, and giraffes, and thompson's gazelles, I would like a say in this here national park.

surely the plural is gni

 

[Brovion]

Not at the moment.

Sorry to sound a bit secretive, but there is some quiet work going on at the moment that is best left to run its course before any letters are written.

'Before any letters are written?' Oh jeez. I thought all the letter-writing was behind us?

 

[B.W.]

Not at the moment.

Sorry to sound a bit secretive, but there is some quiet work going on at the moment that is best left to run its course before any letters are written.

OK... thank you for your advice, LB...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

'Before any letters are written?' Oh jeez. I thought all the letter-writing was behind us?

Precisely. I was responding to B.W. who seemed to be suggesting that, just because there is about to be a new round of consultation on the National Park boundary, we should get writing about Falmer.

There's no sign from Defra that they are interested in hearing anything about Falmer - the specific issues mentioned in the letter they have sent to interested parties are:-

+ matters arising from the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;
+ the Meyrick judgement; and
+ a possible alternative boundary line from Petersfield to Pulborough.

If a Falmer-related issue does arise when the full documentation is issued on 2 July, I'm sure that this will be picked up.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Are they going to stock this park with wildebeast? Gnu? (what's the bloody plural of gnu? gnus? No gnus is good gnus)
As a big fan of mirkats, and giraffes, and thompson's gazelles, I would like a say in this here national park.

Me too.

Be careful if you intend to go walking anywhere near Poynings though - its going to be the centre of the Honey Badger release program.

 

[Brovion]

Precisely. I was responding to B.W. who seemed to be suggesting that, just because there is about to be a new round of consultation on the National Park boundary, we should get writing about Falmer.

There's no sign from Defra that they are interested in hearing anything about Falmer - the specific issues mentioned in the letter they have sent to interested parties are:-

+ matters arising from the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;
+ the Meyrick judgement; and
+ a possible alternative boundary line from Petersfield to Pulborough.

If a Falmer-related issue does arise when the full documentation is issued on 2 July, I'm sure that this will be picked up.

OK, thanks. I just read a hidden implication into your message that another round of letter-writing MAY be necessary. My paranoid mind then panicked ...

 

[Scoffers]

OK, thanks. I just read a hidden implication into your message that another round of letter-writing MAY be necessary. My paranoid mind then panicked ...

.... All will be well, Keep the Faith

 

[Lawro's Lip]

There is no prospect of any early announcement about the final boundary of the National Park.

This will have no impact on the Falmer stadium announcement.

But I'm happy again. Looks like everything has been worked out to give us the green light.

 

[TSB]

If a Falmer-related issue does arise when the full documentation is issued on 2 July, I'm sure that this will be picked up.

So...it didn't?