Lord Bracknell
On fire
What the Inspector's Report says, in full:-
Village Way, Falmer
Inspector’s Note:
At the National Park Inquiry the designation order boundary at
Village Way, Falmer, was discussed in detail over a period of 4 days.
Objectors to the boundary fell into 2 camps. On the one hand
Brighton and Hove City Council and the Brighton and Hove Football
Club argue that the boundary should be rolled back at this point and
follow the line of Village Way – the road that provides access to the
adjoining University of Brighton site. Adopting Village Way as the
boundary would leave the whole of the rectangular shaped field
situated between Village Way and the A27 to the north outwith the
PSDNP. Over 2000 written representations were also submitted in
support of this arrangement – see CAR498. The other group of
objectors, including Lewes District Council and the Society of
Sussex Downsman, likewise argued that the PSDNP boundary
should be amended, but that it should include, rather than exclude,
the same rectangular shaped field.
The intense interest in this relatively small parcel of land might
seem surprising at first sight but in practice is easily explained.
During 2003 a major inquiry was held into proposals to erect a new
community stadium and transport interchange facility at this
location. Amongst other things the stadium was intended to
provide a new home for Brighton and Hove Football Club. The
Inspector appointed to hold that inquiry subsequently reported to
the Secretary of State with a recommendation that the proposals
should not be granted planning permission (CD209). For reasons
that I need not detail, the Secretary of State subsequently
concluded that a second inquiry should be held to examine possible
alternative sites for a new stadium in and around Brighton
(CD209a). The Inspector charged with responsibility for the second
inquiry was not satisfied that any of the sites before him would be
suitable for that purpose. Faced with that conclusion the Secretary
of State decided that planning permission should be granted for a
new community stadium and transport interchange facility north of
Village Way.
I would add that I am aware that the First Secretray of State has
agreed to submit to judgement following Lewis District Council’s
High Court Challenge to his Falmer deisions. However this does not
fundimentally alter the conclusions that follow as it is by no means
certain that this would result in a different decision. But, even if it
did, as indicated below, I would in any event have recommended a
change to the PSDNP boundary to follow Village Way.
My brief rehearsal of the recent planning history of the PSDNP
boundary at Village Way is necessary as the cases presented by
objectors at the inquiry have been overtaken by events, it seems to
me. In particular the considerable uncertainty regarding the
possibility of built development at this location has largely been
removed. To my mind the recent grant of planning permission for
the community stadium and associated development has clear
consequences for the selection of an appropriate boundary at
Village Way. Although, somewhat surprisingly, the Agency’s
boundary setting guidelines do not expressly mention that land at
the edge of the designated area having the benefit of planning
permission for major built development should be excluded from the
National Park, in my view any other conclusion would be bizarre.
Helpfully the Agency’s guidelines do mention that “major industrial
and commercial developments for which land is allocated in adopted
development plans” would normally be excluded from a National
Park. A grant of planning permission indicates, it seems to me, an
even greater likelihood that land will be developed.
Accordingly I see no purpose in setting out the cases presented by
objectors in support of alternative boundaries and my views on their
relative merits. In my opinion it would be nonsensical to amend the
boundary to include even more of the field north of Village Way –
that is the western half of the field - in the light of the recent grant
of planning permission. Similarly, for the same reason, I see no
grounds for excluding only the eastern half as shown in the
designation order. Whatever view one takes of the decision on the
stadium proposals, it seems to me that for boundary setting
purposes the land north of Village Way should be regarded as falling
within the urban structure rather than as part of the adjoining open
countryside. Put simply, to reflect the recent grant of planning
permission, I recommend that the PSDNP boundary be amended to
follow Village Way. CAR464, paragraph 4.41, mentions that in the
event that the stadium proposals obtain planning permission, the
Agency also considers that Village Way should mark the boundary.
I would add a rider to the above. Even if the stadium proposals had
not been granted planning permission, I would have recommended
an amendment to the designation order boundary. North of Village
Way the boundary is unrelated to any physical features on the
ground and simply follows the administrative boundary between
Brighton and Hove City Council and Lewes District Council
administrative areas. As such this length of the designation order
boundary is at odds with the Agency’s own boundary setting
guidelines (CD31, Table 1, 2e and 2f). Of the obvious alternative
boundary options, i.e. the western boundary of the field and Village
Way, I consider, on balance, that when assessed in the light of the
statutory criteria and the boundary setting guidelines, the latter has
most to commend it.
This conclusion takes into account the fact that the western half of
the field north of Village Way is identified as a site for possible
development in the adopted Brighton and Hove Local Plan – I say
possible because of the policy requirements that anticipate
development in very limited circumstances only. While it is difficult
to gauge what form, if any, such future development might take (if
the community stadium proposals do not proceed), in my view this
allocation lends support to the selection of Village Way as the
appropriate PSDNP boundary. Certainly it makes the western
boundary of the field a less appropriate boundary option.
Finally, it might be helpful to mention that I have given some
thought to the possibility of pulling the PSDNP boundary back from
Village Way. For example, rather than follow Village Way the
boundary could follow the field boundary slightly higher up the
hillside. However, having briefly considered this matter, I see no
basis for adopting this or any other alternative line in preference to
Village Way. So far as I am aware, there is a consensus that the
land south of Village Way is of high landscape quality and satisfies
the statutory criteria.
Inspector’s Recommendation
7.636 That the designation order boundary be amended as
indicated above.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/volume1.pdf
Village Way, Falmer
Inspector’s Note:
At the National Park Inquiry the designation order boundary at
Village Way, Falmer, was discussed in detail over a period of 4 days.
Objectors to the boundary fell into 2 camps. On the one hand
Brighton and Hove City Council and the Brighton and Hove Football
Club argue that the boundary should be rolled back at this point and
follow the line of Village Way – the road that provides access to the
adjoining University of Brighton site. Adopting Village Way as the
boundary would leave the whole of the rectangular shaped field
situated between Village Way and the A27 to the north outwith the
PSDNP. Over 2000 written representations were also submitted in
support of this arrangement – see CAR498. The other group of
objectors, including Lewes District Council and the Society of
Sussex Downsman, likewise argued that the PSDNP boundary
should be amended, but that it should include, rather than exclude,
the same rectangular shaped field.
The intense interest in this relatively small parcel of land might
seem surprising at first sight but in practice is easily explained.
During 2003 a major inquiry was held into proposals to erect a new
community stadium and transport interchange facility at this
location. Amongst other things the stadium was intended to
provide a new home for Brighton and Hove Football Club. The
Inspector appointed to hold that inquiry subsequently reported to
the Secretary of State with a recommendation that the proposals
should not be granted planning permission (CD209). For reasons
that I need not detail, the Secretary of State subsequently
concluded that a second inquiry should be held to examine possible
alternative sites for a new stadium in and around Brighton
(CD209a). The Inspector charged with responsibility for the second
inquiry was not satisfied that any of the sites before him would be
suitable for that purpose. Faced with that conclusion the Secretary
of State decided that planning permission should be granted for a
new community stadium and transport interchange facility north of
Village Way.
I would add that I am aware that the First Secretray of State has
agreed to submit to judgement following Lewis District Council’s
High Court Challenge to his Falmer deisions. However this does not
fundimentally alter the conclusions that follow as it is by no means
certain that this would result in a different decision. But, even if it
did, as indicated below, I would in any event have recommended a
change to the PSDNP boundary to follow Village Way.
My brief rehearsal of the recent planning history of the PSDNP
boundary at Village Way is necessary as the cases presented by
objectors at the inquiry have been overtaken by events, it seems to
me. In particular the considerable uncertainty regarding the
possibility of built development at this location has largely been
removed. To my mind the recent grant of planning permission for
the community stadium and associated development has clear
consequences for the selection of an appropriate boundary at
Village Way. Although, somewhat surprisingly, the Agency’s
boundary setting guidelines do not expressly mention that land at
the edge of the designated area having the benefit of planning
permission for major built development should be excluded from the
National Park, in my view any other conclusion would be bizarre.
Helpfully the Agency’s guidelines do mention that “major industrial
and commercial developments for which land is allocated in adopted
development plans” would normally be excluded from a National
Park. A grant of planning permission indicates, it seems to me, an
even greater likelihood that land will be developed.
Accordingly I see no purpose in setting out the cases presented by
objectors in support of alternative boundaries and my views on their
relative merits. In my opinion it would be nonsensical to amend the
boundary to include even more of the field north of Village Way –
that is the western half of the field - in the light of the recent grant
of planning permission. Similarly, for the same reason, I see no
grounds for excluding only the eastern half as shown in the
designation order. Whatever view one takes of the decision on the
stadium proposals, it seems to me that for boundary setting
purposes the land north of Village Way should be regarded as falling
within the urban structure rather than as part of the adjoining open
countryside. Put simply, to reflect the recent grant of planning
permission, I recommend that the PSDNP boundary be amended to
follow Village Way. CAR464, paragraph 4.41, mentions that in the
event that the stadium proposals obtain planning permission, the
Agency also considers that Village Way should mark the boundary.
I would add a rider to the above. Even if the stadium proposals had
not been granted planning permission, I would have recommended
an amendment to the designation order boundary. North of Village
Way the boundary is unrelated to any physical features on the
ground and simply follows the administrative boundary between
Brighton and Hove City Council and Lewes District Council
administrative areas. As such this length of the designation order
boundary is at odds with the Agency’s own boundary setting
guidelines (CD31, Table 1, 2e and 2f). Of the obvious alternative
boundary options, i.e. the western boundary of the field and Village
Way, I consider, on balance, that when assessed in the light of the
statutory criteria and the boundary setting guidelines, the latter has
most to commend it.
This conclusion takes into account the fact that the western half of
the field north of Village Way is identified as a site for possible
development in the adopted Brighton and Hove Local Plan – I say
possible because of the policy requirements that anticipate
development in very limited circumstances only. While it is difficult
to gauge what form, if any, such future development might take (if
the community stadium proposals do not proceed), in my view this
allocation lends support to the selection of Village Way as the
appropriate PSDNP boundary. Certainly it makes the western
boundary of the field a less appropriate boundary option.
Finally, it might be helpful to mention that I have given some
thought to the possibility of pulling the PSDNP boundary back from
Village Way. For example, rather than follow Village Way the
boundary could follow the field boundary slightly higher up the
hillside. However, having briefly considered this matter, I see no
basis for adopting this or any other alternative line in preference to
Village Way. So far as I am aware, there is a consensus that the
land south of Village Way is of high landscape quality and satisfies
the statutory criteria.
Inspector’s Recommendation
7.636 That the designation order boundary be amended as
indicated above.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/volume1.pdf
