This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

[Yorkie]

Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

The mere fact that ALL the other sites failed on at least two of the other criteria means they have a very difficult job of justifiying their status.

During the Inquiry, Lewes District Council wanted all nine sites to go through the same rigorous tests that the Falmer application had (same environmental impact, noise impact, traffic impact etc). Rightly, the Inspector rejected this, probably because of time and expense, but also because Brighton weren't actually putting in a planning application for those other sites.

The day that we went to the public inquiry the environmental impact was covered in great detail on a lot of the sites (I can't remember if it was every single one of them) but I do remember that houses on Wilson Ave and in Hangleton were going to be affected by a stadium more than Falmer village would be affected by the stadium site that has been chosen. It was both on noise level and traffic impact.

 

[mona]

Are we underestimating the nimbys ? Discuss.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

During the Inquiry, Lewes District Council wanted all nine sites to go through the same rigorous tests that the Falmer application had (same environmental impact, noise impact, traffic impact etc). Rightly, the Inspector rejected this, probably because of time and expense, but also because Brighton weren't actually putting in a planning application for those other sites.

LDC knew damn well that sites like Upper Beeding Cement Works, Shoreham Harbour, the Greyhound Stadium and Brighton Station were complete non-starters. For them to suggest otherwise confirms they are unfit for office and knowingly wasting their constituents' council tax.

 

[BensGrandad]

I was lead to believe, like most people that they could only go for JR on points of law not interpretation of fact or Inspectors Report.

It would seem obvious that the inspectors reports are only recommendations from one particular person on HIS own personal view and I would think that it is well within JPs right to disregard such recommendations and form his own independant view.

 

[The Large One]

Correct, Brian.

However, their point, however tenuous, was that Prescott didn't cover some issues (see above). At the end of the day, they may have just needed some clarification. Therefore they have spent their taxpayers' money taking him to court to do so.

Indeed, in one case, they are saying that Prescott justified his decision on the basis of a wrong conclusion (that the site is located in part of the built up area of the city).

It would need Lord Bracknell to clarify this, but, I am making an assumption that because the land is earmarked for development in the Local Plan, it is therefore considered to with the area of the Brighton & Hove built up environment. Lewes are claiming that it is not.

That in itself is a moot point. AONB status has a higher protection rating, and Prescott is satisfied that the stadium plans mitigate any damage to the AONB, and that it is in the national interest.

But I guess we'll leave Jonathan Clay to kick the shit out of any challenge Lewes are offering.

 

[BensGrandad]

It must be something about the time of the year for me to get agreement from both LI & TLO on the same day. Rather I agreed with LI.

 

[ShorehamGull]

Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

My two'penneth - for what it's worth (almost certainly less than f*** all...)


Probably because, ultimately, he found it irrelevant. That, plus the fact that he could not be seen to be prejudicing the on-going Public Inquiry into the South Downs National Park.


Yes? And? After a Judicial Review, Prescott may merely be asked to write something banal like 'I disagree with the First Inspector...'


This is part of the access road, rather than the Stadium application. Again, all Mr Prescott would say is, 'I disagree with the First Inspector...'


True, the Brighton & Hove Local Plan (adopted 21 July 2005) does not mention verbatim that this is within the 'built-up area', it does say this...

5.76 In the event that the Community Stadium is not developed at Village Way North, the site will be allocated for High tech business or research related to the universities or for university related uses, except for student housing. Given the sensitivity of the site and its proximity to the adjacent Falmer conservation area, provided there are no suitable sites available within the existing university campuses, development for University purposes will be permitted. Obivously, this was written BEFORE Prescott's decision.

It means that, come what may, the site WILL be developed, subject to satisfactory planning criteria.


This is a very unspecific point, because there were nine criteria to which the second Public Inquiry was based.

The question 'Is planning permission a realistic possibility? (or whatever the exact wording was)' was, for Lewes, unacceptable. What they mean is, it gives too much of a disprortionate say to the planning authority (in this case, Brighton & Hove City Council, which approved the stadium).

The mere fact that ALL the other sites failed on at least two of the other criteria means they have a very difficult job of justifiying their status.

During the Inquiry, Lewes District Council wanted all nine sites to go through the same rigorous tests that the Falmer application had (same environmental impact, noise impact, traffic impact etc). Rightly, the Inspector rejected this, probably because of time and expense, but also because Brighton weren't actually putting in a planning application for those other sites.


Prescott states on many occasions that there are many mitigating design and visual impact circumstances to the Albion's application. This is a nit-picking point because, if nothing else, the coach park is behind a 'curtain of trees'. This is easily covered in Prescott's letter, without him referring to the visibility of the coach park. All LDC are saying is, 'Prescott hasn't said 'i disagree with the First Inspector...''


Not good enough. Prescott said that the Albion's future is not in the national interest, therefore what Lewes are saying is is that the stadium is not an appropriate enough building to justfiy approval. Prescott's argument, and one he makes very clearly (and which Lewes have conveniently forgotten) is the counter-argument about what refusal of the application would do to the local economy - and argument which is highly pertitent and relevant. Because (as stated above in the Local Plan), if the stadium was turned down, the land would be occupied by the University and/or for High Tech usage, the local economy would not benefit in the same way.

What Lewes District Council intend to argue is the nature of all future AONB planning applications. Which is going to cost them a damn site more than their proposed £65,000.

Not being a solicitor nor a planner, these are just estamations. But it's what I reckon - so there.

Well Done TLO I think you should send out two copies of this, one for the Argus and one for LDC.
I think LDC and these Nimby's need to be put straight on a few facts.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

Well Done TLO I think you should send out two copies of this, one for the Argus and one for LDC.
I think LDC and these Nimby's need to be put straight on a few facts.

Give over. They'll be dismissed out of hand as the ramblings of a madman. Just because they suit our case, doesn't follow I'm right.

There is one addition I would make to my summary yesterday. Lewes were not correct in stating that Prescott 'based his conclusions' on the site being in the built up area. In Prescott's letter of approval, he actually used this fact as a mitigating circumstance, not as a basis.

Whether it is part of the built-up area of Brighton & Hove is what Lewes appear to be contesting.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I suppose one could use the argument that it is not in the built up area, just on an area about to be built on!

 

[perseus]

I was lead to believe, like most people that they could only go for JR on points of law not interpretation of fact or Inspectors Report.

It would seem obvious that the inspectors reports are only recommendations from one particular person on HIS own personal view and I would think that it is well within JPs right to disregard such recommendations and form his own independant view.

So all it is a lot of gobbledegook and all that really counts is whether Prescott likes the plan or not, whether it is technically legal, and then the waffle comes afterwards? This is one view. I tend towards this view, not withstanding that certain Planning Permissions within an AONB would NOT be given.

e.g. in the last one when one of the objectors (SDCB) to the Albion stadium omitted to obtain Planning Permission in the Lewes DC jurisdiction and the Judge said "one of the worst cases of illegal tipping of contaminated building spoil I ever come across".

The people being paid to look after our Downs are incompetent. Not only over the spurious objections to the Albion stadium but in their management in general. They seem to be hand-in-hand with Lewes SDC representing the farming industry to the detriment of common sense, in opposition to urban dwellers (most people), ordinary decency (they are not to be trusted), environmental concerns (they object to a coach park in a fringe area of an AONB and then actually commission fly-tippers to dump contaminated building rubbish on Telscombe Nye AONB without Planning Permission).

 

[Curious Orange]

So what it boils down to is that LDC want a justification for every point that the first Inspector made, whether that point is relevant to the actual decision or not. Doesn't seem a particularly reasonable basis for objecting.

I've been trying to find a copy of the first decision letter to see what it says about the National Park. Anybody got a link?

Anyhow, what are they talking about here:

-The wrong test in law was used for assessing alternative sites by both the second Inspector and then by Mr Prescott. Additionally the test Mr Prescott used in the Falmer case was at odds with the test he has himself adopted in other recent cases relating to major development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Similar cases must be decided in a similar way to ensure consistency in decision making.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

They seem to be hand-in-hand with Lewes SDC representing the farming industry to the detriment of common sense, in opposition to urban dwellers (most people), ordinary decency (they are not to be trusted), environmental concerns (they object to a coach park in a fringe area of an AONB and then actually commission fly-tippers to dump contaminated building rubbish on Telscombe Nye AONB without Planning Permission).

Would it surprise you to know that the major landowners around Peacehaven and Telscombe are the Carr family, one of whom own the Swan in Falmer?

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

It means that, come what may, the site WILL be developed, subject to satisfactory planning criteria.

Yep I believe that if a footy stadium is not there then a lovely incinerator or recycling plant or nuclear reactor, something like that instead will be there.

 

[perseus]

Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

Yep I believe that if a footy stadium is not there then a lovely incinerator or recycling plant or nuclear reactor, something like that instead will be there.

What happened to the plan for the multi-storey abbatoir and McDonalds? The cows go in the bottom past the blood-caked walls and burgers come down the shute right on to the plate.



It would be a tourist attraction. Good transport arrangements.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

So what it boils down to is that LDC want a justification for every point that the first Inspector made, whether that point is relevant to the actual decision or not. Doesn't seem a particularly reasonable basis for objecting.

I've been trying to find a copy of the first decision letter to see what it says about the National Park. Anybody got a link?

Anyhow, what are they talking about here:

Their 'wrong test in law' point is about the criteria Prescott outlined in the letter of 26 July 2004, re-opening the Inquiry. There were nine criteria Prescott wanted to test the suitability and availability of the other nine sites.

(i) Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, thereby complying with Football League requirements?
(ii) Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
(iii) Is the site large enough for a 22,000 capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach park?
(iv) Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs on the site?
(v) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any over-riding safety/stadium management problems?
(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?
(vii) Is the site accessible by sustainable modes of transport?
(viii) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any unacceptable environmental impacts?
(ix) Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?

Lewes District Council are now claiming that anywhere between one and all of these criteria were 'wrong in law'. Because their press release is so woolly and unspecific, we don't know how many of these criteria they are contesting. They are also rounding on and taking cheap potshots at Mr Brier, the Inspector of the second Inquiry, although in truth, he was, along with everyone else, only acting to within the guidelines set by John Prescott.

What is interesting is that they never said anything at the time.

The point is, every case must be judged on its own merits, so to apply one set of criteria for one application on AONB land (say, social housing or a waste incinerator) would be folly to apply the same for say, a community stadium.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

Yep I believe that if a footy stadium is not there then a lovely incinerator or recycling plant or nuclear reactor, something like that instead will be there.

In fairness, the Council has only earmarked the land for university or 'high-tech' usage. Whatever that is.

But the land will be built on.

 

[Curious Orange]

Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

Their 'wrong test in law' point is about the criteria Prescott outlined in the letter of 26 July 2004, re-opening the Inquiry. There were nine criteria Prescott wanted to test the suitability and availability of the other nine sites.

(i) Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, thereby complying with Football League requirements?
(ii) Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
(iii) Is the site large enough for a 22,000 capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach park?
(iv) Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs on the site?
(v) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any over-riding safety/stadium management problems?
(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?
(vii) Is the site accessible by sustainable modes of transport?
(viii) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any unacceptable environmental impacts?
(ix) Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?

Lewes District Council are now claiming that anywhere between one and all of these criteria were 'wrong in law'. Because their press release is so woolly and unspecific, we don't know how many of these criteria they are contesting. They are also rounding on and taking cheap potshots at Mr Brier, the Inspector of the second Inquiry, although in truth, he was, along with everyone else, only acting to within the guidelines set by John Prescott.

What is interesting is that they never said anything at the time.

The point is, every case must be judged on its own merits, so to apply one set of criteria for one application on AONB land (say, social housing or a waste incinerator) would be folly to apply the same for say, a community stadium.

It would be daft to challenge that criteria.

Even the first Inspector recognised that the development on an alternative site would need to be on a like for like basis in terms of what was required and could be afforded, though of the alternatives he cited only Sheepcote is actually "available".

 

[Curious Orange]

Just so we're complete. Here is the letter which announced what the re-opened Inquiry would look at:

Dear Sir,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATIONS BY BRIGHTON AND HOVE ALBION FOOTBALL CLUB LTD
LAND NORTH OF VILLAGE WAY, FALMER
REF NO: BH2001/02418/FP; BH2003/02449/FP; LW/02/1595; LW/031618

1. I refer to the above applications, which have been called in for determination by the First Secretary of State. The applications relate to the erection of a new community football stadium for Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club Ltd with accommodation for Class B1 business, educational, conference, club shop merchandise, entertainment and food and road works, pedestrian and cycle links, coach/bus park and set down area. Shared use of existing car parking space at the University of Sussex and shared use of land for recreation and parking at Falmer High School.

2. The applications were the subject of an inquiry conducted by J R Collyer MRTPI, FRICS. The inquiry opened on 18 February 2003 and closed on 23 October 2003. A copy of the Inspector's report is enclosed.

3. Following the close of the inquiry, the First Secretary of State was aware that progress had been made on the draft Brighton and Hove Local Plan with publication of the Inspector’s Report. He had also received the representations from you, by a letter dated 11 March, on behalf of the applicants. As the matters referred to above related to issues arising since the close of the inquiry, the Secretary of State offered parties the opportunity to comment on the representations in his letter of 19 March 2004. Further letters and comments were circulated under cover of the letters of 26 May and 4 and 23 June 2004. Representations received in response to the letter of 23 June are listed in the attached schedule and are enclosed for information.

4. Following consideration of these representations, the Secretary of State has concluded that that he should seek further evidence concerning the availability or otherwise of alternative sites and that for this purpose it is appropriate to re-open the inquiry. The matters on which the Secretary of State requires further evidence are as follows :
a) the availability and suitability for the proposed development of land at
• Brighton Station
• Brighton Greyhound Stadium
• Shoreham Harbour
• Sheepcote Valley
• Toad's Hole Valley
• Waterhall
• Withdean Stadium

In each case against the following criteria:
(i) Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, thereby complying with Football League requirements?
(ii) Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
(iii) Is the site large enough for a 22,000 capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach park?
(iv) Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs on the site?
(v) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any over-riding safety/stadium management problems?
(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?
(vii) Is the site accessible by sustainable modes of transport?
(viii) Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any unacceptable environmental impacts?
(ix) Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?

b) The estimated cost of the development at Falmer and all of the above sites having regard to the advice in PPG7 "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development" that major development proposals in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be demonstrated to be in the public interest and should include assessments of the cost and scope of developing elsewhere outside the AONB or meeting the need for it in some other way

c) Whether there are any other sites that could be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the above criteria.

d) The implications for the application site and for any of the other alternative sites located within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park.

5. The Planning Inspectorate has been asked to make the procedural arrangements for re-opening the inquiry and they will shortly be in contact with you. The case officer in the Planning Inspectorate is Sian Evans, 3/17 Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN: Tel No: 0117 372 8559

6. Copies of this letter have been sent to Brighton & Hove City Council, Lewes District Council all those who appeared at inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Miss A Gerry

I assume that it is section 4d that LDC are referring to when they were talking about the decision not mentioning the proposed National Park.

National Parks and AONBs both have the same, highest, level of planning protection, so you could argue if the development meets the planning requirements for an AONB it must by definition also meet those of any future National Park, so I don't see their point.

The only implications for any of the sites that I know of the introduction of the National Park are that Toads Hole Valley and a good deal more of the Falmer site are likely to lose the protection they currently enjoy. Is that an implication worth mentioning when on a like-for-like basis Falmer is still the better site?

 

[The Oldman]

The only implications for any of the sites that I know of the introduction of the National Park are that Toads Hole Valley and a good deal more of the Falmer site are likely to lose the protection they currently enjoy. Is that an implication worth mentioning when on a like-for-like basis Falmer is still the better site? [/B]

Brighton Council are arguing that THV should remain within the National Park and are opposed to any development there. The Enviroment Agency also has concerns because the Valley has significant under ground water supplies for Hove. This was all stated at the last Inquiry.

 

[Curious Orange]

Actually if you look at the argument next to the wording of the letter you can see that LDC have got it about-face, it is not the effect the development on the National Park that is important, it is the designation of the National Park on the site(s). (They've made the schoolboy error of mis-reading 'of' as 'on' (which I've picked out in red for you lovely people))

Lewes District Council argument
Mr Prescott completely overlooked the effect of the development on the proposed South Downs National Park. One of the reasons Mr Prescott gave for re-opening the Inquiry was that he wanted to hear evidence from the parties on the implications of a stadium for the new National Park. The District Council argued that it would be premature to grant planning permission at Falmer until the principle of the National Park was decided and its boundaries were confirmed. Despite specifically raising the issue in his letter and asking the parties to submit their views on it, Mr. Prescott failed to address it in his decision letter.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Letter Re-opening the Inquiry
d) The implications for the application site and for any of the other alternative sites located within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park.