This is the LDC case put to the High Court.

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Thanks to Sparkie for posting this info on the "what case have LDC made" thread. I think this is the first time i've seen the LDC case set out in detail. Anybody want to run the rule over their claims and give some "opinion" on their objections. It seems that the local plan of 2005 is a very important piece of their case. Like the Stanmer Park bit, that's a bit out of the blue isn't it? Interesting that they claim they belive there are viable alternative sites but don't put any down in detail.

Here is the LDC case:

In particular we believe that Mr Prescott either overlooked, or failed to deal with or explain a number of important issues:

- 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 First Inspector had stressed the importance of retaining a gap of countryside between the built up edge of Brighton and the village of Falmer, so as to prevent creeping development into rural surroundings and to preserve Falmer’s distinct character and separate identity. Although the Inspector identified this as a relevant issue Mr Prescott has failed to mention it in his decision letter.

-Impact of the development on the historic Stanmer Park. The formation of the new link road and the scale of its use would have an unacceptable impact on this historic park. This was the conclusion of the first Inspector. Again, Mr Prescott has failed to mention it.

-Mr Prescott stated that the site for the stadium applications are located within the boundary of the built up area of the city of Brighton and Hove as identified by the Brighton and Hove Local Plan which was adopted in July 2005. This is simply not true. This is a crucial mistake by Mr Prescott. He has made a fundamental error of fact, yet repeatedly bases his conclusions on this error.

-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.

-In addition Mr Prescott concluded that in most views it would be the roof of the stadium that was the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. He also said that the proposed bus and coach park is tucked within a fold of the Downs. This is contrary to the first Inspector’s view, as he concluded the stadium as a whole would be highly visible from many different vantage points. Whether development is visible is a matter of fact and it was wrong of Mr Prescott to contradict his Inspector without giving any reasons.

-Mr Prescott misinterpreted his own planning policy in assessing whether the stadium development amounted to a matter of national interest. A stadium development would, of course, bring with it some regeneration benefits and would therefore fulfil an aim of national policy. It is wrong to suggest that just because a particular development fulfils an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest. Mr Prescott has interpreted his own policy in a way which is not logical or credible.

 

[perseus]

Thanks to Sparkie for posting this info on the "what case have LDC made" thread. I think this is the first time i've seen the LDC case set out in detail. Anybody want to run the rule over their claims and give some "opinion" on their objections. It seems that the local plan of 2005 is a very important piece of their case. Like the Stanmer Park bit, that's a bit out of the blue isn't it? Interesting that they claim they belive there are viable alternative sites but don't put any down in detail.

Not worth it. There are only two possibilities:

1) They have completely lost the plot
2) They never knew the plot to start with

 

[BensGrandad]

I was under the impression that they could only contest the legality and possible flouting of laws in a JR such as time scales etc but to me a mere 'layman in the street' They appear to be objecting to his decision by saying he didnt take into account this and that in which case he just says 'Yes I did and didnt think it worthy of more consideration or importance'.

Am I wrong in my reading of this?

 

[y2dave]

Clutching at straws and scoring small points. They have no legal case for a reivew. Prescott is entitled to acknowledge, ignore or even agree or disagree with any points raised by the inspectors.

The only good point they have is over the consistency of rules for decision making but this is not specific to Falmer. They will be laughed out of court.

What a waste of money.

 

[Uncle C]

They have relied on criticising Mr Prescott himself. The big man wont like that, and whether he says it or not, he will be thinking "piss off"

 

[London Irish]

Clutching at straws and scoring small points.

Yep, totally pissing in the wind.

 

[Simster]

That really is pathetic.

 

[sullyupthewing]

They keep harping on about the first inspectors and how Prescott has ignored this and that but Prescott has broken no rules in going against there recommendations, he is well within his rights to do so, did he not go against the inspectors recommendations with Arsenals new ground.
I am no lawyer but there case seems to me piontless, you might get some change to the plans, but it will not stop the stadium being built.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Reckon the rate payers of LDC should seek a Judicial Review on the blatantly undemocratic decision to squander their money by their elected representatives.

 

[ShorehamGull]

LDC case is bollox,
"Its going to affect stanmer Park", how
Alot of other things they say in that statement is a load of crap.

 

[Marc]

-Impact of the development on the historic Stanmer Park. The formation of the new link road and the scale of its use would have an unacceptable impact on this historic park. This was the conclusion of the first Inspector. Again, Mr Prescott has failed to mention it.


what the bloody hell are they smoking and I want some?!

clutching at microscopic straws

 

[sullyupthewing]

It will be interesting to hear what Martin Parry has to say on the matter, or is he not permitted to as it is going to court.

 

[sullyupthewing]

It will be interesting to hear what Martin Parry has to say on the matter, or is he not permitted to as it is going to court.

Perry, whoops.

 

[Marc]

It will be interesting to hear what Martin Parry has to say on the matter, or is he not permitted to as it is going to court.

its a public hearing court or somehting so he'll probably write something for the official site I would imagine.

 

[London Irish]

Reckon the rate payers of LDC should seek a Judicial Review on the blatantly undemocratic decision to squander their money by their elected representatives.

Already happening!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news_extra/in_depth/falmer_stadium/news/stadium184.html

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Already happening!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news_extra/in_depth/falmer_stadium/news/stadium184.html

No. It's a private action by an individual. Promising start, mind...

 

[Marc]

Already happening!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news_extra/in_depth/falmer_stadium/news/stadium184.html

The ArGOONS at it again:

"The Albion fanatic who lives in Falmer, a mile from where the stadium is planned"

 

[The Large One]

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

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.

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.

The First Inspector had stressed the importance of retaining a gap of countryside between the built up edge of Brighton and the village of Falmer, so as to prevent creeping development into rural surroundings and to preserve Falmer's distinct character and separate identity. Although the Inspector identified this as a relevant issue Mr Prescott has failed to mention it in his decision letter.

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

Impact of the development on the historic Stanmer Park. The formation of the new link road and the scale of its use would have an unacceptable impact on this historic park. This was the conclusion of the first Inspector. Again, Mr Prescott has failed to mention it.

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...'

Mr Prescott stated that the site for the stadium applications are located within the boundary of the built up area of the city of Brighton and Hove as identified by the Brighton and Hove Local Plan which was adopted in July 2005. This is simply not true. This is a crucial mistake by Mr Prescott. He has made a fundamental error of fact, yet repeatedly bases his conclusions on this error.

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.

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.

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.

In addition Mr Prescott concluded that in most views it would be the roof of the stadium that was the most prominent or only visible feature of the development. He also said that the proposed bus and coach park is tucked within a fold of the Downs. This is contrary to the first Inspector's view, as he concluded the stadium as a whole would be highly visible from many different vantage points. Whether development is visible is a matter of fact and it was wrong of Mr Prescott to contradict his Inspector without giving any reasons.

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...''

Mr Prescott misinterpreted his own planning policy in assessing whether the stadium development amounted to a matter of national interest. A stadium development would, of course, bring with it some regeneration benefits and would therefore fulfil an aim of national policy. It is wrong to suggest that just because a particular development fulfils an objective of national policy, that development proposal is, in itself, a development proposal which is in the national interest. Mr Prescott has interpreted his own policy in a way which is not logical or credible.

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.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

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

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 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 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.

 

[The Large One]

The ArGOONS at it again:

"The Albion fanatic who lives in Falmer, a mile from where the stadium is planned"

He does, and it is.

Although ten day old news, his work colleague was in my office late last week, and we were discussing it. Chpaman REALLY wants to go for it. And if anyone here has ever met him, you'll know he's not joking...