Search results

Re: LDC case Not so, I believe this is the relevant proposal map which became part of the adopted Local Plan. http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/localplan2001/policiesEM2,EM19,SR25map.pdf The original link on the website doesn't mention SR25 (says - Policy EM2, EM19, EM25 map...

The Local Plan hadn't been adopted by the end of the second Inquiry on 5th May, so it is more likely that Mr Brier has referred to the draft one in his report, this of course being the evidence the ODPM was to base it's decision on. I suspect they noted that SR23 had subsequently replaced SR25...

Why on earth did they move the line on the map when SR23 replaced SR25? The stadium was within the built up area before, and you're saying it now isn't? That's daft... But, as you say, expensive to argue about!! :lolol: (just so you're all clear the built up area in the map for SR25...

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court. Though perhaps I can answer my question, as SR23 is a direct replacement for SR25 I expect the boundary to be the same, certainly the ODPM seems to think so: So the only quibble that LDC could have is by not referring to the...

Re: Re: Re: This is the LDC case put to the High Court. Yes, but is the map I linked to still accurate in terms of the dotted line showing the edge of the built up area? I haven't seen anything else on that site that would appear to supercede it. SR23 on page 176 is the specific policy for...

That is debatable. Of course not all of the application sites are in Brighton and Hove, however those that are are within the built up area of city according to this map: http://www.brightonandhovelocalplan.org.uk/map_htm/inset_03/inset_03_488.htm (hopefully this is as adopted in 2005!)

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...

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

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

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...