The South Downs Public Inquiry
Tuesday, 12. February 2008, 18:19:58
A summary of the first weeks action at the Public Inquiry
For more detail plus up to date info check the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/
You may care to look at the proofs of evidence being submitted to the Inquiry at:
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/docs_proofs.htm
To sign the online petition to include the Western Weald go to:: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/western-weald
· The good news is that the Inspector will allow oral submissions on the Western Weald (WW) and that these will take place in separate, additional sessions (possibly a new topic 6 – details/timetable tbc). This is a joint success for Hampshire County Council and the SDC (NE had been somewhat ambivalent on this) but with lots of support for this from the parishes. Inspector said it ‘would be a nonsense for the SoS not to take account of fresh and current material’, recognising that it had been some time since the inquiry last sat. He will hear ‘what people want to say on how the assessor’s report and Inspector’s conclusions were drawn up’, without going so far as to make himself available for cross-examination!
· West Sussex County Council’s position is becoming more interesting – its Counsel confirmed that it had no in principle objection to the hearing of new evidence on the exclusion of the WW and said that in its view that decision was entirely down to the Inspector. WSCC also accepted that the Inspector would find it difficult on the grounds of natural justice and the need to report fully to the SoS not to hear new evidence on the WW. This removal of any final barrier to a separate session on the WW made it easier for the Inspector but he suggested he had already made his mind up on this before the start of the inquiry. Finally, WSCC said it supported a ‘fair and balanced’ decision which prompted a few boos and much ironic laughter – even the Inspector was smiling at this point
· WSCC has said that it will not be represented in any sessions on the Weald but that it may have depositions read to the Inquiry instead. (West Sussex have also said that they will be presenting evidence for topics 3 and 4) The reason for this shift in position is the immense and unrelenting pressure it has been under, more latterly from many angry parish councils
· Objectors to deleted areas other than the WW will still only be able to make written reps but I suspect that if anyone made a strong enough case the Inspector would hear oral submissions on some of these as well
· Hampshire CC then presented its evidence in chief on the effects of NERC and Meyrick which is broadly in agreement with NE. We (SDC) do ours on Thursday. The only cross-examination will come from Tarmac which is challenging NE and HCC’s objection to the use of characteristic natural beauty
· Hampshire CC wants the Inspector to recommend a minimum of 75% members of the SDNPA are drawn from local authorities and parish councils, rather than the more flexible NERC Act formula of at least 50% local representation
The SDC presented its evidence on the NERC Act and Meyrick Judgments on Thursday, 14th feb. and it generally went very well. Chris Todd said "Some good points were made about how the legal changes mean that the Inspector does need to look at his recommendations again (and that it wasn't his fault he got it wrong!). Also our presentations on Ditchling and Lewes went well with Natural England supporting our line, including Ditchling, where we criticised the application of their boundary setting criteria in treating Ditchling as a town when in fact it is a village. How successful we have been remains to be seen after last time but at least we came away with the Inspector committed to reviewing these areas."
Not a lot happened at the inquiry last week with the only appearance being from the owners of Toads Hole Valley (addition 23) in Brighton & Hove who want the area left out of the National Park. The SDC put in a strong rebuttal to their evidence but was not allowed to speak. It is an area we suspect may not be included in the final Park boundary.
The previous week was more positive with closing statements by ourselves, Hampshire County Council and Natural England on Topics 1 & 2 (the legal changes) plus Tarmac who were there seeking more land be taken out. There were also some very good Parish Council and individual representations on Topic 3 (the alternative boundary) on the Wednesday and Thursday. The Inspector was left in little doubt as to the strength of feeling (and outrage) towards WSCC, particularly over its statement that there was no support for the Western Weald to be included in the National Park.
For more detail plus up to date info check the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/You may care to look at the proofs of evidence being submitted to the Inquiry at:
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/docs_proofs.htm
To sign the online petition to include the Western Weald go to:: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/western-weald
· The good news is that the Inspector will allow oral submissions on the Western Weald (WW) and that these will take place in separate, additional sessions (possibly a new topic 6 – details/timetable tbc). This is a joint success for Hampshire County Council and the SDC (NE had been somewhat ambivalent on this) but with lots of support for this from the parishes. Inspector said it ‘would be a nonsense for the SoS not to take account of fresh and current material’, recognising that it had been some time since the inquiry last sat. He will hear ‘what people want to say on how the assessor’s report and Inspector’s conclusions were drawn up’, without going so far as to make himself available for cross-examination!
· West Sussex County Council’s position is becoming more interesting – its Counsel confirmed that it had no in principle objection to the hearing of new evidence on the exclusion of the WW and said that in its view that decision was entirely down to the Inspector. WSCC also accepted that the Inspector would find it difficult on the grounds of natural justice and the need to report fully to the SoS not to hear new evidence on the WW. This removal of any final barrier to a separate session on the WW made it easier for the Inspector but he suggested he had already made his mind up on this before the start of the inquiry. Finally, WSCC said it supported a ‘fair and balanced’ decision which prompted a few boos and much ironic laughter – even the Inspector was smiling at this point
· WSCC has said that it will not be represented in any sessions on the Weald but that it may have depositions read to the Inquiry instead. (West Sussex have also said that they will be presenting evidence for topics 3 and 4) The reason for this shift in position is the immense and unrelenting pressure it has been under, more latterly from many angry parish councils
· Objectors to deleted areas other than the WW will still only be able to make written reps but I suspect that if anyone made a strong enough case the Inspector would hear oral submissions on some of these as well
· Hampshire CC then presented its evidence in chief on the effects of NERC and Meyrick which is broadly in agreement with NE. We (SDC) do ours on Thursday. The only cross-examination will come from Tarmac which is challenging NE and HCC’s objection to the use of characteristic natural beauty
· Hampshire CC wants the Inspector to recommend a minimum of 75% members of the SDNPA are drawn from local authorities and parish councils, rather than the more flexible NERC Act formula of at least 50% local representation
The SDC presented its evidence on the NERC Act and Meyrick Judgments on Thursday, 14th feb. and it generally went very well. Chris Todd said "Some good points were made about how the legal changes mean that the Inspector does need to look at his recommendations again (and that it wasn't his fault he got it wrong!). Also our presentations on Ditchling and Lewes went well with Natural England supporting our line, including Ditchling, where we criticised the application of their boundary setting criteria in treating Ditchling as a town when in fact it is a village. How successful we have been remains to be seen after last time but at least we came away with the Inspector committed to reviewing these areas."
Not a lot happened at the inquiry last week with the only appearance being from the owners of Toads Hole Valley (addition 23) in Brighton & Hove who want the area left out of the National Park. The SDC put in a strong rebuttal to their evidence but was not allowed to speak. It is an area we suspect may not be included in the final Park boundary.
The previous week was more positive with closing statements by ourselves, Hampshire County Council and Natural England on Topics 1 & 2 (the legal changes) plus Tarmac who were there seeking more land be taken out. There were also some very good Parish Council and individual representations on Topic 3 (the alternative boundary) on the Wednesday and Thursday. The Inspector was left in little doubt as to the strength of feeling (and outrage) towards WSCC, particularly over its statement that there was no support for the Western Weald to be included in the National Park.
(67%)
WIDGETIZE