Legal bid against Albion stadium dropped

8:56am Wednesday 4th October 2006

Brighton and Hove Albion's plans for a stadium at Falmer will be decided by the Government after a legal bid against the scheme was dropped at the last minute.

Lewes District Council withdrew its legal challenge to the plans less than 24 hours before it was due to appear in the High Court in London.

The move means the decision is now in the hands of Ruth Kelly, the new Communities and Local Government Secretary.

Ms Kelly has promised to take all parties' views into account when she reconsiders the planning application for the stadium, which the Seagulls have been trying to build for more than five years.

The new decision is being taken after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted he had made a blunder in his approval of the scheme last October.

Mr Prescott granted planning permission almost a year ago but he was forced to quash his decision due to a mistake over the proposed site's location, which he described as within the built-up area of Brighton and Hove.

In fact only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area.

Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society launched a legal challenge after the Government said it would not consider all their objections when the decision was retaken.

The Government had, until yesterday, said it was only willing to review the section of the decision in which the error had been made.

However, the opposing parties have now been reassured the Government would now consider all the objections raised, effectively retracing Mr Prescott's steps in making his original decision.

The district council received a letter from Government lawyers yesterday, saying the council's objections would now be considered.

Both sides claimed victory after the legal challenge was dropped.

Lewes District Council said the decision was further justification of its own stance against the stadium and said it was further proof Prescott's decision to grant planning permission was flawed.

Councillor David Neighbour said: "It's just a shame these assurances were not given months ago.

"We knew the High Court would quash the decision because the Government's lawyers had already admitted it was flawed on one key point, which Mr Prescott used repeatedly to justify his decision."

Albion Chief Executive Martin Perry said: "Lewes District Council has argued it wanted confirmation from the Treasury Solicitor that the Secretary of State is now dealing with this matter.

"Ruth Kelly should give an undertaking that she will consider all the points it has raised when she makes her decision on planning permission for the new stadium. The club has always argued this is unnecessary because, as part of the process under the inquiry rules, the Secretary of State has to write to the interested parties to ask them whether there is anything they wish her to consider before she makes her decision.

"I am very pleased that at last this matter has been resolved. It is no coincidence that, just a few hours before they were due to appear in court, the council has agreed to the terms of the Consent Order offered to it by the Treasury Solicitor.

"Lewes District Council knew it was at risk for costs and it was because of the pressure applied by the club that we now move on."

Paul Samrah, chairman of the Falmer For All campaign group and leader of the Seagulls Party political group, said: "Lewes District Council is firmly on the back foot.

"This is a clear victory for the thousands of supporters that attended our rally."

The decision to prevent today's planned High Court action effectively means the bid to build a football stadium in Falmer is back to square one.

Ms Ruth Kelly must now decide whether to grant planning permission for the stadium, considering the same data as John Prescott.

Ms Kelly's department confirmed letters would be sent to all parties involved to make representations over the plan but could not confirm when a decision was likely to be made.

It has been confirmed all costs incurred on both sides of the argument in preparation of the High Court action would be met by the Government.

Editor's Choice