John Prescott made a factual error in granting the Albion planning permission for a stadium at Falmer - and opponents hope it will wreck the £50 million scheme.

The Secretary of State incorrectly stated in his decision letter last October that the site was inside the built-up area of Brighton and Hove designated by the city's local plan.

The mistake has been revealed as a key part of Lewes District Council's evidence as it attempts to get the planning permission invalidated by a High Court judge.

Albion bosses said it was a technicality and accused the council of clutching at straws.

Chief executive Martin Perry said: "There is an error but it was not a turning point in the Secretary of State's decision. If it went back to him he would come to the same conclusion."

Lewes District Council leader Ann De Vecchi said: "It beggars belief that John Prescott could have made such a fundamental error of fact after a long public inquiry and it totally undermines his decision."

Coun De Vecchi hit back after she was accused of cynically attempting to delay the new stadium in the hope the football club will reach financial meltdown.

Last week Albion chairman Dick Knight revealed exclusively in The Argus that he has been forced to shelve the scheduled opening of the 22,000-seat arena by one year due to the legal challenge.

Ms De Vecchi blamed the delay on Mr Prescott and said the ODPM was more than six weeks late filing its evidence with the court. She added: "Our legal challenge was filed in December.

"John Prescott's response is long overdue. He has had plenty of time to respond.

"Brighton and Hove City Council has already sent its written statement to the court, acknowledging that John Prescott misinterpreted the local plan. Perhaps that is what is causing his delay."

Mr Knight said: "It's nonsense. The blame for the delay in us starting work on the stadium lies fair and square with Lewes District Council and the fact it launched a legal challenge. For it to say it is not against the club is spurious."

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokesman said: "Yes, we agreed in our submission that the notion the stadium would be in the built up area is wrong.

"However while the area is currently not very built up, it is earmarked for development in the local plan."

A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister's Office refused to comment because the case was subject to a legal challenge.

Planning consultant Peter Scott, who has a practice in Sedlescombe, near Battle, said: "The council is skating on thin ice in my view and if it was my client I would advise it is not a strong ground for appeal.

"The Secretary of State will no doubt say the wording of the letter was an administrative oversight.

"It is patently obvious the Government knows this site is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and therefore well outside the development boundary, but he granted permission because he judged it to be a development of social and economic importance."