Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

£140,000.00 spent on falmer fight



pornomagboy

wake me up before you gogo who needs potter when
May 16, 2006
6,082
peacehaven
Lewes District Council has spent £140,000 on lawyers to fight plans for Albion's Falmer stadium, The Argus can reveal.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that during the past five years £138,988 has been forked out trying to stop the 22,000 seater ground.

The cash could have paid for eight extra bin men in Lewes for one year.

In February 2003, a four-month inquiry kicked off the Albion's bid to build in the area of outstanding natural beauty.

Lewes council spent just under £60,000 that year on consulting external lawyers - over and above work carried out in-house.

In July 2004, the planning inspector ripped apart the Albion's case for a stadium, leaving the club's dreams in tatters.

But former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott threw the club a lifeline by reopening the case.

The second inquiry was launched in February 2005, concluding with a "yes" decision by Mr Prescott.

But just a few weeks later a mistake emerged in the report and Lewes announced a High Court challenge in November 2005.

The case was dropped in October 2006, less than a day before the High Court appearance, with the quashing of Mr Prescott's decision.

Yesterday, after a decade without a permanent home, the Government finally gave the go-ahead to the plans.

Lewes spent almost £50,000 in the year ending April 2006, an extra £25,000 in the 12 months to April 2007 and £5,000 alone in the past few months. Supporters of the club have been critical of the district councils use of public money to fight the proposed stadium.

Councillor Paul Gander said: "The Lib Dems do not want it in Falmer and that is it. They have wasted taxpayers' money. More people in Lewes support the stadium than are against it."

Roz South, of the Seagulls Party, added: "The opposition has fought a long battle and I hope they just accept that a stadium is going to be built. It is a lost cause."

Ms South believes the total expenditure is likely to be in excess of £140,000, given the time spent by the council's own employees is not factored in. She said: "It must have cost them at least £200,000 to fund all of this and the stadium is going to be built at Falmer anyway."

A council spokeswoman pointed out that funds used to overturn Mr Prescott's decision will be reimbursed by the Government.


http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1574417.0.140_000_spent_on_falmer_fight.php
 




Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
24,350
Sussex
does that mean the club have spent the same ? ie the Falmer black hole ? thought it was more than that
 


Lawro's Lip

New member
Feb 14, 2004
1,768
West Kent
Perhaps its my memory but I don't remember the first planning Inspectors Report being a 'ripped apart' job. He didn't say no. Opponents seem to be crying foul and upon implying that without 'support' from JP they would have got their way after the first judgement. Is this history being rewritten?
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Perhaps its my memory but I don't remember the first planning Inspectors Report being a 'ripped apart' job. He didn't say no. Opponents seem to be crying foul and upon implying that without 'support' from JP they would have got their way after the first judgement. Is this history being rewritten?

What the Inspector did NOT do was 'completely and utterly reject Falmer' as Septicman claimed on here. As was highlighted in Hazel Blears' letter, he saw many benefits in the Falmer Stadium project.

He said no primarily because of the scale of the environmental impact, and that he (wrongly) believed Sheepcote was a better site. The former argument Hazel Blears said was (a) outweighed by the social and economic benefits the stadium would provide to the run-down and deprived local community and (b) mitigated to a satisfactory degree by the ecological add-ons to the stadium environment.

The latter argument (about Sheepcote) has been bludgeoned to death now, despite Lewes' blindness to that fact.
 
Last edited:


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
61,987
The Fatherland
I think it is time to move on.
 








Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
61,987
The Fatherland
It is also a valuable lesson that councils must be held accountable if they pursue a case against a major development without consulting the electorate.

Whilst I do not agree with what LDC did, they were voting in to act on the distict's behalf. You cannot consult the electorate on every issue. That's the primacy of our system. Just like with the government.

The system continually gave LDC an avenue for appeal. It is the system which needs to change.
 






Martlet

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2003
685
I know this isn't going to be a popular view, and I'm delighted at the decision, but I don't have a huge problem with Lewes' decision to argue against the stadium.

As I see it, what this ended up doing was flushing out all the potential arguments for and against the siting of the stadium in Falmer, showed the merits of all other potential sites and brought everything out into the open. Nobody on any side can claim they didn't have a fair hearing, and we as a club have emerged excellently for the passion, completeness and tenacity of our campaign.

There's going to be a lot of goodwill from around the country directed towards us when the stadium is finally built, and hopefully the increased publicity levels will make the job of securing the financing easier for Mssrs Perry and Knight.
 


Barrel of Fun

Abort, retry, fail
Whilst I do not agree with what LDC did, they were voting in to act on the distict's behalf. You cannot consult the electorate on every issue. That's the primacy of our system. Just like with the government.

The system continually gave LDC an avenue for appeal. It is the system which needs to change.

Whilst I agree the system should change, although not as radically as the Barker review suggested, my disclaimer was 'major development'. Each individual case should be decided on it's own merits and the individual objections should be assessed before committing all district residents to be liable to fund the appeal.
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,187
Location Location
If we;d just put the bloody coach park somewhere else, we wouldn;t have had all this aggro.
 


Tony Meolas Loan Spell

Slut Faced Whores
Jul 15, 2004
18,069
Vamanos Pest
If we called it the Moulsecoomb stadium we wouldnt either.
 


Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
I know this isn't going to be a popular view, and I'm delighted at the decision, but I don't have a huge problem with Lewes' decision to argue against the stadium.

As I see it, what this ended up doing was flushing out all the potential arguments for and against the siting of the stadium in Falmer, showed the merits of all other potential sites and brought everything out into the open. Nobody on any side can claim they didn't have a fair hearing, and we as a club have emerged excellently for the passion, completeness and tenacity of our campaign.

There's going to be a lot of goodwill from around the country directed towards us when the stadium is finally built, and hopefully the increased publicity levels will make the job of securing the financing easier for Mssrs Perry and Knight.

sure everybody got a fair hearing, but it's the motives and methods employed by LDC and Falmer that stink, stink, stink.

Lies, delays, more lies.

THEY TRIED TO STRING IT OUT LONG ENOUGH FOR US TO BANKRUPT OURSELVES in case we start getting dewy-eyed about the bastards.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,813
Surrey
Eight bin men indeed! Outrageous!

A fine bit of red top journalism there from The Argus. See who wins, and then put THE f***ing BOOT into the losing side. I'd almost feel sorry for LDC for having these figures bandied about - it must be a total embarrassment and humiliation. However, it wasn't their money to waste! So lets hope the Argus hounds these twats forever and ruins the careers of those responsible for this shocking undemocratic waste of tax payers money.
 






Whilst I do not agree with what LDC did, they were voting in to act on the distict's behalf. You cannot consult the electorate on every issue. That's the primacy of our system. Just like with the government.

The system continually gave LDC an avenue for appeal. It is the system which needs to change.
My issue with LDC is that they never asked (even in the loosest sense) what their residents wanted.

When presented with a petition of over 5,000 names (collected in just one week), asking them to accept Prescott's decision and stop spending money opposing it, they simply chose not to listen.

And this from a Lib Dem leadership that at the time was waving Norman Baker's own petition on the Newhaven incinerator (which had received fewer signatures over a much longer period) as a justification for opposing the incinerator, which they had previously backed when it was at the consultation stage of the Waste Local Plan.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here