Argus Latest - They read it first on NSC... Now read what they've said

[DTES]

If they find a legal flaw then they can appeal but it has to be a legal flaw not their opinion.

While I wish that were true, I can't help but disagree. 15 of their 16 points last time were pure nonsense - I think the decision could be 100% watertight, and they could still make up some rubbish to delay it, pulling out on the last day again.

They would not, admittedly, have a case to overturn a 'Yes', but I wouldn't bet against them delaying it all again. The only hope is that without Neighbour and Pepper, they'll decide not to.

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

LDC have three means of appeal.

Even if they want to whinge about the costs ... this isn't a planning consideration and any opinions they have on that score can't be used to delay the project.

Unfortunatley regardless of what decision is announced LDC have three routes of what is termed linear appeal, simply meaning that they have three bites of the apple to delay any final decision, only one requiring further financial burden on their part.

Also having seen the wording on the document that samara talks of relating to the border of the national park, it is highly unlikely to be village way, as it has to go to differnt bodies for discussion including the Downsmen, but partly eating into the site proposed for falmer, by about 150 yards.

samara has got peoples hopes up a little prematurely on this one me thinks.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Also having seen the wording on the document that samara talks of relating to the border of the national park, it is highly unlikely to be village way

Eh?

The wording of the Inspector's Report is this ...

"I recommend that the PSDNP boundary be amended to follow Village Way".





"PSDNP" = "Proposed South Downs National Park".

 

[Yorkie]

While I wish that were true, I can't help but disagree. 15 of their 16 points last time were pure nonsense - I think the decision could be 100% watertight, and they could still make up some rubbish to delay it, pulling out on the last day again.

They would not, admittedly, have a case to overturn a 'Yes', but I wouldn't bet against them delaying it all again. The only hope is that without Neighbour and Pepper, they'll decide not to.

Without a legal flaw it will cost them money (see the earlier posts relating to last year) They lost votes in the May elections with their actions last year and I think the electorate would be heartily sick of their council tax being wasted on 'opinion'

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

Eh?

The wording of the Inspector's Report is this ...

"I recommend that the PSDNP boundary be amended to follow Village Way".





"PSDNP" = "Proposed South Downs National Park".

Exactly the key word LDC are clinging onto is "proposed". Quite a few parties will have their say linked to the park before a final decision is made.
It is only a proposed ammendment, that parties involved will possibly fight, as it leaves out an area of land, the falmer site, that is they wil argue still part of the Downs, and use the wildlife arguement, especially the downland society or whatever their official name is.

samaras should have taken time to look at the paper more logically rather than jump to his interpretation or take on the wording.

LDC are also banking on the side of Gordon Brown wanting to be popular, in his first few months of power, and appealing to the masses of Sussex, who whether we like it or not, want a national park, but not a grat big stadium stuck on it's doorstep or within it.

I know for a fact that Norman Baker met with the dept concerned relating to some of these arguements in the week, and the fact that it would be unprecedented to stick such an urban symbol as a huge football ground within a rural environment/NP.

 

[Yorkie]

From what I can remember of the public inquiry, the wildlife argument is far more valid in Sheepcote Valley than the Falmer site. The bat man even said that the bats in Falmer would love the stadium rafters.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

From what I can remember of the public inquiry, the wildlife argument is far more valid in Sheepcote Valley than the Falmer site. The bat man even said that the bats in Falmer would love the stadium rafters.

Indeed, migrating or nesting birds have stoppped many a housing development in the recent past.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Exactly the key word LDC are clinging onto is "proposed". Quite a few parties will have their say linked to the park before a final decision is made.
It is only a proposed ammendment, that parties involved will possibly fight, as it leaves out an area of land, the falmer site, that is they wil argue still part of the Downs, and use the wildlife arguement, especially the downland society or whatever their official name is.

samaras should have taken time to look at the paper more logically rather than jump to his interpretation or take on the wording.

LDC are also banking on the side of Gordon Brown wanting to be popular, in his first few months of power, and appealing to the masses of Sussex, who whether we like it or not, want a national park, but not a grat big stadium stuck on it's doorstep or within it.

I know for a fact that Norman Baker met with the dept concerned relating to some of these arguements in the week, and the fact that it would be unprecedented to stick such an urban symbol as a huge football ground within a rural environment/NP.

There was a Public Inquiry that lasted for months. EVERYONE who has an interest in the National Park presented evidence, including all the lobby groups, the local councils and the Albion.

The Inspector's report is the main document that the Secretary of State (Hilary Benn - graduate of three years education at Falmer, of course) will rely on to make his decision.

The parties involved (including more than 2,000 of us who wrote to the Inquiry in support of excluding the whole of the stadium and coach park site from the National Park) will no doubt let Benn know their views.

The argument that the "people of Sussex want a National Park" doesn't enter into it. I want a National Park. Brighton & Hove City Council want a National Park. So what? Where to draw the boundary is the issue, not whether to have one.

The fact that Baker has been meeting with Defra means nothing. I happen to know a number of people who have met with Hazel Blears on Thursday or Friday, but that doesn't mean to say that her decision on the stadium will be published on Monday.

The fact of the matter is that things are moving our way.

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

There was a Public Inquiry that lasted for months. EVERYONE who has an interest in the National Park presented evidence, including all the lobby groups, the local councils and the Albion.

The Inspector's report is the main document that the Secretary of State (Hilary Benn - graduate of three years education at Falmer, of course) will rely on to make his decision.

The parties involved (including more than 2,000 of us who wrote to the Inquiry in support of excluding the whole of the stadium and coach park site from the National Park) will no doubt let Benn know their views.

The argument that the "people of Sussex want a National Park" doesn't enter into it. I want a National Park. Brighton & Hove City Council want a National Park. So what? Where to draw the boundary is the issue, not whether to have one.

The fact that Baker has been meeting with Defra means nothing. I happen to know a number of people who have met with Hazel Blears on Thursday or Friday, but that doesn't mean to say that her decision on the stadium will be published on Monday.

The fact of the matter is that things are moving our way.

Slow down tiger, and put the toys back in the pram. We're in this together. You know hazel Blears

I know the PPS of Mr.Baker, and the content of said conversation, with DEFRA. All I post is my understanding from a Barrister's position, and what information I have seen. and my interpretation of said information, no more, looking at it without R.T.specs on, unlike the self appointed Henfield Howler did.

 

[looney]

my main concern is that Hazel Blears is obviously a moron.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Slow down tiger, and put the toys back in the pram. We're in this together. You know hazel Blears

I know the PPS of Mr.Baker, and the content of said conversation, with DEFRA. All I post is my understanding from a Barrister's position, and what information I have seen. and my interpretation of said information, no more, looking at it without R.T.specs on, unlike the self appointed Henfield Howler did.

I don't know Hazel Blears. I do know Norman Baker. He doesn't have a "PPS". He's an opposition back bencher.

I'm trying to work out why you are being so critical of Paul Samrah (whose name you can't even spell).

I grant you that you and I don't share the same interpretation of the information that we've both apparently seen.

But we've seen enough barristers in the course of this struggle to know that it's hardly credible to use that as a qualification to claim you know what you are talking about.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

Tonight's optimistic stories from The Argus:-
Falmer optimism after national park site announcement
By Simon Barrett

 

[Gritt23]

oh, for christ's sake, cheer up a bit you morose, fat fucker. just because you have no future, doesn't mean the club doesn't.

Well for your information I'm with him on that one, perhaps not over the financing, but I'm certainly not celebrating yet, or indeed Monday week when / if we get another "YES". Once the time period in which appeals can be lodged has passed, then it'll be different, but for now the planning process in this country seems so ****ed that I just can't believe that there isn't another delay just around the corner.

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

I don't know Hazel Blears. I do know Norman Baker. He doesn't have a "PPS". He's an opposition back bencher.

I'm trying to work out why you are being so critical of Paul Samrah (whose name you can't even spell).

I grant you that you and I don't share the same interpretation of the information that we've both apparently seen.

But we've seen enough barristers in the course of this struggle to know that it's hardly credible to use that as a qualification to claim you know what you are talking about.

He has someone who does the job, and does it well, oh and as for samarah, it's because I've met him, I will not elaborate.
Oh a little childish again putting down barristers.

 

[Yorkie]

He has someone who does the job, and does it well, oh and as for samarah, it's because I've met him, I will not elaborate.
Oh a little childish again putting down barristers.

So you've formed an opinion on someone you've met. For how long? Once for a couple of hours? Every week, once a month?
Self appointed?

Tell us more.

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

So you've formed an opinion on someone you've met. For how long? Once for a couple of hours? Every week, once a month?
Self appointed?

Tell us more.

Mind your own bloody business.

 

[B.W.]

Well, the fact that the inspector reckons the stadium et al should be EXCLUDED from the Nat Park is great news, no matter what a barrister or Norman B@ker, or his 'PPS' thinks... some people are so fcuking negative, or just trying to cause a reaction?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The point about barristers is that they wet their knickers at the thought that there might be something contentious to have a debate with another barrister about.

The reality of all planning decisions (including where to put the National Park boundary) is that they come down to a series of judgments - and that's why we have politicians like Prescott, Kelly, Blears and Benn.

The courts very rarely overturn the judgments of the decision makers and then only when there is a blatant disregard of the law. And it makes no difference how hard the barristers try to persuade everyone that they need to have their say along the way.

 

[ROSM]

Perhaps I'm being a bit dim but how can the lines:

'I recommend the boundary follows Village Way'

and

'I am aware of the planning application for the stadium.................but would have recommended the land be deleted irrespective of any planning application'

be anything other than positive?

Perhaps someone can tell me? Johny Byrnes Ego?

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

Perhaps I'm being a bit dim but how can the lines:

'I recommend the boundary follows Village Way'

and

'I am aware of the planning application for the stadium.................but would have recommended the land be deleted irrespective of any planning application'

be anything other than positive?

Perhaps someone can tell me? Johny Byrnes Ego?

It will come down to the final decision, when all parties have had a chance to consider the proposed ammendment. The person who wrote said comment was asked not to give his opinion on the decision, as it might be seen as biase, and give grounds for a legal challenge of favouritism, which LDC may now seize upon. They are though placing most of their eggs into the basket of there will be more than enough parties who will not be happy with said proposed ammendment, including, it has been muted, the university.

If they do not wish to persue this avenue have two parts of a three part linear appeal route they can go down, either of which will mean a further substantial delay, and hefty costs on both sides. Would bha have the funds/stomach for another prolonged fight, would LDC? They have a financial benefactor who has put money into a Deed of Covenant that LDC could call upon if required, in furture times.

The most constructive sinew to this is previous cases of building on green land that DEFRA will use as part of the reasoning for coming to the decision it is muted that has already been taken. These provide case evidence in legal charge from previous cases, where local/national govmt have to be seen to favour the masses, i.e. Sussex, which like it or not, do not wish to see such an urban symbol built on green fields.

DEFRA will also point to the counter arguement put forward by perry et al, that a vote was held in brighton and hove, showing a majority in favour of the stadium. But perry et al then claim it is a stadium for the broader community, pointing towards wider sussex. Unfortunately though the wider sussex weren't asked their opinion, as the downs don't just get used by residents of brighton and hove.
In an independent poll alledgedly carried out by LDC, 72% of the wider sussex population were against said stadium.

We shall see.