B&HCCs Falmer Public Inquiry costs - confirmation

[Bluejuice]

Top Work Mr 10, I did wonder if we'd ever hear a follow up after your initial enquiry and I am positively DELIGHTED to see it's so ASBOlutely as expected.

I would imagine this information is very likely to make it into the pages of the Argus

 

[Cantona's Flying Dropkick]

Where's Septic, then?

He posts on this forum


HTH

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

I put up with the tosser for years on the Argus site. Once they buggered the site up, I came 'home' to NSC and don't intend to go back.

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

It looks like Septic now has the figures on there, courtesey of The Martlet. Only time will tell, what he has to say...!

 

[m20gull]

Doesn;t matter now of course, in the great scheme of things. We got the stadium, thats that. But I intend ruining him later on those forums when I get time. We told him so many times he was full of shit. Now we have categorical proof, and I shall expose it to ensure if he ever uses the name Septicman on there, whatever he is commenting on, there is a very good chance that he is lying through his teeth. Just another small victory. Petty I know, but hey, it passes the day.

Amen to all that.

 

[antifalmer]

What I received:

"Subject to a final legal agreement, the Council has agreed to provide the
land for the stadium development but will not otherwise be responsible for
the financing or implementation of the project. The Council agreed to allocate the land for the stadium and supported the scheme through two public inquiries because it believes the project to be beneficial to the city as a whole and, in particular, to disadvantaged areas in the vicinity of the proposed stadium.

So far as the money spent to date in support of the project is concerned,
the Council's recorded costs on the two public inquiries (a statutory part
of the planning process) were £41,200 in 2004/05 and £20,600 in 2005/06.
Additionally, £250,000 was spent in the period 2002/03 and 2003/04 from the
council's Strategic Investment Fund on the council's costs relating to the project".

That £250k makes a slight difference I think you'll agree.

 

[Buzzer]

What I received:

"Subject to a final legal agreement, the Council has agreed to provide the
land for the stadium development but will not otherwise be responsible for
the financing or implementation of the project. The Council agreed to allocate the land for the stadium and supported the scheme through two public inquiries because it believes the project to be beneficial to the city as a whole and, in particular, to disadvantaged areas in the vicinity of the proposed stadium.

So far as the money spent to date in support of the project is concerned,
the Council's recorded costs on the two public inquiries (a statutory part
of the planning process) were £41,200 in 2004/05 and £20,600 in 2005/06.
Additionally, £250,000 was spent in the period 2002/03 and 2003/04 from the
council's Strategic Investment Fund on the council's costs relating to the project".

That £250k makes a slight difference I think you'll agree.

Bollocks to the power of infinity, Septic, you truth-twisting cackbadger.

You said LEGAL FEES. That's all we've ever discussed. THe point was to compare LEGAL COSTS of LDC against BHCC (which you said was double).

Costs relating to the project of £250k is ring-fenced money that BHCC can only spend on INVESTMENTS. Falmer is an investment for them a it is a future revenue-earner. This is why it's called a Strategic INVESTMENT fund and not a legal fees fund.

You cannot bring that £250k into the equation as well you know.

You've been foundout, mate. Bang to rights. Now kindly take your pernicious lies and piss off.

 

[FalmerforAll!**]

Bollocks to the power of infinity, Septic, you truth-twisting cackbadger.

You said LEGAL FEES. That's all we've ever discussed. THe point was to compare LEGAL COSTS of LDC against BHCC (which you said was double).

Costs relating to the project of £250k is ring-fenced money that BHCC can only spend on INVESTMENTS. Falmer is an investment for them a it is a future revenue-earner. This is why it's called a Strategic INVESTMENT fund and not a legal fees fund.

You cannot bring that £250k into the equation as well you know.

You've been foundout, mate. Bang to rights. Now kindly take your pernicious lies and piss off.

 

[The Large One]

Bollocks to the power of infinity, Septic, you truth-twisting cackbadger.

You said LEGAL FEES. That's all we've ever discussed. THe point was to compare LEGAL COSTS of LDC against BHCC (which you said was double).

Costs relating to the project of £250k is ring-fenced money that BHCC can only spend on INVESTMENTS. Falmer is an investment for them a it is a future revenue-earner. This is why it's called a Strategic INVESTMENT fund and not a legal fees fund.

You cannot bring that £250k into the equation as well you know.

You've been foundout, mate. Bang to rights. Now kindly take your pernicious lies and piss off.

Only the foolhardy and people who insert wet knitting needles into to live plug sockets would argue with that.

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

Well said Monsieur. How can one compare costs when bringing in completely different costs for the project? What about the money LDC spent on their very expensive Newbury Consultants who ended up calculating that it would take 20 minutes to walk to Sheepcote (when it actually takes about 45 - 50 minutes)? And all the other consultants?

Why should a Council not spend money if they have held a referendum and the public have found to be in favour of the development? Did the same happen in Lewes...?

 

[Buzzer]

Oh, and Septic, if you try and twist it to say that the £250k was costs relating to the ENQUIRY...

Let's look again at your letter:

So far as the money spent to date in support of the project is concerned,
the Council's recorded costs .on the two public inquiries (a statutory part
of the planning process) were £41,200 in 2004/05 and £20,600 in 2005/06

That bit tells us how much EXACTLY that was spent on he Enquiry. As opposed to the £140k legal fees by LDC (and God knows what else in other costs)


Additionally, £250,000 was spent in the period 2002/03 and 2003/04 from the
council's Strategic Investment Fund on the council's costs relating to the project".

This bit tells us something different. That BHCC invested £250k in Falmer. This is money that would have been spent on Falmer anyway irrespective of any enquiry.

So, anyway you want to twist this, you're scuppered.

 

[antifalmer]

Where have I ever said legal fees? Post a link please. If I'm wrong, I'm always happy to admit it and apologise.

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

You stated that B&HCC have spent at least double that figure. YOu twisted the figures for your own agenda. The different costs are incomparable.

Why would you use just the legal fees to make that statement? Oh yes, you like to twist things to suit your argument. What about all the other costs that LDC have faced? Do they not count?

Of course, it is fine for LDC as they were obviously working for the electorate. They did consult them, didn't they..?

 

[fatfingers]

You posted it on the Argus website ,KNOB JOCKEY

 

[Buzzer]

Where have I ever said legal fees? Post a link please. If I'm wrong, I'm always happy to admit it and apologise.

Oh no. You don't wriggle out of this one. Your letter states that BHCC spent just £60k on the costs of the enquiry. Read it carefully.

money spent to date in support of the project is concerned, the Council's recorded costs .on the two public inquiries (a statutory part of the planning process) were £41,200 in 2004/05 and £20,600 in 2005/06

That's all BHCC spent on the enquiry. The total BHCC costs of the enquiry. BHCC sepnt less than half of LDC on the enquiry. I can re-phrase this as many times as you like, Septic. Do you understand? You were telling porkies and got found out.

 

[antifalmer]

I assume you are kidding because this whole thing must be a major embarrassment for you.

 

[antifalmer]

P,S. If you want to feel better about yourself, I can just give in if you want.

 

[cjd]

Why do people still bother with the likes of "antifalmer/scepticman"....?

He is a loser.....end of. No matter what he thinks...or says....he is a loser.
We have permission for the stadium. We have what we want. He does not.

 

[Buzzer]

I assume you are kidding because this whole thing must be a major embarrassment for you.

eh? How's that work? You post a letter on here that proves your own deceit and we're supposed to be embarrassed?

Do piss off, you revisionist cackbadger.

As for giving in if it makes me feel better - You really are a nasty piece of work. Don't start going around saying that you admit defeat becasue you felt sorry. YOU LIED. YOU PROVED THAT YOURSELF.

 

[Cantona's Flying Dropkick]

Where have I ever said legal fees? Post a link please. If I'm wrong, I'm always happy to admit it and apologise.

On this article if I remember well.

Craptic owned by Easy 10.