City Council back Falmer and rubbish LDC

[Arthur]

Apparently, the magic date we're looking at is August 20 2007, which - it is believed - will be the deadline for appealing the decision, assuming Ruth Kelly doesn't call it back in.

That's fine...however assuming that Ruth Kelly gives it the thumbs up then LDC will appeal (you just know they'll wait until the last minute as well just to drag it out that bit longer) and then what?

How long does the appeal take to be heard? How long will it last? How long do we have to wait after the appeal to hear whether the appeal has been successful or not?

The same questions apply if she says we're not on (which please god she doesn't!).

It just seems to be one thing after another which is why I won't get the slightest bit excited until the workmen are shifting earth.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Seeing as Gordon Brown seems to imply that he's in favour of Falmer, could he put pressure on Kelly to give us the go-ahead?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Seeing as Gordon Brown seems to imply that he's in favour of Falmer, could he put pressure on Kelly to give us the go-ahead?

I would imagine if LDC got wind of Gordon Brown intefering with the decision it would mess up the whole process. It is not his decision to make and he should have no influence.

 

[The Large One]

That's fine...however assuming that Ruth Kelly gives it the thumbs up then LDC will appeal (you just know they'll wait until the last minute as well just to drag it out that bit longer) and then what?

How long does the appeal take to be heard? How long will it last? How long do we have to wait after the appeal to hear whether the appeal has been successful or not?

The same questions apply if she says we're not on (which please god she doesn't!).

It just seems to be one thing after another which is why I won't get the slightest bit excited until the workmen are shifting earth.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, but...

The theory is that Lewes' concerns have been taken into account after the quashing of the original decision. Therefore, assuming Ruth Kelly says 'YES', their grounds for appeal will be severely diminshed. Don't forget, the Solicitor General's legal opinions was that, 'built-up area' clause aside, none of Lewes' points of appeal had any legal basis whatsoever.

They may well come up with a few spurious, pointless arguments from Kelly's decision, but they may well be seen as vexatious. The timings of this from now on do depend on the nature of Lewes' challange.

For Lewes' challenge to be successful, it looks like they would have to aruge that the law is wrong, not that Prescott's (or Kelly's) application of it was wrong. And then we're into silly money, costs-wise.

The Seagulls Party therefore still has a role to play in trying to bring pressure on to Lewes District Council to ensure that they don't challenge Ruth Kelly's YES decision. It's possible that the Tories in LDC may well jump on board that pressure as well, but there really is no definite way of telling with that lot.

Of course, there may well be the highly unlikely event that Kelly may well turn Falmer down. That then changes everything.

But that's not going to happen.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Nothing is ever guaranteed, but...

The theory is that Lewes' concerns have been taken into account after the quashing of the original decision. Therefore, assuming Ruth Kelly says 'YES', their grounds for appeal will be severely diminshed. Don't forget, the Solicitor General's legal opinions was that, 'built-up area' clause aside, none of Lewes' points of appeal had any legal basis whatsoever.

They may well come up with a few spurious, pointless arguments from Kelly's decision, but they may well be seen as vexatious. The timings of this from now on do depend on the nature of Lewes' challange.

For Lewes' challenge to be successful, it looks like they would have to aruge that the law is wrong, not that Prescott's (or Kelly's) application of it was wrong. And then we're into silly money, costs-wise.

The Seagulls Party therefore still has a role to play in trying to bring pressure on to Lewes District Council to ensure that they don't challenge Ruth Kelly's YES decision. It's possible that the Tories in LDC may well jump on board that pressure as well, but there really is no definite way of telling with that lot.

Of course, there may well be the highly unlikely event that Kelly may well turn Falmer down. That then changes everything.

There are too many "ifs and Buts" in your argument Alan....that is why speculating is pointless as we have been led down that road for 10 odd years and all it brings is heartache.

Arthur is right...let celebrate when the first University buidling is demolished!

 

[The Large One]

There are too many "ifs and Buts" in your argument Alan....that is why speculating is pointless as we have been led down that road for 10 odd years and all it brings is heartache.

Arthur is right...let celebrate when the first University buidling is demolished!

True.

I was merely trying to state that (in far too many words - you put it far more succinctly) we won't know until it happens.

 

[dougdeep]

Anyway, 49 days to go.

 

[unnameable]

Below is an extract from a report that appeared in last Friday's Argus. Brown's comments give us cause for optimism. I believe that he is trying to tell us something. Remember, Prescott did the same at the 2005 Labour Party Conference, in Brighton.

Paul Samrah, chairman of the Falmer For All campaign, said every supporter was now crossing their fingers Ms Kelly would be swayed by Brighton and Hove's response.

He asked Gordon Brown, during his visit to the city as part of the festival last week, if he was in favour of the new ground.

Mr Samrah said: "I said we've been homeless since the very week he became Chancellor and that hopefully Ruth Kelly would give him a very positive start to his era as Prime Minister.

"He said he had been a football fan all his life, supporting Raith Rovers, and he looked forward to a favourable response when he next came to the city."

 

[Muhammed - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

And I'm sure they've got 90 days to lodge that appeal and I'm sure they'll wait 89 of days to do so.

Then it'll role on another couple of years blah blah blah.


I'm sorry but I can't get excited about any news about Falmer now. Whether it be club spin, Argus spin or LDC spin. Until that first sod of earth is moved my feet are firmly grounded.

spot on

 

[Lawro's Lip]

Brown's comments give us cause for optimism. I believe that he is trying to tell us something. Remember, Prescott did the same at the 2005 Labour Party Conference, in Brighton.

Hmm... Yes but look how that all ended up.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

It's my understanding that the ONLY grounds for appeal - or rather applying for a Judicial Review - can be that whatever decision Ruth Kelly comes to was arrived at incorrectly. As long as her decision gives a clear indication that she considered all the points and has decided A or B there can be no appeal - the decision is hers.

We or LDC may not like it, or agree with it, but unless it can be shown to have been arrived at incorrectly or she didn't take this or that into consideration or it was arrived at unlawfully it's going to be very hard - and hugely expensive - for ANYONE to contest it.

If Prescott had not included the factual innacuracy about the AONB in his decision would there have any grounds for a Judicial review?

Lord B?

 

[B.W.]

Well, having read through this thread, I'm feeling more optimistic... thank you Lord B...

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Was this evidence submitted before the election? We should also be cheered if it was not: it means that whoever runs B&H Council these days have not changed their position dramatically from the previous, Labour, administration.

 

[Col P]

keep the faith stay cool we will get our stadium at falmer

 

[The Large One]

Was this evidence submitted before the election? We should also be cheered if it was not: it means that whoever runs B&H Council these days have not changed their position dramatically from the previous, Labour, administration.

The Conservative admininstration hasn't yet taken office. The 54 councillors, via their political parties, have until June 9 to work out with Alan McCarthy - the council's chief executive - which councillors are going to occupy which adminstrative posts.

However, I serioulsy doubt that the council would so dramatically change its views on this issue. We are too far down the line. I believe that the Tory leader of the Council - Brain Oxley - is pro-Falmer. Perhaps someone can confirm that. Certainly the Theobalds - relative heavyweight in the Conservative Party locally - are pro-Falmer, though not necessarily through the love of the Albion...

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Great news, now bring on July 9th.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The Argus version:-

Countdown to Falmer decision
By Andy Dickenson

Falmer has been backed by what councillors hope will be their "final word" on the controversial stadium proposal.

Brighton and Hove City Council has submitted its support for Albion's new stadium to Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly.

Campaigners said it was now a time of "fingers crossed" that Ms Kelly says yes to the Falmer ground.

She is reviewing the plans after the original approval by John Prescott in 2005 was quashed.

All parties involved in the last public inquiry into the Seagull's controversial development have been asked by the government to submit comments on each other's views.

Alan McCarthy, chief executive of the council, said: "It's not a simple black and white issue but our interpretation of the planning guidelines is that there is an overwhelming case for Falmer.

"We're still backing the club and hope this can be our final word on this long-running planning saga.

"And once permission is granted the club can move on to sorting out the finances needed to make this development happen."

The council said regeneration benefits of the scheme would include a £13 million economic boost annually, 300 construction jobs, and 300 permanent jobs.

But plans for Falmer have been opposed by the parish council, Lewes District Council and conservation groups because of its proximity to the South Downs, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Mr McCarthy said this "need not be a fatal flaw".

While conceding the stadium site was partly in the current AONB, the council said that designation was likely to be abandoned when a South Downs National Park is finally created.

Ms Kelly has also asked for views on the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley as an alternative location.

But the council said the evidence produced on this by Lewes District Council was seriously flawed.

It included assumptions people could walk to Sheepcote Valley from the centre of the city in 25 minutes, whereas the true time would be "double that".

Paul Samrah, chairman of the Falmer For All campaign, said every supporter was now crossing their fingers Ms Kelly would be swayed by Brighton and Hove's response.

He asked Gordon Brown, during his visit to the city as part of the festival last week, if he was in favour of the new ground.

Mr Samrah said: "I said we've been homeless since the very week he became Chancellor and that hopefully Ruth Kelly would give him a very positive start to his era as Prime Minister.

"He said he had been a football fan all his life, supporting Raith Rovers, and he looked forward to a favourable response when he next came to the city."

Coun Gill Mitchell, acting leader of the Labour Group, said: "A very clear case has been made for the economic, sporting and cultural benefits to the city that a stadium at Falmer would bring.

"Further examination of the Sheepcote Valley option still shows that transport links remain a huge obstacle."

The councilís submission can be read at www.brighton-hove.gov.uk.

All very noble, but the City Council have been backing us for years. LDC don't care one little bit. They'll object, same as they did with the Prescott decision. The City Council are powerless to stop them.

This new objection, when it comes, needs to be met with direct peaceable action. Withholding of council tax, the Albion sueing individual councillors for restriction of trade, the whole WORKS.

 

[TSB]

To me, the most important part is Section 4 of the councils submission Here

Basically, it states that the only way to build in an AONB is if ONE of these criteria is met:

The proposal conserves and enhances the visual and landscape quality and character of the AONB

OR

It can be demonstrated that the development is in the national interest and that there are no alternative sites available elsewhere.

It then goes on to state why these are BOTH met (the first being the councils view and the second being PRESCOTT'S).

So, the site can be completely detrimental to the environment if Ruth goes along with John.

OR Ruth can completely ignore John's view, but still give it the go ahead due to the lack of environmental impact.....

Sounds like a shoe-in to me.

 

[portlock seagull]

Thanks Roz, Large One etc for clarifying the appeal bit. As many have said "until the 1st sod of earth......"

Actually, I'm inclined to think "until the LAST sod of earth...." knowing this stadium's saga. Of course, we've then got the Saxon treasure trove archelogical finding delay to contend with when the digging does begin. You know it will happen.

 

[Big Jim]

In my opinion Prescott or servants took one look at Falmer in a site visit, and reaslised it ain't a f***ing beauty spot.

The frigging A27 smog and sounds does a good job to screw that status up, apart from the horrendous site of Brighton Uni.

Unless something political happens before the decision, I'm certain it'll get a thumbs up. Also I can't see that LDC have a mandate to contest this further.

I see the biggest problem now is getting investment to wipe out debts.