Falmer another delay!!!

[Lord Bracknell]

I agree with all that but why oh why were civil servants still saying yesterday that July 9 was on. It was surely obvious that planning decision deadlines would slip with the cabinet changes. The department should have announced delays last week.

Err ... no.

The Argus reported yesterday that a "spokesman for the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, said the deadline for a decision was still Monday".

The spokesman was no doubt a press officer, not anyone connected with the Planning Division of Hazel Blears' department. He had not been informed differently - and therefore answered the question from the Argus by stating the position as he understood it. Yesterday.

Today is different.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

And don't forget .... half the press personnel involved in this issue get their news off NSC in the first place.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I'm with the pessimists on here who won't be happy until we walk into the stadium for the first match.

we will be pushed in to gether in our bathchairs

baggsy i first with the Horlicks

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Oh for Christs sake! I had a feeling she would want to read the bloody dossier before saying yes!

She looked the sort who would want to do things properly...where are the slack workshy, cant be arsed ministers when you need them?

Maybe this is actually really GOOD news. Because when she does finally say YES, the NIMBYs can't then say that she did not know the facts when she made the decision. She's giving herself time to become acquainted with the facts - and can then see off any NIMBY complaints.

 

[portlock seagull]

Bear in mind what I always say about planning decisions that are made by the Secretary of State ...

She has to make 18,000 planning decisions a year. That's about 350 a week. And she has other responsibilities.

Sorry Lord B, that just doesn’t cut in my book. They said on or BEFORE 9th July. Nothing but sheer incompetence has let this happen. Should have made a decision before the reshuffle – they’ve known Tony Blair was going for months and they’ve known we’ve had a planning application in for Nine Years. Problem is we’re all so used to it now (which is what politicians trade on by the way) we’re happy to get pushed around. Why wasn’t the decision ring-fenced to be made by Ruth Kelly? What if Hazel Blairs get’s run over (wishful thinking eh?). Do we just go on and on and on waiting for yet another politician to ‘get their heads round it?’ You could probably give Falmer one of those ‘probability’ calculations e.g just like if you put a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, one of them will eventually write the Bible.....one day there won’t be a person left on this planet who won’t have been consented about our stadium application. Trouble is that last person is looking like being Buck Rogers......

 

[Scoffers]

Sorry Lord B, that just doesn’t cut in my book. They said on or BEFORE 9th July. Nothing but sheer incompetence has let this happen. Should have made a decision before the reshuffle – they’ve known Tony Blair was going for months and they’ve known we’ve had a planning application in for Nine Years. Problem is we’re all so used to it now (which is what politicians trade on by the way) we’re happy to get pushed around. Why wasn’t the decision ring-fenced to be made by Ruth Kelly? What if Hazel Blairs get’s run over (wishful thinking eh?). Do we just go on and on and on waiting for yet another politician to ‘get their heads round it?’ You could probably give Falmer one of those ‘probability’ calculations e.g just like if you put a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, one of them will eventually write the Bible.....one day there won’t be a person left on this planet who won’t have been consented about our stadium application. Trouble is that last person is looking like being Buck Rogers......

I tend to agree.

 

[portlock seagull]

Maybe this is actually really GOOD news. Because when she does finally say YES, the NIMBYs can't then say that she did not know the facts when she made the decision. She's giving herself time to become acquainted with the facts - and can then see off any NIMBY complaints.

Boulderdash my old mate. Your legendary pink glasses are leading you down the politician's path. As I said, we've all become so used to being messed around that even die-hards like you roll over and accept their excuses these days. We should sue the bastards. And bastards they are.

 

[unnameable]

Assuming that the decision document contains no errors, objectors to the stadium will not be able, as they were last time, to contest the substance of the decision. Their only means of challenging the decision will be to contest the process by which it was made. They would do so by recourse to a judicial review. They would need good grounds on which to apply for a judicial review. One of the grounds on which they could apply for a judicial review is that the decision was political rather than administrative. Had the ruling been made public on or before July 9th, assuming that it was in favour of the stadium being built on the VWN site, objectors would have had a case for applying for a judicial review, on the grounds that the new secretary of state could not have had time to make an informed judgement and so must have been influenced by political considerations and pressures.

 

[DTES]

Boulderdash my old mate. Your legendary pink glasses are leading you down the politician's path. As I said, we've all become so used to being messed around that even die-hards like you roll over and accept their excuses these days. We should sue the bastards. And bastards they are.

Actually, that's is not a reason that has come from the Government. Pink glasses or not, we're now certain that Lewes can't use this as an excuse - and there's nothing "pink glasses" or "boulderdash" about assuming they would have used any excuse they could get!

I agree it should have been made before the handover, but as it wasn't, this is probably for the best.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

whose to say on the 24th July, they will announce they need more time

 

[The Oldman]

Err ... no.

The Argus reported yesterday that a "spokesman for the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, said the deadline for a decision was still Monday".

The spokesman was no doubt a press officer, not anyone connected with the Planning Division of Hazel Blears' department. He had not been informed differently - and therefore answered the question from the Argus by stating the position as he understood it. Yesterday.

Today is different.

Err Yes

What you say Lord B is correct but my point is that last week the Department should have seen that delays were going to happen to decisions on planning matters because of ministerial changes and said so. Given the cock up by a civil servant in the last letter and now this I don't feel very confident that the civil servants in that department know what they are doing.

 

[Scoffers]

Actually, that's is not a reason that has come from the Government. Pink glasses or not, we're now certain that Lewes can't use this as an excuse - and there's nothing "pink glasses" or "boulderdash" about assuming they would have used any excuse they could get!

I agree it should have been made before the handover, but as it wasn't, this is probably for the best.

I dont believe that for a minute. Everyone on this board has been saying that the decision has been made for weeks, now all of a sudden, people are going soft saying that they need more time. That is bollocks IMHO.

 

[The Oldman]

we will be pushed in to gether in our bathchairs

baggsy i first with the Horlicks

only if I can hold your hand :safeway2:

 

[Lord Bracknell]

We just have to accept that politically sensitive decisions MUST be handled in a politically sensitive way.

If they are not, then questions will be asked.

And the first person to ask an awkward question will be the new Lib Dem front bench spokesperson with the brief that includes the probity of government decision making.

Step forward ... Norman Baker MP, appointed to the job only yesterday afternoon.

 

[DTES]

I dont believe that for a minute. Everyone on this board has been saying that the decision has been made for weeks, now all of a sudden, people are going soft saying that they need more time. That is bollocks IMHO.

You're right. The decision has been made for weeks. Hazel Blears doesn't actually need extra time. Lewes would be completely wrong to appeal. Their grounds for appeal wouldn't stand up in court.

But since when has actually being right/wrong affected Lewes's decision to challenge any Falmer verdicts?

The impression of it being rushed would be enough to Lewes to challenge, and that delay would be a lot longer than 16 days..

 

[Scoffers]

We just have to accept that politically sensitive decisions MUST be handled in a politically sensitive way.

If they are not, then questions will be asked.

And the first person to ask an awkward question will be the new Lib Dem front bench spokesperson with the brief that includes the probity of government decision making.

Step forward ... Norman Baker MP, appointed to the job only yesterday afternoon.

Nope, don't buy that either Lord B.

The Government should have the courage of their convictions, make the decision they know to be right, and not fear anyone on Lib Dem front bench. If they procrastinate over a straight-forward planning issue, then why should we trust them on matters of national security. It's pathetic, quite frankly.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Sorry Lord B, that just doesn’t cut in my book. They said on or BEFORE 9th July. Nothing but sheer incompetence has let this happen. Should have made a decision before the reshuffle – they’ve known Tony Blair was going for months and they’ve known we’ve had a planning application in for Nine Years. Problem is we’re all so used to it now (which is what politicians trade on by the way) we’re happy to get pushed around. Why wasn’t the decision ring-fenced to be made by Ruth Kelly? What if Hazel Blairs get’s run over (wishful thinking eh?). Do we just go on and on and on waiting for yet another politician to ‘get their heads round it?’ You could probably give Falmer one of those ‘probability’ calculations e.g just like if you put a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, one of them will eventually write the Bible.....one day there won’t be a person left on this planet who won’t have been consented about our stadium application. Trouble is that last person is looking like being Buck Rogers......

That is the correct answer.

I am not convinced she will make the decision by the 25th July at all. If something else more important happens, terrorist attacks, martians landing, someone caught having a cigarette in a pub, she will just delay it again and again, after all they have lied so many times to us now who can believe anything they say, as said Ruth Kelly should have announced it a week ago knowing the possibility of changes, this Labour government should yet again be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, their deputy leader fecked it up in the first place, they truely are the goverment of total incompetance

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I dont believe that for a minute. Everyone on this board has been saying that the decision has been made for weeks, now all of a sudden, people are going soft saying that they need more time. That is bollocks IMHO.

It's not that "they need more time". They need to be seen to be taking more time.

And as the Colbourne Kid has said ... It will be very helpful to the whole process if the decision letter is worded in a way that is entirely consistent with this week's announcement by Defra of the conclusions of the Inspector who has been dealing with the National Park boundary.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

does this mean Blears may not agree with Kelly's findings

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Ed I am amazed at your patience, I don't know how you do it