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

Falmer from Argus today



Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
24,337
Sussex
prob old news but FYI


Albion fear election will delay Falmer verdict
by Rob Hustwayte

John Prescott's verdict on the Falmer stadium proposal is likely be delayed until after a general election, Brighton and Hove Albion fear.

Club chief executive Martin Perry said the reopened public inquiry into Falmer was likely to take much longer than the planned four weeks due to the number of witnesses.

He added: "It is a worry for us. The longer the inquiry goes on the closer we get to a possible general election.

"The inquiry is a laborious process and there are something like 30 witnesses due to appear to give evidence and be cross-examined.

"It is highly unlikely we will get through it all in four weeks with all these anti-Falmer witnesses coming out of the woodwork.

"When the hearing is finished the inspector takes four to six weeks to prepare his report and deliver it to the Secretary of State.

"If press speculation is correct the Prime Minister could call an election any time around that period - May 5 has been mentioned - meaning Parliament would be suspended."

The club's dire financial situation means it urgently needs a Government green light for the 22,000-seat stadium so it can start raising cash.

The Deputy Prime Minister was expected to deliver his verdict last July but instead reopened the inquiry to investigate alternative sites to Falmer including Withdean, Sheepcote Valley, Corals Stadium, Toad's Hole Valley, Waterhall Valley, Monk's Farm and Upper Beeding. Mr Perry added: "It all depends on when Tony Blair decides to go to the country and how quickly we can proceed with the inquiry.

"Everyone knows how desperate we are for the stadium and any delay is a potential problem.

"We need the stadium for the survival of the club and do not want anything to stop it.

"If there is a new Secretary of State that will inevitably delay the decision because they will need to get up to speed on the issue."

Fans are already concerned about the timing of the verdict after a Conservative MP said John Prescott will reject the stadium bid if Labour is re-elected.

Wealden MP Charles Hendry said in a letter to a constituent: "It is my understanding, from talking to Labour MPs, that they expect the Deputy Prime Minister to reject the new stadium proposals after the election."

The letter has been circulated on the Albion fan website North Stand Chat.

Mr Hendry's assertion was immediately shot down by Hove Labour MP and Falmer stadium supporter Ivor Caplin.

He said: "It's utter rubbish and a complete and utter fabrication.

"The inspector will report in the usual way to the Secretary of State and he has a duty to make a decision on planning grounds.

"No decision has been made in advance.

"I wanted the inquiry to take place as quickly as possible and pushed for the beginning of January but Lewes District Council and Falmer Parish Council lined up a number of witnesses who had nothing to do with the original inquiry as a disgraceful and outrageous delaying tactic which has elongated what should have been a very short piece of work.

"Nobody knows for sure when the election will be held. All we have heard is press speculation."

Mr Caplin said he hoped the verdict could be delivered before an election.

The public inquiry reconvenes at Brighton Town Hall on February 1.

The first day will be spent visiting the sites before the interested parties such as the club, Lewes District Council and Falmer Parish Council, outline a summary of their evidence.

The club, represented by barrister Jonathan Clay, will then begin calling witnesses, starting with Martin Perry.

Mr Perry was not concerned that a change in Government would affect the verdict.

He said: "The Tories at Shadow Cabinet level have given substantial support to the Falmer scheme and we would hope it would have no impact on the outcome of the application."

A spokeswoman for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said she could not predict how long the reopened inquiry will run for or comment on when a verdict may be delivered.

Charles Hendry was unavailable for comment
 






Brighton Breezy

New member
Jul 5, 2003
19,439
Sussex
I wondered when that was going to get in. I told him what the letter from the Tory guy said because he couldnt read the one posted on here.
 




The Clown of Pevensey Bay

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
4,339
Suburbia
Gnaaagh! Cavers, it's being made on planning, not political, grounds.

Major ministerial announcements are never made for a month before an election. it's convention.

It's not down to politicians how long it takes, it's down to civil servants. See the other thread about tax returns for an approximation of how efficient civil servants can be ....
 




The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Caveman said:
Its pretty obvious that they are holding on until after the elections. They need to be aware I (and many others) wont vote Labour if there is no decision before the election.

Aaaarrrrrgh...

How you vote is, of course, your choice. However, FOR THE SIXTY THOUSANDTH TIME, this is not a political decision. Not voting Labour, for that reason, is folly. Labour is the party most likely to give a YES decision.

And they cannot give a decision until the report comes in from the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate cannot write the report until the Inquiry has finished. And Lewes DC and Falmer PC want to make sure that the Inquiry does not finish before the election - or at least make sure it doesn't finish in time for a decision to be able to be made before the election.

So where does that leave your reasoning?
 


Caveman said:
Its pretty obvious that they are holding on until after the elections. They need to be aware I (and many others) wont vote Labour if there is no decision before the election.
That's a tad muddled, Caveman.

The delay is NOT Prescott's fault.

It's the fault of Lewes District Council who refused the December start date that the Club offered and have committed public money to paying for consultants so that, when it eventually starts, they can pad out the Inquiry as long as possible. It's also the fault of Falmer Parish Council who have added two more sites to the list of sites to be considered - again ensuring that the Inquiry takes longer than it needs to.

The Inquiry could easily go on until mid-March - which means the Inspector's Report won't reach Prescott until late April. That means that it is an absolute certainty that there can't be a decision until after a May election.

Be angry - but don't take it out on Labour. Particularly since the prime cause of our trouble is a Lib Dem Council and Brighton Tories are hunting around for an anti-Falmer candidate to represent them in Kemptown.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Lord Bracknell said:
That's a tad muddled, Caveman.

The delay is NOT Prescott's fault.

It's the fault of Lewes District Council who refused the December start date that the Club offered and have committed public money to paying for consultants so that, when it eventually starts, they can pad out the Inquiry as long as possible. It's also the fault of Falmer Parish Council who have added two more sites to the list of sites to be considered - again ensuring that the Inquiry takes longer than it needs to.

The Inquiry could easily go on until mid-March - which means the Inspector's Report won't reach Prescott until late April. That means that it is an absolute certainty that there can't be a decision until after a May election.

Be angry - but don't take it out on Labour. Particularly since the prime cause of our trouble is a Lib Dem Council and Brighton Tories are hunting around for an anti-Falmer candidate to represent them in Kemptown.
What we have to hope for from this is that after the General Election, the make-up of the ODPM (assuming it still has the Planning portfolio) is pretty much 'as you were'. Better the devil you know...
 




Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,403
The arse end of Hangleton
The Large One said:
Aaaarrrrrgh...

How you vote is, of course, your choice. However, FOR THE SIXTY THOUSANDTH TIME, this is not a political decision. Not voting Labour, for that reason, is folly. Labour is the party most likely to give a YES decision.


Whilst I probably agree with you TLO that statement's rather contriditory ( sp? ). If it's not a political decision how can Labour ( a political party ) be most likely to give a YES decision. Surely it's down to planning and legal decisions ?

And if that really is the case why has there been all the political lobbying of Prescott ?

All in all it probably isn't going to matter who you vote for with regards to Falmer. If the decision is a NO ( after the election ) that's when voter power will be required to change the planning laws to follow local democracy. That's when its time to start carrying out threats of lost votes.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Westdene Seagull said:
Whilst I probably agree with you TLO that statement's rather contriditory ( sp? ). If it's not a political decision how can Labour ( a political party ) be most likely to give a YES decision. Surely it's down to planning and legal decisions ?
Because the stadium application is most in keeping with CURRENT government policy (sustainable transport, environment etc). A change in government MIGHT mean a change in the priorities of these policies by the incoming party.


Westdene Seagull said:
And if that really is the case why has there been all the political lobbying of Prescott ?
Because he is the Deputy Prime Minister, and the person who makes the decision. We would be doing that irresepctive of which party was in power.

Westdene Seagull said:
All in all it probably isn't going to matter who you vote for with regards to Falmer. If the decision is a NO ( after the election ) that's when voter power will be required to change the planning laws to follow local democracy. That's when its time to start carrying out threats of lost votes.
Blair (of all people) has identified this already. He intends to simplify planning laws. However, this all comes too late for us.
 
Last edited:


The Large One said:
Blair (of all people) has identified this already. He intends to simplify planning laws. However, this all comes too late for us.
Blair's intention is not to simplify planning law to make it more democratic.

He wants to simplify planning law to make it easier to implement planning applications that are consistent with Government policy - stuff like more housing for the south east, regardless of the views of local people.
 






Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
The Large One said:
Aaaarrrrrgh...

How you vote is, of course, your choice. However, FOR THE SIXTY THOUSANDTH TIME, this is not a political decision.

Whatever arguments both you and Lord B put up that this is not a political decision ( and I don't doubt that you both have a lot more knowledge of the intricacies than I do) my gut feeling is that this club has been fobbed off by Prescott for very political reasons. I admire your optimism but you are talking about some of the most devious people to have run this country for many a year.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
So you don't remember the Tories in power then? ???

I don't think I am being overly optimistic when I say I believe we will get Falmer. There is (believe it or not) too much social and political will in our favour for us NOT to get it.

The Football Association
The Football League
Sport England
The Prime Minister (unofficially)
144 backbench MPs (officially)
Government Ministers (offically and unofficially)
Large numbers of the Shadow Cabinet
Brighton & Hove City Council
Every football league club in England & Wales
61,000 petition signitories
11,000 on-line petition signitories

any more...?
 
Last edited:




Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
The Large One said:
So you don't remember the Tories in power then? ???

I do, which is exactly my point
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Icy Gull said:
Whatever arguments both you and Lord B put up that this is not a political decision ( and I don't doubt that you both have a lot more knowledge of the intricacies than I do) my gut feeling is that this club has been fobbed off by Prescott for very political reasons. I admire your optimism but you are talking about some of the most devious people to have run this country for many a year.
Au contraire - we have not had such a sports, arts and culture-minded government, possibly, ever.
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
The Large One said:
So you don't remember the Tories in power then? ???

I don't think I am being overly optimistic when I say I believe we will get Falmer. There is (believe it or not) too much social and political will in our favour for us NOT to get it.

The Football Association
The Football League
Sport England
The Prime Minister (unofficially)
144 backbench MPs (officially)
Government Ministers (offically and unofficially)
Large numbers of the Shadow Cabinet
Brighton & Hove City Council
Every football league club in England & Wales
61,000 petition signitories
11,000 on-line petition signitories

any more...?

I'm not going to argue with you as I desperately want to believe that you are right. However, I have little faith in the importance and relevance of "provincial" Brighton to Prescott and his leader
 


Aug 9, 2003
578
East Sussex
The Large One said:
Aaaarrrrrgh...

How you vote is, of course, your choice. However, FOR THE SIXTY THOUSANDTH TIME, this is not a political decision.

I don't buy this, and I think Icy Gull has made some valid points.

I think it's naive to believe that such decisions are never political, and I think we should be thankful for that. If this decision was made on planning grounds alone, then we would have already lost.

The reports from the two inspectors have made it abundantly clear that our case has been completely rejected on planning grounds. You have admitted that you think we will win because of our "political and social pressure" . As Icy Gull points out, there is no point in lobbying Prescott (or any MPs) if this isn't in any way a political decision. Lord B's response didn't answer the question, he's merely suggesting that it isn't a PARTY political decision.

It's by no means certain that our political pressure will get us Falmer, but we certainly won't get it without any.
 
Last edited:




Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil
Jul 5, 2003
10,148
On NSC for over two decades...
The question you really need to be asking is this. Will any political party be willing to risk the the ALMIGHTY stink we WILL cause should Falmer be rejected?

Of course my above point is only relevant if you believe the decision will be entirely a political one.

If you believe that the decision will be made by the civil servants in the ODPM based on the relevant planning policies and the remit of the reopened Inquiry then the point is irrelevant, as the likelihood is that answer will be yes, because NONE of the proposed alternative sites are more appropriate than Falmer.




(Quite proud of that as my 3000th post!! - just noticed)
 
Last edited:


Curious Orange said:
The question you really need to be asking is this. Will any political party be willing to risk the the ALMIGHTY stink we WILL cause should Falmer be rejected?

Of course my above point is only relevant if you believe the decision will be entirely a political one.

If you believe that the decision will be made by the civil servants in the ODPM based on the relevant planning policies and the remit of the reopened Inquiry then the point is irrelevant, as the likelihood is that answer will be yes, because NONE of the proposed alternative sites are more appropriate than Falmer.




(Quite proud of that as my 3000th post!! - just noticed)

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here