Has New Labour cronyism saved the Albion?

[Safeway]

As much as I would love to share the optimism demonstrated by London Irish, Lord B et al, I just can't get this nagging feeling out of my head that Prescott has merely fudged the decision until after the Labour conference.

I don't believe that either a yes or no will have a major impact on any seats, and I definitely don't think any sort of 'Seagulls Party' will make any difference at all. In fact it would be embarrassing. Seriously people, save your deposit money.

However, as we have shown over the years, Albion fans KNOW how to protest. We've done things on huge scales both at home and away. I honestly believe that if an outright 'no' had been returned on Tuesday then, if not before, there would have been serious public disorder at the conference when Prescott vists OUR back yard. I know I for one could not guarantee that I would have been able to keep my behaviour within legal boundaries.

I really hope I'm wrong and and only time will tell, but that's just the gut feeling I have.

 

[Gwylan]

I just can't believe that the Falmer decision has been fudged to get the conference out of the way. I've been on plenty of demos outside party conferences and in my opinion such protests make not a blind bit of difference to politicians.

What's more, I went on demos in the 70s and early 80s when we could get close to the conference venue -I remember a few protestors actually getting into the Tory conference in 1980. We'd not get anywhere near the place now.

Do you really think that a government that has just taken us into an unnecessary war and has pissed off a whole region of people would really be so terrified of a few hundred people in the stripes?

The decision could have been fudged to avoid a decision until after the election (but I think even that's unlikely) but not to avoid trouble at a conference.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

The view has been put forward that looking again at the alternative sites closes off a judial review.

Isn't JP's over-ruling of two inspectors reports grounds ? A here-today, gone-tomorrow politician over-ruling two planning professionals.

I tend to Safeways concerns about delaying the decision till after any election. I am trying hard to see good in the current state of play, but it taking some convincing.

 

[Brovion]

I know where you're coming from DKM and Safeway, but I cling to the L.I./Gwylan view that local political considerations are a relatively minor factor. What are we talking about? The loss of perhaps two Brighton and Hove seats that would probably have gone anyway and perhaps a temporary protest whilst the Labour conference is in town. As Gwylan says walking past angry protestors is part and parcel of being an MP and we'll have to struggle to make our voice heard over all the other protest groups who are bound to be there. It's a bit like going to an away game; you know there might be nasty people there who will shout things and perhaps try to hurt you, but that won't deter you and anyway you expect the Police to do their job. Two weeks later you'll have forgotten all about it and be preparing for the next game.

No, my worry is that the new inspector will be a Hoile/Collyer clone who will come to exactly the same findings as his mates: "Falmer is unsuitable, wait 38 years for Sheepcote to become de-contaminated. By that time the transport issues should be solved."

 

[sparkie]

The thing is the law allows Prescott to form his own opinions on Collyer's conclusions. In law he is able to disagree entirely, and this would not be grounds for a judicial review. Collyer's report is in reality only a set of recommendations or suggestions. However, Prescott must follow the correct procedure in reaching his decision, hence he needs the alternative sites to be discussed formally at a new Inquiry.

My only worry ( and I've no basis in law for this ) is that ... [Edited out so as not to give snooping lawyers appeal ideas! - sparkie]

 

[perseus]

I don't go for the "conspiracy" theories either. Conspiracies are usually just a "cock up".

Why did I think Prescott would pull a stroke like this?

Reasons all sort of merged and came to mind:

1) The Inspector at the Wyecombe Public Inquiry, saying exasperated, to the Council "Where do you want to put the new ground then?".
The result was a too small a ground in an unsuitable location that all the locals think is not good enough and now they are stuck with it.

2) The concept that a Public Inquiry is not a Court where the two parties slog it out with a victor and loser (like a football match) but a democratic method whereby the Inspector can gauge the issues and the prevailing public opinion of where the stadium should be built (or whether or not it should be built).

3) My own feeling that there was numerous faults with Village Way North and that public and the fans did not have their say (it was all thought up by Brighton Plannning Office and then mucked about by the politicians) and the referendum voted for Falmer Village Way South as well and even that was not conclusive to location.

4) And to cap it all, the Brighton QC at the Public Inquiry referring to the A27 boundary as "psychological". I really do not what it meant. The A27 boundary arose because of an earlier Public Inquiry over the new road. But it could have read that even the legal representatives for the Albion will not convinced it was the best location.

I do not know what the prevailing political views are right now. I cannot gauge them.

***

My view has never changed from the very beginning. I want the best possible stadium and location for the fans and the public, and I see no conflict between the environment and a stadium, more likely to enhance an area if done properly and not mucked about by the politicians.

***

Translated into English that means a 32,000 stadium set in parkland on the outside of town with good transport links including a railway station. Now I do not actually care whether it is at Village way South, Waterhall or Pende (I can't think of any other contenders). My inclination is to actually go to the Public Inquiry and say exactly what we want so at least the Inspector is clear (and splash it all over the newspapers as well). Then the professionals can set about doing the job they are meant to do.

PS: It does not close off a Judicial Review or an appeal to the High Court when the Judicial Review goes against the opponents. The opponents (Lewes Council?) could/will do it for a fallacious reason just to cause a delay of 15 months.

 

[Zeitgeist]

It does not close off a Judicial Review or an appeal to the High Court when the Judicial Review goes against the opponents. The opponents (Lewes Council?) could/will do it for a fallacious reason just to cause a delay of 15 months. [/B]

Would any opponents not have to seek leave from a judge before they are granted a judicial review? surely if an attempted judicial review was seen as blatantly fallacious, the judge would ask for a hefty bond up front just as what happened when the Withdean NIMBYS tried this stunt a few years ago? As soon as they were asked for cash up front, they threw in the towel. Surely Lewes council wouldn't throw council tax payers money away on such a lost cause?...Would they?

 

[perseus]

Maybe Zeitgeist.

But Cherwell Council have just this month finished this delaying tactic appealing on the grounds that Prescott's decision was different from that of the Public Inquiry Inspector. The delay was 15 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/oxfordshire/3514646.stm

This is the Judicial Review.

The Appeal to the High Court was later.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Maybe Zeitgeist.

But Cherwell Council have just this month finished this delaying tactic appealing on the grounds that Prescott's decision was different from that of the Public Inquiry Inspector. The delay was 15 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/oxfordshire/3514646.stm

This is the Judicial Review.

The Appeal to the High Court was later.

Hmmmm?......Hopefully, if Lewes/Falmer councils tried the tactic that " Prescott went against the inspectors recomendations" at the first public enquiry, any half decent barrister for the Albion would surely quote the Cherwell case as an example that Prescott was legally entitled to do this? So the theory that a Judicial review will only be granted if "Correct processes and procedures" may not have been correctly adhered to, would appear to be fairly flexable in definition, looking at the Cherwell case? The fact that the councils case was unsuccessful is an aside really. The precident is there to use this delaying tactic unless a "progressive judge" hears the leave application?

 

[perseus]

Lewes Council (the only group that could afford it) would probably be able to think up something, if the elected representatives vote at a Committee meeting for this course of action. They might not get voted in again if they are showing themselves to be unreasonably obstructive (any more than they already are).

However, this, on thinking about it, could be less likely, as the public may not be willing to support them. They would have to make it sound good, not sound fallacious.

Although building the stadium would not be allowed/advised during this waiting period, some building preparatory work could still be done during this period (if the Albion are willing to run the risk of signing contracts and paying for it) so the time will not necessarily be wasted.

 

[m20gull]

The Judicial Review of the Cherwell Case makes for interesting reading. The DPM's decision is challenged on a number of specific points, none of them relevant to Falmer. But it is clear that the Review is a legal one, nothing to do with the merits of the Planning Application. However, given that much of Collyer's objections were on the basis of the failure of Falmer to comply with planning guidance, the following quote is instructive. "It is too easy to read policy guidance as if they were statutory requirements. They are not; they are, as their titles indicate, guidance." So ignoring guidance does not mean that Falmer Yes can be challenged by Judicial Review.

Cherwell have appealed the review.

 

[Oval Gull]

As much as I would love to share the optimism demonstrated by London Irish, Lord B et al, I just can't get this nagging feeling out of my head that Prescott has merely fudged the decision until after the Labour conference.

Very much agree. And I still wonder if the government are thinking "With luck (e.g. further legal wrangling), we could even postpone a final decision until after the election..we would only have to string it out for a few more months"

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The point about the Cherwell case is that the council's challenge to Prescott's decision is backed by local people, who don't want an asylum centre built at Bicester. The council will make itself popular by fighting this case.

Local people DO want a stadium built at Falmer. And they don't want any further delays. It's important that Lewes-based supporters of Falmer get the message across to Lewes District councillors that we don't want our council pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into challenging a decision that we like.

 

[m20gull]

So:

would Lewes Council pay for Judicial Review? - no
would they win anyway? - no

 

[Lord Bracknell]

So:

would Lewes Council pay for Judicial Review? - no
would they win anyway? - no

I had a conversation with one of my local councillors last Saturday about this. He wouldn't support spending money on a Judicial Review, but he reckoned the Leader of the Council took a different view.

 

[Oval Gull]

I had a conversation with one of my local councillors last Saturday about this. He wouldn't support spending money on a Judicial Review, but he reckoned the Leader of the Council took a different view.

I have also spoken to a Lewes District Councillor who also would not support spending money on a judicial review.

I was left with the impression that it would be very helpful if Lewes District based Falmer Stadium supporters were to write to their local District Councillors (and for that matter, County Councillors), pressing the case for Falmer. It seems from what he was saying that not many people have taken this route so far.

But be polite - they would have been lobbied by Falmer residents trying to convince them that we are all a load of hooligans.

There will of course be many of them opposed to Falmer, but it cannot hurt to push the Albion's case.

If you live in Lewes District (and remember that this covers a wide area of East Sussex, from Newick to Newhaven) you can contact your councillor via www.lewes.gov.uk (although it looks like the website is down at the moment).

 

[Safeway]

I had a conversation with one of my local councillors last Saturday about this. He wouldn't support spending money on a Judicial Review, but he reckoned the Leader of the Council took a different view.

That may be so, but surely the residents of Newhaven, Seaford and Lewes etc wouldn't be too chuffed about their money being spent on a review on the behalf of a very small minority?

 

[Curious Orange]

That may be so, but surely the residents of Newhaven, Seaford and Lewes etc wouldn't be too chuffed about their money being spent on a review on the behalf of a very small minority?

Didn't they already have their council tax hoiked to pay for their anti-Falmer campaign?

 

[Safeway]

Dunno.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Didn't they already have their council tax hoiked to pay for their anti-Falmer campaign? [/QUOTE


Falmer village council tax bands were about the highest in the county, thanks to the parish junta slaping on their local surcharge whether you were for or against the stadium. Next years charge should be interesting should they opt to push for a judicial review if the next Prescott decision goes against them!