If Prescott says 'no'

[3gulls]

Sheepcote Valley is actually GENUINELY used by locals as a kind of nature reserve for walks etc, so the environmental impact of putting a stadium there is far greater than it is at Falmer.

Don't you mean that it is a former tip that is used by the locals to shoot-up?

 

[The Large One]

I'm not sure that's technically correct.

Prescott is still only saying yes or no to Falmer. Whilst he may suggest another site is suitable, he could feasibly say that no sites are suitable.

It was an assumption made, specifically by the Albion's solicitors, and not challenged by other lawyers, that if no other 'suitable and available' (not necessarily BETTER) sites were found, he would give the go-ahead for Falmer.

The assumption being that, if he did not want a stadium at Falmer to be built, he would have said so, and not asked for the Public Inquiry to re-convene. The fact that the Inquiry was re-opened was mainly down to the fact that the club strongly challenged Charles Hoile's Local Plan report which asserted that Sheepcote was a better and more suitable site.

On the premise that the Albion's 'new' evidence may well have been correct, Prescott could not really consider it until it had been cross-examined at an open forum - the Public Inquiry.

What he does accept, however, is the need for a stadium in the city of Brighton & Hove.

 

[The Large One]

I've only read Pigin Stripes' posts just now.

What a twat. Is he ill?

 

[Yorkie]

In terms of accessibility, Sheepcote is a complete nightmare - that should be the crippling nail in the coffin for that site. Other considerations are that, unlike the Falmer site, Sheepcote Valley is actually GENUINELY used by locals as a kind of nature reserve for walks etc, so the environmental impact of putting a stadium there is far greater than it is at Falmer.

The day that we went to the public inquiry it was to compare the sites fpr noise, pollution, air quality etc etc. Sheepcote has more people living nearer to the site than Falmer. It also has rare plants like the bee orchid and transport wise it is a nightmare which would wreck any air quality that is there (which is far better than Falmer now due to the A27 bypass)

 

[Beach Hut]

Oh dear, someone has ruffled a few feathers here haven't they

 

[pigin stripes]

How easy was that to cause an argument...! right simple answers to those who are trying to have a dig.
1 I don't know the answer I never said I did.
2 Sorry but my job , brings me into contact with these people especially when they come on a jolly here. As I said JP only spoke with me because he remembered me from last year, there cant have been many hairy arsed coopers sticking Falmer for all flyers in his hand.
3 The 28 day bit came from him, and if he sticks with the date he gave us it means the 3 involved already know.
4 Remember when I say 3 parties involved that does not include the 2 councils as they are also government bodies.
a Club
b Uni
c I aint saying but those of you at the enq. will know who the 3 player in all this is.

Those who want to abuse me go on I expect it on here
enough said

 

[Da Man Clay]

How easy was that to cause an argument...! right simple answers to those who are trying to have a dig.
1 I don't know the answer I never said I did.
2 Sorry but my job , brings me into contact with these people especially when they come on a jolly here. As I said JP only spoke with me because he remembered me from last year, there cant have been many hairy arsed coopers sticking Falmer for all flyers in his hand.
3 The 28 day bit came from him, and if he sticks with the date he gave us it means the 3 involved already know.
4 Remember when I say 3 parties involved that does not include the 2 councils as they are also government bodies.
a Club
b Uni
c I aint saying but those of you at the enq. will know who the 3 player in all this is.

Those who want to abuse me go on I expect it on here
enough said

What exactly is your job? Are you just a pc or are you somewhat higher up?

 

[Superseagull]

How easy was that to cause an argument...! right simple answers to those who are trying to have a dig.
1 I don't know the answer I never said I did.
2 Sorry but my job , brings me into contact with these people especially when they come on a jolly here. As I said JP only spoke with me because he remembered me from last year, there cant have been many hairy arsed coopers sticking Falmer for all flyers in his hand.
3 The 28 day bit came from him, and if he sticks with the date he gave us it means the 3 involved already know.
4 Remember when I say 3 parties involved that does not include the 2 councils as they are also government bodies.
a Club
b Uni
c I aint saying but those of you at the enq. will know who the 3 player in all this is.

Those who want to abuse me go on I expect it on here
enough said

Still don't get it?

How does giving a select few parties privy information 28 days in advance of everyone else help. He still has to announce it and he ain't going to change his decision at the last minute. And there will still be a 90 day period for appeal after the announment so why would some parties have 118 days? Is that fair?

All I can think is that JP has some clauses to go with a Falmer yes and wants to run these by everyone concerned to make sure they workable before announcing it formally?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

pigin stripes ...

I'm going to respond very specifically on this part of your message:-

3 The 28 day bit came from him, and if he sticks with the date he gave us it means the 3 involved already know.

I would suggest that you have misunderstood something that was said to you and have gone on to surmise that certain parties must have been given the decision.

This is not how the planning system works. It is also inconsistent with information that was given to me last week, when I spoke with the Case Officer at the ODPM who is dealing with the application and its progress through the Planning Directorate in Prescott's Department.

Before anyone gets too excited, the only reason I made contact with the ODPM was to get confirmation that I am still on the mailing list for when the decision letter is issued.

I have every reason to believe that the decision will be issued by the ODPM close to 31 October.

It may be that the ODPM have been in contact with certain parties to obtain further information. I don't know whether they have. But asking for further information doesn't mean that the decision has been made.

 

[The Large One]

This '28-day' tosh would GUARANTEE a Judicial Review if it came to light, something that the government wants desparately to avoid.

 

[y2dave]

What nonsense about 3 parties knowing. So Pigin thinks the club and uni have been informed but Sheepcote is the site?

The uni being informed would suggest the decision is for Falmer. If they have decided it's Sheepcote why tell the uni and not other interested parties? They would never have been informed or even consulted by ODPM on a planning decision regarding a site they have nothing to do with. If the uni know it's not Falmer I'd expect the owners of toads hole, shoreham harbour etc to have been informed which f*cks his 3 parties argument.

They have to wait for a final annoucement like the rest of us. Ignore this rubbish.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

How easy was that to cause an argument...! right simple answers to those who are trying to have a dig.
1 I don't know the answer I never said I did.
2 Sorry but my job , brings me into contact with these people especially when they come on a jolly here. As I said JP only spoke with me because he remembered me from last year, there cant have been many hairy arsed coopers sticking Falmer for all flyers in his hand.
3 The 28 day bit came from him, and if he sticks with the date he gave us it means the 3 involved already know.
4 Remember when I say 3 parties involved that does not include the 2 councils as they are also government bodies.
a Club
b Uni
c I aint saying but those of you at the enq. will know who the 3 player in all this is.

Those who want to abuse me go on I expect it on here
enough said

Do you honestly think we are going to believe a hairy arsed Tommy cooper lookalike?,what a prize wanker you must truly be.
"John and Me sitting in a tree,K.I.S.S.I.N.G"
f*** of and die you useless c*nt...

 

[Superseagull]

What nonsense about 3 parties knowing. So Pigin thinks the club and uni have been informed but Sheepcote is the site?

The uni being informed would suggest the decision is for Falmer. If they have decided it's Sheepcote why tell the uni and not other interested parties? They would never have been informed or even consulted by ODPM on a planning decision regarding a site they have nothing to do with. If the uni know it's not Falmer I'd expect the owners of toads hole, shoreham harbour etc to have been informed which f*cks his 3 parties argument.

They have to wait for a final annoucement like the rest of us. Ignore this rubbish.

IF (and its a big IF) the uni and club have been informed I can only think it is some sort of consultation or clarification regarding Falmer before a decision is announced. Maybe some legal stuff needs to be cleared up or some restrictions will be placed on the use of the stadium - this might need to be agreed between the club and university before a formal announcment to avoid any problems. y2dave makes a good point - why invovle the Uni if it is a no to Falmer?

 

[perseus]

Have you seen Courtney Slade's plan in a two page spread in the Shoreham Herald? "Wembley-by-the-Sea"

Courtney Slade is probably dead now (can't be accused of being a NIMBY). The plan was dated for 1938. It would need a bit of tweaking for the 22nd century.

From adversary, another answer would have to be found. To my mind this alternative would be the best option. This is plan P.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Have you seen Courtney Slade's plan in a two page spread in the Shoreham Herald? "Wembley-by-the-Sea"

Courtney Slade is probably dead now (can't be accused of being a NIMBY). The plan was dated for 1938. It would need a bit of tweaking for the 22nd century.

From adversary, another answer would have to be found. To my mind this alternative would be the best option.

I was wondering when you'd chirp up....

 

[cardboard]

Have you seen Courtney Slade's plan in a two page spread in the Shoreham Herald? "Wembley-by-the-Sea"

Courtney Slade is probably dead now (can't be accused of being a NIMBY). The plan was dated for 1938. It would need a bit of tweaking for the 22nd century.

From adversary, another answer would have to be found. To my mind this alternative would be the best option. This is plan P.

Jeez, you don't give up do you!!!!

 

[perseus]

Jeez, you don't give up do you!!!!

Its a fair comment. If Falmer is a No there is a perfect alternative. There are no planning restraints and no Nimbys. It is also bigger site than Arsenal, Chelsea and Crystal Place put together. the original plan Courtney Slade plan was designed as a rival to the original Crystal Palace.

Just paper mache.

 

[BensGrandad]

Gut feeling tells me that it will be YES with a lot of conditions, which may or may not mean that it s effectively a no because there will be doubt as to whether or not we could afford to conform to the conditions imposed.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Gut feeling tells me that it will be YES with a lot of conditions, which may or may not mean that it s effectively a no because there will be doubt as to whether or not we could afford to conform to the conditions imposed.

Yeah ,may have to be made of paper mashe.

 

[Seagull73]

Gut feeling tells me that it will be YES with a lot of conditions, which may or may not mean that it s effectively a no because there will be doubt as to whether or not we could afford to conform to the conditions imposed.

And what conditions might they be? You can have the site but you can't build a stadium there?

Come on, Prescott was clear at the second enquiry that alternative sites must NOT cost more than the proposed costings for Falmer. Therefore, he will not impose conditions that will increase the stadium cost, simply because Prescott has said so himself.