Lewes Dc Goes To High Court!!!!!! Important

[The Large One]

I seem to recall saying the same thing 5 years ago except that I used Tesco as the measuring stick not Sainsburys and in so doing quoted Broadbridge Heath and Guildford as examples of where they had wanted a store been refused but then built something that the council wanted and permission was granted. But then I would have said that because I am an idiot so I am continually told on here.

Well, you are.

You are not comparing like with like. It's ANOTHER petty dig at the board because what you mean is 'if this club had some real money, they could palm the council off...'.

The City Council fully backs the stadium. They APPROVED the stadium. However, if you think you could have palmed off an entire government department, a neighbouring district authority and several green lobby groups, tell us how it's done, would you?

 

[Lammy]

int ClubsMoney = 1000000;

report = PublicEnquiry();

while (ClubsMoney > 0)
{    
      result = GovernmentDecision(report);

      Challenge(result);

      if (result == YES)
      {
            Challenge(result);
            report = PublicEnquiry();
            ClubsMoney = ClubsMoney - 100000;
      }
      else
      {
            ClubsMoney = 0;
            break;
      }
}

 

[The Large One]

Just thinking laterally here - aren't Falmer Parish C. missing out on a prime opportunity here? The future of many churches in this country is dependant on its youth, as it is in any country of the world. When I lived in New York an upstate Church used the local grid iron stadium for youth networking...got kids off the streets, interested in music and church related youth clubs. Rallied loads of money for that parish, had a youth group interested and supporting the local team and gave kids something to do...They used the function rooms of the stadium for Friday night events etc...

If FPC could see the opportunity they're missing!!

Combine that with the financial opportunity Lewes District Council are continually denying their town's businesses (and Brighton & Hove's - and Sussex generally) by opposing the stadium, etc... Do you see my point about reasonable people and common sense and so on?

 

[Mr Banana]

Do you know what really gets me in all of this.

All the way on the line ( and this is not a critism of Ed etc) BUT we have been told, firstly the first inspector is fully in support of us and we have a good case - WRONG, secondly the second inspector was fully in our favour - WRONG, thirdly, the third inspector was fully in our favour - RIGHT, fourthly JP would is in favour - RIGHT, but f***ed up the wording so proving he didnty understand the situation. Fifthy FALMER would never have the money to challenge us _ WRONG, sixthly LDC wouldnt commit public money when they found out how much it would cost - WRONG Seventhly, LDC would accept the governments view that 1 item was wrong and 15 were right - WRONG.

We are also being told that LDC are fools as are Falmer and we know all the answers and we are right every time. Does anyone now seriously believe that? LDC obviously have very clever barristers which no amount of rubbishing by us has shifted their position. Now we are taking the desparate measure of setting up a party to fight the Liberals over 1 issue - Yes 1 issue.


I think this has turned into the biggest Farce ever

Maybe we are just going to have to face facts, there is NO site available in teh Brighton and Hove connurbation that we can build a stadium and Archer and Bellotti and Stanley have finally achieved what they set out to do, that is fatally maim this club.

I have not heard anything in the last 4 years to suggest we will not be at Withdean indefinitly

You should be writing for The Sun

 

[tedebear]

Combine that with the financial opportunity Lewes District Council are continually denying their town's businesses (and Brighton & Hove's - and Sussex generally) by opposing the stadium, etc... Do you see my point about reasonable people and common sense and so on?

Councils historically have been head in the sand old farts with their own agendas so that doesn't suprise me...what suprises me is that FPC and the South Downs mob are giving money to the council. They should know that sometime in the future the council will probably back stab them in some way or other....when the council is poor in 10 years time they'll probably approve a 3 story high rise over the duck pond just to get the rate money!!

So yes TLO - I agree with your point about common sense!!

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

It's quite obvious that Lewes District Council are following their current policy, because they get some perverse pleasure out of being unpopular.

They are deliberately eliteist, devisive, and selective in who they claim to support.

They do not want to recognise that their own electorate represent a diverse range of interests.

Instead, they prefer to support one interest group TO THE SPECIFIC EXCLUSION of all others.

In this way, their model of local Government is, by any definition of the term, Fascist, in as much as they seek to devide people into seperate factions, in preference to trying to create any sense of (Comm)-unity.

 

[Rangdo]

I seem to recall saying the same thing 5 years ago except that I used Tesco as the measuring stick not Sainsburys and in so doing quoted Broadbridge Heath and Guildford as examples of where they had wanted a store been refused but then built something that the council wanted and permission was granted. But then I would have said that because I am an idiot so I am continually told on here.

That might be a good point if it wasn't for the fact that, as far as I am aware, the stadium hasn't been refused planning permission at any time has it?
The objectors motives aren't oriented around money or getting new facilities. They are motivated by a wish to have football fans as far away from them as possible.
So how exactly is your point at all significant?

 

[sparkie]

int ClubsMoney = 1000000;

report = PublicEnquiry();

while (ClubsMoney > 0)
{    
      result = GovernmentDecision(report);

      Challenge(result);

      if (result == YES)
      {
            Challenge(result);
            report = PublicEnquiry();
            ClubsMoney = ClubsMoney - 100000;
      }
      else
      {
            ClubsMoney = 0;
            break;
      }
}

Schoolboy error.... Surely it should be

Challenge(&result);

 

[Lammy]

Schoolboy error.... Surely it should be

Challenge(&result);

That explains why it wouldn't compile!

 

[sully]

Ha! Rollestone is involved..I used to work with this soppy old tart.

I knew he bought a place in Falmer.......Ipswich Fan if I remember rightly from Dartford.

Hope he doesn't get too vocal. Wouldn't like to see local businesses boycotting the Building Surveying Practice he works for.

Hmmm. Haven't been a fan of MacConvilles since they turned me down when I applied for a job there (in 1988)!!

 

[Publius Ovidius]

You should be writing for The Sun

why?

 

[Jesus Gul]

Hmmm. Haven't been a fan of MacConvilles since they turned me down when I applied for a job there (in 1988)!!

bit unfair as director Fletch & associate Barker are Seagull supporters and they have sponsored the match ball in the past

but as for that bloody NIMBY Rollestone

 

[sully]

bit unfair as director Fletch & associate Barker are Seagull supporters and they have sponsored the match ball in the past

but as for that bloody NIMBY Rollestone

And as you've just inspired me to look up, MacConvilles are "Friends of the Albion".

Come on Mr Fletcher, do the right thing and sack him!

 

[Jesus Gul]

Off with his head......

 

[Paddy B]

As I see it:

We still have planning permission

LDC are going to the High Court to challenge planning permission

The Government will concede on that one point

Planning Permission will then be quashed

Ruth Kelly will issue a new decision letter (taking into account the High Court decision)

LDC will then challenge that decision........................

That is how I read it but I've got a bit lost on all of these proceedings.

Question is, if LDC had accepted Ruth Kelly's suggestion to quash the planning permission now and go back to the start would we be any better off?

 

[Hadlee]

That is how I read it but I've got a bit lost on all of these proceedings.

Question is, if LDC had accepted Ruth Kelly's suggestion to quash the planning permission now and go back to the start would we be any better off?

I've been thinking that all morning and I don't think we are any worse off !!

All we have to do now is wait for the Judicial review, whereas if the original planning permission had been quashed who's to say LDC would not have contested the reviewed decision ?

 

[Strike]

Not very good to read in the Argus this morning.

 

[KPTF]

Is the outcome of the Judicial Review the absolute end of it or could LDC challenge the JR in the European Courts if they don't agree with the outcome?

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

They could potentially take the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal (civil division), and then, if they were granted leave to appeal, the House of Lords.

But the House of Lords has already decided its position -- and therefore the LAW -- on the matter (see Lord B's signature for more details).

From there, it would take one of the most remarkable flights from orthodoxy in the history of law and government for the European Court of Justice to hear the case.

 

[ROSM]

I WILL RESPOND TO THIS AS I THINK ALL ON HERE DESERVE TO SEE THE RESPONSE I HAVE GIVEN YOU WHEN YOU HAVE RAISED THESE QUESTIONS TO ME BEFORE

Do you know what really gets me in all of this.

All the way on the line ( and this is not a critism of Ed etc) BUT we have been told, firstly the first inspector is fully in support of us and we have a good case - WRONG,

WHAT WAS SAID DAVE WAS THAT THE INSPECTOR WAS HEARING A STRONG CASE PUT FORWARD BY THE CLUB AND THAT INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS FELT THAT IT WOULD IMPRESS THE INSPECTOR

secondly the second inspector was fully in our favour - WRONG,

SEE ABOVE COMMENT - ALSO AS HAS BEEN SAID ON HERE. THE INSPECTORS SAT TOGETHER IN A PARALLEL HEARING. THE MAIN THRUST OF THEIR DECISION WAS THAT THE PERMISSION WOULD REQUIRE FOUR TESTS BEING PASSED:

1) THAT IT WAS FUNDABLE (THEY SAID YES)
2) THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY (THEY SAID YES)
3) THAT IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST (ONE DIDN'T COMMENT AND ONE SAID NO - HOWEVER IN LAW, THE ONLY VALID TEST OF NATIONAL INTEREST IS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE)
4) THAT THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE (BOTH FELT THAT SHEEPCOTE VALLEY WAS THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE BUT THE CLUB AND COUNCIL HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AGAINST SV AT THE HEARINGS). IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT PRESCOTT CALLED THE SUBSEQUENT ONE


thirdly, the third inspector was fully in our favour - RIGHT,

GLAD WE AGREE ON THAT

fourthly JP would is in favour - RIGHT,

AND THAT TOO

but f***ed up the wording so proving he didnty understand the situation.

ACTUALLY, AND THIS MAY SHOCK YOU - IT IS MY BELIEF THAT LEWES DC THEMSELVES DIDN'T NOTICE THIS ERROR WHEN THE DECISION WAS FIRST PUBLISHED. IN ALL THERE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THIS POINT WAS ONLY PRESENTED JUST BEFORE THE APPEAL WAS LODGED. IT IS AN ERROR OF FACT AND IS AS A RESULT OF THE MAP BEING REDRAWN BETWEEN THE FIRST PARALLEL AND THEN FINAL HEARINGS.


Fifthy FALMER would never have the money to challenge us _ WRONG,

I BELIEVE WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THIS WAS A LOT OF MONEY FOR FALMER TO RISK AND THAT THEY WOULD BE RISKING IT IF THEY PRESSED AHEAD. YOU WILL HAVE SEEN ON HERE TODAY THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO CLEAR THEMSELVES OUT IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY

sixthly LDC wouldnt commit public money when they found out how much it would cost - WRONG

AND HERE'S THE BEST BIT - LDC ACTUALLY FIDDLED THE POSITION BY SAYING TO FPC THAT THEY MUST PUT UP 30K IN ORDER TO PREVENT LDC HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER CONTROLS TO SPEND MORE THAT 25K - HARDLY THE ACTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY WILL WIN THE BATTLE IS IT??

Seventhly, LDC would accept the governments view that 1 item was wrong and 15 were right - WRONG.

AND THIS IS JUST BLATANTLY UNTRUE - ED SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN SAYING ON HERE THAT HE FELT LEWES WOULD CONTINUE AND PUSH FOR COURT AND IGNORE THE OLIVE BRANCH. THIS IS A VIEW I HAVE ALSO SAID ONNUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO YOU.


We are also being told that LDC are fools as are Falmer and we know all the answers and we are right every time.

IF YOU CAN POINT ME TO A SITUATION WHERE THIS HAS BEEN SAID THEN I WILL BUY YOU A PINT. WHAT HAS BEEN SAID WAS THAT LEGALLY IN THE LONG TERM THEY WILL NOT WIN. THEY MADE SEND US BUST IN THE MEATIME THOUGH!

Does anyone now seriously believe that? LDC obviously have very clever barristers which no amount of rubbishing by us has shifted their position. Now we are taking the desparate measure of setting up a party to fight the Liberals over 1 issue - Yes 1 issue.

DAVE - SINGLE ISSUE GROUPS ARE THE STRONGEST PART OF LOCAL POLITICS. WHEN ALL THAT SEPERATES THE THREE MAIN PARTIES IS WHICH COLOGNE DO THEY USE THEN PEOPLE WILL BACK PARTIES LIKE OURS. AND THIS IS NOT A SINGLE ISSUE, IT IS ABOUT EDUCATION, HEALTH, ECONOMIC BENEFITS AS WELL AS SPORT AND LEISURE