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

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

What?

 

[ROSM]

should have explained - that is a very long, line by line response to Dies Irae and his frustrated posts earlier today. my reponses are in caps

 

[Publius Ovidius]

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

so why do you have to shout?

With all due respect Ade, you do tend to go off on one when we are discussing Falmer ( normally it is a one way discussion anyway) and whilst you obviously know far more than anyone on here about the situation, that doesnt stop people having made up their own mind about things.

At the end of the day you use the technique that " I am right and you are all wrong" that is your perogative, but as far as I am concerned and I have told you this many times, our biggest mistake IMHO was the statement " There is No Plan B". that tied us into a process that any little problem would be fatal to the club and I have worked in the Construction Industry and one thing is as certain as the Sun coming up and that is there will always be problems.

By all means reiterate your views, but I still feel that this process was flawed.

 

[ROSM]

so why do you have to shout?

With all due respect Ade, you do tend to go off on one when we are discussing Falmer ( normally it is a one way discussion anyway) and whilst you obviously know far more than anyone on here about the situation, that doesnt stop people having made up their own mind about things.

At the end of the day you use the technique that " I am right and you are all wrong" that is your perogative, but as far as I am concerned and I have told you this many times, our biggest mistake IMHO was the statement " There is No Plan B". that tied us into a process that any little problem would be fatal to the club and I have worked in the Construction Industry and one thing is as certain as the Sun coming up and that is there will always be problems.

By all means reiterate your views, but I still feel that this process was flawed.

sorry - i was using capitals to distinguish between yours and my words. it wasn't meant as shouting.

i dont know more than anyone on here. but i do take the time to read all articles and documents.

but what really does tend to get me a tad frustrated is that you (as is your right) have made your opinion here. I have provided a contra opinion backed up, where I can with statements, quotes and evidence.

now, if what you wanted to do was to voice your opinion and not have a debate, then fine. so be it. but as you posted questions then I thought you wanted to have a discussion.

At no point have I said that everybody else is wrong.

and as for your comment about no plan B - as I posted, to get planning permission we had to demonstrate that there was no other site that met the criteria. hence, there had to be no plan b.

that by the way, is not my opinion, that is firmly entrenched in planning law.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Dave -

Since you've been telling us "many times", complete the following sentence:-

Plan B is ...




And now try this one:-

We will get planning permission for Plan B, because ...

 

[Publius Ovidius]

and as for your comment about no plan B - as I posted, to get planning permission we had to demonstrate that there was no other site that met the criteria. hence, there had to be no plan b.

that by the way, is not my opinion, that is firmly entrenched in planning law.

Fine if that is Planning law, but it does not change my view and that of many people I have spoken to who have interest in the club but are not as "in your face" as people on here and other fan sites that going into this with no backup plan would only end in tears.

Again, taking your answers to my points above, the general opinion of these same people is based on what they see not the technicallities you are so expert in. They saw that two inspectors disagreed with the original application.....Ok the government moved the goalposts to say...OK then mr inspector no 3, go and see if anywhere else is available...No - then falmer it is.

If people think this is crap, just look at the number of letters in the Argus from people who still suggest waterhall, SheepCoat, Toads Hole etc etc.

the message may have got through to us enlightened ones, but the people out there either dont hear it, or dont believe it.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Dave -

Since you've been telling us "many times", complete the following sentence:-

Plan B is ...




And now try this one:-

We will get planning permission for Plan B, because ...

OK then


IMHO Plan B is Withdean with the current capacity as even when we have been in the Championship, we have not filled the place. If you are a Government minister living in Blackburn, what national Interest is there possibly in a 3rd division team.

We will get planning permission because B&H Council have ejected us from Hove once and would not politically risk the backlash if they did it again.



I am playing Devils Advocate here as I have no idea if there was a Plan B or C, D or E. You are more in a position to know that.

 

[The Large One]

If there was a Plan B in the public domain, we would have two set of NIMBYs to contend with, both playing one off each other, and would have been exponentially more expensive.

 

[sparkie]

I'm absolutely positive there is a Plan B, because what fool wouldn't have one?

However, I'm also sure that it cannot be acknowledged or mentioned publically, as doing so would lead to the automatic failure of Plan A ( Falmer ).

So therefore, Plan A must have significant advantages over Plan B, but there's no point in just guessing what these are without knowing the details....

 

[Dandyman]

Just for info and so people are aware of LDC's areas of attack...

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/council/8215.asp

 

[chidgull]

Been away on hols and only just catching up with the news.No 'net available last 10 days!
Maybe its been suggested before/elsewhere, but is it worth taking /getting some pictures to illustrate the true location of the stadium and the lack of an area of outstanding natural beauty there ? It seems like we need to counter some of the opponents publicity nonsense with some factually correct , non-doctored graphics ? We can publicise these widely via different routes,

 

[Albion Dan]

I am sure there is a Plan B, as Ive said many times, it would be GROSSLY incompetent of the Board not to have one, whether it be Withdean redevelopment or Groundshare with Crawley or whatever I dont know, but anyone who thinks if Falmer gets rejected we are dead they are very foolish.

If I were the club I would deny any existence of Plan B as it would add fuel to the LDC fire.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I've been trying to get my head around this and trying to get things straight in my mind. I may be wrong as I have absolutely no knowledge of planning matters (I'm pleased to say!) and I may get shouted down but I'm just wondering if this is bad news after all.
As I understand it Ruth Kelly asked everybody to agree then she would tear up the letter and think the decision through again. But LDC have not agreed and said they want to go ahead with the Judicial Review (whether we like it or not, this is their right).
If they had agreed, then one of two things would have happened. Either Kelly would have said no, a decision which i doubt we would have been able to afford to fight, or she would have said yes. And if yes, LDC would probably then have gone for a Judicial Review then.
So it seems to me that one way or another a Judicial Review will happen. Surely their decision yesterday means that this Judicial Review will happen sooner than if we had to wait for another yes decision from Kelly? If I'm right, surely this is good news, if we accept that a JR is inevitable anyway?
Unless of course they can have a JR now (or as soon as the Courts allow) and if they win it get the decision referred back, and if it comes back as a yes again they decide to go for a JR of that decision. Surely that can't be possible!

 

[sparkie]

....

Unless of course they can have a JR now (or as soon as the Courts allow) and if they win it get the decision referred back, and if it comes back as a yes again they decide to go for a JR of that decision. Surely that can't be possible!

Sadly I think it is, but they'd have to produce new objections to do so, and would have to 'win' again on these points to get the decision looked at a 3rd time.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Sadly I think it is, but they'd have to produce new objections to do so, and would have to 'win' again on these points to get the decision looked at a 3rd time.

By which time both they and we will have gone bust! So everybody loses.

except not everybody - do you think it's too late for me to train to be a lawyer?

 

[Storer68]

You are quite right Dave, there is a plan B.

It involves making sure that when the last person leaves BHAFC, they lock the doors and turn out all the lights.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Permanent use of Withdean - even at the current capacity - will be refused planning permission by the City Council.

For why?

1. Because the City Council has lost its Labour majority. There are a lot of Tory votes to be won or lost in the wards that surround the stadium - and if the Tories lose those votes by backing the football club, they will say goodbye to any prospect of achieving majority control on the Council (which is their first and only aim).

2. The City's Local Plan rules out Withdean as a permanent site for a football stadium. Withdean residents have twice gone to the High Court to challenge City Council planning decisions which they have disliked. They have a track record of victory in the Court and they will be certain to be optimistic that they would win a case against a permanent football stadium.

3. There are thousands of NIMBYs living around Withdean. Many, many more than around Falmer. And many of them are considerably richer than the residents of Falmer.

 

[portlock seagull]

I'm just so pissed off by this news. Nothing ever seems to make any progress. Real progress I mean eg a FINAL decision.

One thing I'm certain of is this must be football's finest farce of all time and why aren't deadlines ever adhered to or even demanded by those in charge of the planning process? Why aren't the club and it's supporters trying to make LDC's infamous 15 or so's lives a total misery with some underhand tactics? That can only generate publicity for this sorry farce of a saga now because the democratic process has collapsed here. Writing letters got us nowhere.

Pistols at dawn? I'd volunteer!!

 

[Caveman]

It involves making sure that when the last person leaves BHAFC, they lock the doors and turn out all the lights.

Don't say that

 

[Marc]

LDC = Absolute bunch of wankers.

I cannot believe they are more concerned about a poxy stadium than the massive water shortage/increasing crime/cost of housing...they need to be voted OUT!

I may move to Lewes just to get my point across!