Nalyor goes on the attack against Knight in the Argus

[The Large One]

first applications wasnt thrown out on a technicality was it? Or are you saying that there was only one application?

The first application (or rather - all four applications) were approved - eventually. They have never been rejected. If I understand your question, Dave, yes it was thrown out (or quoshed, i.e. declared null and void) on a technicality.

So we're still actually waiting for the government's approval - but the signs are encouraging.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Buzzer suggested the first application was thrown out on a technicality - the first application was rejected by two inspectors wasnt it.....ie that is Falmer Nimby's main thrust of argument, that Prescott took no notice of the rejection when in effect he should have killed it stone dead, and then he went ahead by asking for other sites to be looked at, which he didnt have the authority to do so.....or is that two simplistic.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

To return to the "contingencies", Dave ...

The contingency figure presented at the Inquiry (and mentioned in earlier posts on this thread) was an allowance for growth in costs during the construction phase of the project. It was calculated using a standard approach that has been adopted by the civil engineering and construction industries - a methodology that was agreed with Lewes District Council's own cost consultant.

The figure didn't include a contingency for extra legal fees in the event of an appeal (or the costs of having to defer the start of construction until the completion of a prolonged planning process). To have included those figures would have broken the Inquiry rules, which have to be based around the concept that the next decision that will be taken will be the "real" one. What the Inquiry was looking at was the comparative costs of a stadium at each of the sites that were then in the frame.

Those extra costs have, however, now started to mount up. And the Club is having to meet them.

 

[The Large One]

The first application was approved by John Prescott - albeit four years after it was first submitted.

However, if you are talking about the planning inspector's reports, then both the inspector for the stadium application and the inspector for the Local Plan recommended rejection because of the considered harm to the environment, and that they both felt Sheepcote was better.

But Prescott didn't 'ignore' these findings, (as we found out in his approval letter). He understood and accepted in part those recommendations, but he gave greater weight to the Albion's consideration of urban regeneration and social inclusion, placing the need for the stadium within the national interest, together with the mitigating evidence of the stadium design (including the trees to be planted - trees which are not there currenty incidentally). This is something well within his remit.

What can be inferred from Prescott's letter of approval was that he felt the case for the stadium at Falmer had been successfully made before he asked all parties for information on alternative sites. If Falmer was going to be a non-starter, he would have rejected it there and then. He asked for other sites to be considered because of the sensitive nature of the Falmer site. It is an AONB (as we know, it's a planning term, not an accurate aesthetic term), so was covered by planning covenants. Therefore, it had to be proved that nowhere else was suitable and available.

This the Albion did successfully at the second public inquiry. All the points the Albion made about the other sites, the second planning inspector basically agreed with.

My response there is kind of simplifying it, but I'm pretty certain this was the scenario.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

But Prescott didn't 'ignore' these findings, (as we found out in his approval letter). He understood and accepted in part those recommendations, but he gave greater weight to the Albion's consideration of urban regeneration and social inclusion, placing the need for the stadium within the national interest, together with the mitigating evidence of the stadium design (including the trees to be planted - trees which are not there currenty incidentally). This is something well within his remit.

If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the Secretary of State.

The depressing thing is the way opponents of the stadium are still buying into the LDC lie that Prescott wasn't entitled to take a different view to the inspectors at the first Inquiry - who heard no substantive evidence about alternative sites and - despite that - came to the conclusion that an alternative site was probably available. They were wrong - and the second Inspector's report spells out why they were wrong.

 

[The Large One]

The funny - no, the pathetic - thing is that LDC keep saying 'two planning inspectors rejected Falmer' - like it's a game of 'best of three'.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the Secretary of State.

The depressing thing is the way opponents of the stadium are still buying into the LDC lie that Prescott wasn't entitled to take a different view to the inspectors at the first Inquiry - who heard no substantive evidence about alternative sites and - despite that - came to the conclusion that an alternative site was probably available. They were wrong - and the second Inspector's report spells out why they were wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly, but if you and I and the people in the know , know that, then why are LDC persuing the matter further. I refuse to believe its just bloody mindedness. Councillors stand or fall by their actions and if their actions are proved to be a total waste of time and public money, surely they are liable personally for these spurious costs?

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

Councillors stand or fall by their actions and if their actions are proved to be a total waste of time and public money, surely they are liable personally for these spurious costs?

Sadly not. They act corporately. This has been decided by the courts, but I can't remember in which case.

If councillors were personally financially liable for every cock-up they made, no-one would ever want to become a councillor.

 

[Chicken Run]

people at the club get critisim and some of it rightly so, but this article isover the top rubbish. its almost making knight to be in the same bracket as archer and belotti

If he bans Naylor then he's on the way, not the full way u undertsand

 

[vulture]

I bet Knight has his say in the the forest programme

 

[Chicken Run]

I know some people at the club dont want to or like talking to him, found that out today

It's worth saying that he's been reporting many more years than some at the club.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

Well can't say im supprised by what's been written by Naylor, it's what a lot of people have been thinking for some time!

The gloves are off now, will be interesting to see Dicks response thow he would not be in this situation if some level of credible investment had occured in the last year.

Let no one be under the illusion that going down wont be so bad, after 7 years at withdean, dross on offer and total apathy crowds will be seriously low and will put the future of this club on the line.

 

[B.W.]

I don't often agree with Naylor, but he is 100% correct...

 

[NMH]

DK was too slow in sacking magoon.

However, that was the fault of the fans, as several were quite prepared to wait while he dismantled and disenchanted the squad.

 

[The Large One]

I don't often agree with Naylor, but he is 100% correct...

Actually he isn't. Not 100%

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Actually he isn't. Not 100%

99.9999999999999% correct?

 

[Giraffe]

I think Naylor is spot on. TIme for Dick Knight to sort it out.

The constant scapegoating of managers has to stop. McGhee was put in a hopeless position battling against the resource problem. Okay in the end he lost the plot but why? Absolutely no backing.

I believe Dean Wilkins could be one of the best managers this club has had but he can't do it without at least some help. Whilst other clubs near the foot of the table have gone out and acquired decent strikers for this level we have floundered. We have no more time to do this, we need it now. If Dick Knight has seriously got the money to spend that was quoted then surely to god there is a quality signing out there that we can afford.

But blaming Wilkins is just crazy. Lets not drive him out just so that Dick Knight can deflect the heat for the umpteenth time.

 

[The Large One]

99.9999999999999% correct?

Not totally. I don't agree with the following...

The chairman has already messed up by dragging his heels during the January transfer window. He must move heaven and earth to fund a forward on loan who will save his and the Seagulls' bacon.

I don't agree with the 'dragging his heels' bit. Obviously we didn't land anyone significant, but that's different from saying he wasn't bothering. And also 'Save his bacon' - from what? The marauding hordes at the door? The impending revolution? Sure some people are concerned with what is happening and that they are looking to him for answers, but 'saving his bacon' - I don't understand.


He is in danger of being remembered for doing the dirty on Steve Gritt, not landing Steve Coppell when he first had the chance, not giving Martin Hinshelwood enough backing and losing his nerve when prematurely abandoning McGhee.

That is a pretty drastic re-writing of history. As much as he was there defending McGhee - that much is evident, the other three he certainly didn't mention as an issue at the time, and saying that getting rid of Gritt and Hinshelwood were wrong decisions - I certainly don't remember anyone defending those managers at the time. I don't know - perhaps my memory is deficient. I must admit he is the first person I have heard criticising those decisions - and he is doing that for the first time now. I'm curious as to why that would be.

There are also a couple of statements where he is not lying, but he is over-sensationalising as if he were finger-pointing.

The rest I don't have an issue with.

 

[blue'n'white]

I think Naylor is spot on. TIme for Dick Knight to sort it out.

The constant scapegoating of managers has to stop. McGhee was put in a hopeless position battling against the resource problem. Okay in the end he lost the plot but why? Absolutely no backing.

I believe Dean Wilkins could be one of the best managers this club has had but he can't do it without at least some help. Whilst other clubs near the foot of the table have gone out and acquired decent strikers for this level we have floundered. We have no more time to do this, we need it now. If Dick Knight has seriously got the money to spend that was quoted then surely to god there is a quality signing out there that we can afford.

But blaming Wilkins is just crazy. Lets not drive him out just so that Dick Knight can deflect the heat for the umpteenth time.

I agree 100% with that

 

[William Chops]

1. Extra costs of the Falmer application, and the failure to get the extra seats in our first year back in the Championship meant that income was lower than originally budget.

2. The loss of the ITV Digital money hit our finances badly, further reducing income below the anticipated levels, so not sure what point you are making.

You arguments are incoherent and poorly structured.

2) Dick Knight stated at the time that Brighton had not included any of the ITV Digital money in their accounting and were therefor safe from its collapse. Are you calling DK a liar?

Also, can you point out the incoherence, and poor structure. Just because you disagree with my questions does not mean I am illiterate.