New Moves On Albion Stadium

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

The only reason I voted for the loonies in the last two elections was to get Falmer.

If they then say yes then they will get my vote again and again.

If they do not then Im nailing my colours back onto the blue mast.

 

[Curious Orange]

Funny how Sheepcote has now turned into a "brownfield" site. I always thought it was a park. If it's a brownfield site because it used to be a landfill site, then doesn't that make Waterhall a brownfield site as well?

Does anyone have any idea what the "deficiences" were with the evidence on Sheepcote? It seems like the Government is setting the whole thing up so they will turn down Falmer and recommend Sheepcote, which the council won't let us build on. Personally I think this whole thing is an embarrasment to the Government and rather than just issue planning permission again they've decided to try and bury the whole thing under red-tape and hope no-one notices.

Better start making up those plans for a South Stand roof.

Hold your horses, we're still awaiting the comments of the bearded guru of NSC. I believe he has info regarding the exchange of letters between the Government and LDC, being an interested party. Lets wait and hear exactly what has been said before we start thinking about non-league football.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Can someone remind me the car park/coach park has to be built on Lewes land?
Given that the Stadium complex would be sited entirely on Brighton and Hove side of border, and therefore would get instant go ahead is there no way car parking could be moved to ensure Lewes had no say?

I am sure this is fixtures, but I am trying to explain it to a friend at work and he keeps going "well just move the f**king car park and your in!", and I can't remember the ins and outs it's been that long.

 

[The Oldman]

Hold your horses, we're still awaiting the comments of the bearded guru of NSC. I believe he has info regarding the exchange of letters between the Government and LDC, being an interested party. Lets wait and hear exactly what has been said before we start thinking about non-league football.

There has been a lot of spin from Lewes which the BBC and the Argus have swallowed. Lewes have claimed that Ms Kelly has set up a new inquiry into the alternative sites when as I understand, she has only asked for info re Sheepcote and its transport.

But Lewes are very good at winning the PR battle and I bet most readers/listeners believe that Ms Kelly has ordered a wholescale review of the other sites.

Let's hope that the club and Falmer 4 All can begin to tackle head on Lewes and their anti Albion campaign.

 

[Yoda]

But some Falmer residents objected strongly to having a stadium built in their village.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BUILT IN THEIR f***ing SMEGGY VILLAGE!!!

 

[Rusco]

Can someone close to the Seagulls Party let us know what they are going to do about this and what action they are taking to influence the right people during this time? I'm sure there is plenty going on behind the scenes, but we need stuff out in the open to make us all feel like something is actually going on

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1046889.0.fans_shock_as_council_wins_stadium_delay.php

Fixtures? sorry haven't had time to read all posts, apologies if link already up.

 

[Gritt23]

No, I don't agree. There is no new inquiry, Lewes have just been granted a 7-week extension, let 'em have it if it stops them bleating later about not being able to put their case to the Secretary of State. It's not credible that there could be such a huge dispute on the facts to warrant a new inquiry, the transport infrastructure is either there, or it is not.

As for appeals by Lewes, we have to remember that they've been given a free shot this time due to government incompetence. The next time, permission will be watertight and any legal challenges will be costly. I'm not convinced there is the political will at Lewes to risk run up huge costs on this issue. They were always going to take their "free" shot this time, next time will be very different.

But couldn't they get another "free shot" next time?

Let's just say Ruth Kelly awards us planning permission in April 2007, surely all interested parties would again have a period of time to register their objections, in exactly the same way as LDC did after Prescott's permission.

I would have thought - and hope I'm wrong - that even if Kelly's permission is legally watertight, there is nothing to stop LDC taking a challenge to the High Court. A date would get set of perhaps January 2008, and the day before it goes to court they back down again.

Sure, it would mean we'd win in the end, but once again LDC would have succeeded in delaying us yet further, which is what they are trying to do.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

I would have thought - and hope I'm wrong - that even if Kelly's permission is legally watertight, there is nothing to stop LDC taking a challenge to the High Court. A date would get set of perhaps January 2008, and the day before it goes to court they back down again.

Sure, it would mean we'd win in the end, but once again LDC would have succeeded in delaying us yet further, which is what they are trying to do.

You're probably right. So it's up to the Seagulls Party to let the electorate know how the council is wasting its money.

 

[Brovion]

.... just maybe she's giving LDC every opportunity to come up with evidence so when she's says's 'YES' as I believe she will, and LDC say 'hold on what about this bit of evidence and you should re-open the public enquiry' she'll say ' look I gave you lot an extra 8 bloody weeks, I've pissed of a great deal of people in my own party as well as the electorate, I've ignored public opnion and I even let you bring new evidence which you had ample chance to do before when I didn't have too'. So tough, live with it.

You're absolutely right, that's what she should say. However it looks mighty like she's building up to: "What, a stadium smack bang in the heart of unspoilt downland? Never!"

BTW LDC are also opposed to Sheepcote. They're saying they're in favor now because it's their chief anti-Falmer stick. But if (when) the Falmer application is finally turned down and the club try and go for Sheepcote LDC will find 'new evidence' to oppose that too.

NOW will people realise that violence has got to be part of our approach?

 

[ROSM]

Can someone close to the Seagulls Party let us know what they are going to do about this and what action they are taking to influence the right people during this time? I'm sure there is plenty going on behind the scenes, but we need stuff out in the open to make us all feel like something is actually going on

I will try my best.

Like everybody else, we in the Seagulls Party will be studying the details and implications of the letter carefully over the next few days. Much of the actions we need to take cannot be openly discussed but I will try and be as open in what I say as I can. What i will say now is very much MY initial views on the situation. Apologies if it is long and rambling:

- I am obviously unhappy that we are in this position at all. Planning matters have to be decided on the information and data that is available at the time the decision is made. Whilst LDC raised a technicality to challenge the matter, what that has achieved for them is the ability to view what has changed between the time of that decision and now. Please do not believe that this process in any way identifies a detriment in the level and accuracy of data presented by the club, the council or other pro falmer people at the previous inquiries. It does not - in fact, that evidence is still very much correct and valid. For example the traffic issues will not have got better in that time.

- What Lewes have done is akin to a boy who simply doesn't know the subject or the answers, who then sits a GCSE exam and fails. On a technicality they have screamed to the examining board and got a resit. It doesn't necessarily follow that they will have mastered the subject by now.

- There is a very real question over what Lewes have done so far. Using the above analogy, their revision last time was poor. Why else are they now asking to be given the chance to produce more traffic evidence were it not down to the fact that what they produced last time was of insufficient depth, standard or accuracy to respond to the evidence that the club presented. For a council that says it doesn't like wasting money will they be asking for a refund from their traffic consultant for his shoddy work last time?

- In effect the challenge they have been set in this letter appears to be that they will have to achieve the most perplexing, complex and baffling of solutions to one of the biggest issues in Brighton. They have been tasked to not only challenge but solve the inherent transport problems in getting a significant number of people to a stadium in Sheepcote Valley by use of sustainable transport means without the use of a rail network. That is not an easy task for anyone. For their next trick they will bring world peace, explain the meaning of life and tell me why wrong numbers are never engaged!

Oh by the way, in achieving an answer to the above, which has baffled the minds of many, they will also have to do this despite the fact that they are not the planning authority responsible for Sheepcote Valley.

- What this will achieve is the blowing of the myth once and for all, that Woodingdean and Rottingdean have nothing to fear in traffic terms from a stadium at Sheepcote. Expect some very upset people in those two areas when they realise that in assisting Falmer Parish Council, they have in fact exposed themselves to a nightmare scenario for their residents. What good friends eh?

- The evidence they have been asked to clarify and fill in the gaps on are in part down to points made by the Cook Estates people who were trying to promote Toads Hole valley as a site. It's a bit like your mate standing in a pub and calling the bloke next to you an offensive name then running off and leaving you to deal with the situation.

- And here's the best bit - they also have to achieve this despite the Hotel consultants who they are so keen to quote, identifying that this is a huge problem as well as their local MP being unable to come up with another way of getting to Sheepcote without using his car. And trust me, with his green credentials, if anybody would have tried to come up with a sustainable transport method for this it would have been Baker.

The one thing I must say - and this is me being realistic, is that whilst none of the above actually reduces the chances in my view of us getting the stadium - we do need to steel ourselves that there is a very distinct possibility that the public inquiry could be reopened in order to combat LDCs attempts (whatever they are) to try and solve this problem. For example, if they suggest we should all drive and park on madeira Drive and walk over 2 miles to the stadium - the club must challenge this. In that scenario, it is not unlikely that the challenge would need to be undertaken within the rules and process of an inquiry.

Yet another LDC mistruth. They say they are not pressing for a reopened inquiry and then take a course of cation that is very likely to lead to one. I bet they blame someone else for that too.

So what can we do?

As I said earlier, we need to understand the full details and implications of the letter as well as working out (wargaming) the solutions and different outcomes. However all the points I have raised above should indicate the tactics we will need to explore.

There is certainly mileage in questioning once again the use of funds (through leaflets, posters, press articles etc.) by LDC as well as examining what pressure can be put on locals to speak up (and we need to be clear what message we want from them). Don't forget that at the public inquiry the club stated that in pure construction terms, Sheepcote was affordable but the transport let it down. Now just per se Lewes do find and answer to this (not realistic I know judging by the details of the case, the facts as we know them, the reality of transport in Brighton and the performance of LDC and their consultants so far), then we will need to take that on board.

Also, the actions of David Neighbour do kind of play into our hands on this. In his latest diatribe, he manages to make three factual errors. If I were charitable I would say he was mistaken. If I weren't I would say he was lying. You make your own minds up.

There are some on here who say that we are losing the PR battle. Well perhaps we should start telling lies too because that is what has happened so far in their so called victories. However whenever push has come to shove - in the Inquiries, in the court process and in the media when on phone ins and debates, their lies have been exposed. We need to make sure we get LDC into more of these situations.

The only way that is going to be achieved is through the political process. That means joining, funding and working together for the Seagulls Party. We need people who have time and resources to support us in this and we need you now. This is our best aveneue to get equal air time, the right of reply and open and public debates.

If anybody has suggestions for what can and should be done the feel free to come forward with them. Despite a lot of what goes on on NSC, there are some very bright minds who could well come up with some killer ideas that we need to use. If you want to keep it private, you can PM me.

And finally, anybody who may be deficient in the brain cell department and still doesn't believe that LDC are a major contributor to our current financial position, well perhaps you may think differently now. However i still expect to see it written on here and in the papers and on the radio that we cannot keep blaming them. Sorry but we can, we must and we will.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

NOW will people realise that violence has got to be part of our approach?

Er....no.

 

[Brovion]

ROSM - It's not the club losing the PR battle that worries me - it's the fact we're losing the Planning battle. Umpteen misguided letters from local loonies in the Argus I can live with, this is a different problem. Ruth Kelly has said "Sure LDC you can have an extension to gather extra evidence" as opposed to saying "Tough, you've had the chance to present everything, if we hear nothing by Dec 28th we'll assume you have nothing to add." Looking at the position she's taken where do you think her sympathies lie?

This whole thing is making me ill. Can I sue them for mental distress?

 

[Rusco]

- The evidence they have been asked to clarify and fill in the gaps on are in part down to points made by the Cook Estates people who were trying to promote Toads Hole valley as a site. It's a bit like your mate standing in a pub and calling the bloke next to you an offensive name then running off and leaving you to deal with the situation.
QUOTE]




....... or taking some gappy tooth gits photo and starting a fight?

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, I feel a little more assured that things are happening behind the scenes, just wonder if there is any benefit in bringing things out in the open to reassure the masses

Thank you

 

[ROSM]

ROSM - It's not the club losing the PR battle that worries me - it's the fact we're losing the Planning battle. Umpteen misguided letters from local loonies in the Argus I can live with, this is a different problem. Ruth Kelly has said "Sure LDC you can have an extension to gather extra evidence" as opposed to saying "Tough, you've had the chance to present everything, if we hear nothing by Dec 28th we'll assume you have nothing to add." Looking at the position she's taken where do you think her sympathies lie?

This whole thing is making me ill. Can I sue them for mental distress?

I dont believe we are losing the planning battle. In purely planning terms, we have won this battle once before and will win again. I believe even Lewes don't think they can win this in planning terms.

I do think that kelly (or more likely her legal advisors) are desperate to avoid another challenge. As I said earlier plannig matters must be decided on the now situation. Therefore, in the same way as Shoreham harbour cannot be claimed to be a viable site because it 'might' have a £90m new road link and monorail 20 years in the future, I suspect that Kelly is keen to avoid being challenged in the unlikely event that things have significantly changed to the advantage of sheepcote valley since Oct 2005.

In reality, things have only got worse for that site.

Also, Lewes failed to come up with evidence that challenged the Albion information on traffic for sheepcote at the last inquiry and Brier said that he had no reason to doubt the clubs information as there was a deficiency in any evidence that successfully challenged it. Hence why Lewes have now got to prove that not only is the Albion evidence incorrect but that they can demonstrate in planning terms, a solution.

I do apologise for the length of these responses. This is not the kind of thing that can be summarised.

 

[Curious Orange]

I do apologise for the length of these responses. This is not the kind of thing that can be summarised.

No need to apologise. Informed posts such as yours are exactly the sort of thing this thread has needed.

Anyway, seeing as LDC are the schoolboys mucking about at the back of the classroom and not paying attantion to what is going on, do you think throwing board-rubbers at them would help?

 

[Brovion]

I do apologise for the length of these responses. This is not the kind of thing that can be summarised.

As C.O.says there is absolutely no need to apologise, I appreciate you giving us all the information you can. Needless to say I hope you are right.

 

[The Oldman]

BBC South East tonight at 6.28. Lewes DC are on. I presume Neighbour.

 

[London Irish]

.... just maybe she's giving LDC every opportunity to come up with evidence so when she's says's 'YES' as I believe she will, and LDC say 'hold on what about this bit of evidence and you should re-open the public enquiry' she'll say ' look I gave you lot an extra 8 bloody weeks, I've pissed of a great deal of people in my own party as well as the electorate, I've ignored public opnion and I even let you bring new evidence which you had ample chance to do before when I didn't have too'. So tough, live with it.

Exactly. Remember, Kelly's department has to conduct themselves with a bit of humility here, their officials screwed up the last permission! They cannot be seen to be on a confrontational course with Lewes this early in the reopened process by denying them their 7 weeks extension, which to most outsiders will seem a reasonable request (we know it's pernicious time-wasting, but the fairminded outsider will always want to give Lewes the benefit of the doubt).

 

[London Irish]

But couldn't they get another "free shot" next time?

Only if the government makes a mistake in the permission, otherwise it will be very costly for Lewes, and I don't believe these mediocre local politicians have the guts to destroy their careers by spending vast sums of Lewes council tax payers money constantly tilting at windmills.

Ruth Kelly clearly feels the permission hinges around a few key issues, the Sheepcote transport infrastructure is one, the regeneration benefits is another.

I don't understand the pessimism on this board regarding her wanting to look more deeply into these issues, they are all strong ones for us, we have always built our case for a Falmer stadium around them. For me, Kelly is issuing a firm and final challenge to Lewes to come up with hard, credible evidence to rebut our strong positions on these issues. They will fail, and they will be told to f*** off.