New public enquiry

[John Boy]

Are there any other sites apart from Waterhall, Toads Hole Valley, Hove Greyhound Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Brighton Station, Sheepcote Valley and Withdean Stadium being looked into?

The reason I'm asking is that I wasn't sure if Lewes DC or Falmer PC have asked for any other sites to be looked at.

 

[Rangdo]

I don't think Lewes have but Falmer are deliberately holding back until the enquiry to try to surprise everyone so don't expect anything from them until it all kicks off. Bastards.

 

[sams dad]

Are there any other sites apart from Waterhall, Toads Hole Valley, Hove Greyhound Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Brighton Station, Sheepcote Valley and Withdean Stadium being looked into?

The reason I'm asking is that I wasn't sure if Lewes DC or Falmer PC have asked for any other sites to be looked at.

I didn't think it was possible to introduce additional sites now.I thought the new inquiry was only going to look at those sites that have already been identified.FFS at this rate we'll still be waiting for a decision in 2006

 

[dougdeep]

Re: Re: New public enquiry

I didn't think it was possible to introduce additional sites now.I thought the new inquiry was only going to look at those sites that have already been identified.FFS at this rate we'll still be waiting for a decision in 2006

Thats what the nimbys are after, they're hoping we will run out of cash before the decision comes round. That or we change governments.

 

[Rangdo]

Re: Re: New public enquiry

I didn't think it was possible to introduce additional sites now.I thought the new inquiry was only going to look at those sites that have already been identified.FFS at this rate we'll still be waiting for a decision in 2006

I think Lewes have stated that they are happy with the 8. Falmer have refused to disclose what they have so we'll have to wait for the surprises at the inquiry. However, since it has to be in Brighton and Hove it shouldn't be too hard for the Albion to have all bases covered. Also, Falmer Parish haven't got the financial clout of Brighton or Lewes to input the necessary groundwork to present many alternatives.

 

[Rangdo]

Re: Re: Re: New public enquiry

bollocks. pressed quote instead of edit.

 

[Yoda]

I thought they weren't allowed to withhold sites?

 

[Rangdo]

I thought they weren't allowed to withhold sites?

Apparently the major parties aren't and haven't. Falmer have been asked to disclose asap but they don't have to. I suppose the point is if the inspector says they have to disclose by a certain date and then doesn't accept after that we are left open to the nimby's deliberately holding back and then saying "we wanted this site looked at but they wouldn't let us" and prolonging things even further. It's a pain but probably best in the long term. Like I said before theres only a limited number of viable possibilities with Brighton and Hove so if the club do their job there shouldn't be any surprises.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The problem is it's a PUBLIC Inquiry - and any member of the public is entitled to respond to Prescott's invitation to suggest an alternative site that might meet the criteria.

Feel free, for example, to suggest Hove County Cricket Ground.









On second, thoughts ... DON'T!

 

[Another Berkshire Seagull]

Wouldn't that be dismissed on Transportation & Availability terms anyway?

 

[BensGrandad]

The problem is it's a PUBLIC Inquiry - and any member of the public is entitled to respond to Prescott's invitation to suggest an alternative site that might meet the criteria.

Does the inquiry have to confine itself to the predescribed conditions. i.e JP says it must be in Brighton disregarding any FA views could anybody suggest an area on the A27 between say Newhaven and Eastbourne thus forcing the whole proceedure to start again.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Wouldn't that be dismissed on Transportation & Availability terms anyway?

Yes. But only after taking up more time at the Inquiry. And only if the Albion (or someone) spent good money preparing and presenting the rebuttal case.

 

[BensGrandad]

Does the inquiry have to confine itself to the predescribed conditions. i.e JP says it must be in Brighton disregarding any FA views could anybody suggest an area on the A27 between say Newhaven and Eastbourne thus forcing the whole proceedure to start again.

LB Could this be used as a delaying tactic.

I know when a one way system was suggested near one of my pubs the police said certain saftey criteria had to be determined to make it official and if one person obtained 6 signatures against the proposal it would go back to square one and start again and then another person could obtain 6 signatures and go on ad infunitum (sp?)

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Does the inquiry have to confine itself to the predescribed conditions. i.e JP says it must be in Brighton disregarding any FA views could anybody suggest an area on the A27 between say Newhaven and Eastbourne thus forcing the whole proceedure to start again.

Yes. The Inquiry must confine itself to Prescott's terms of reference.

But, depending on the Inspector, there is scope for arguing about what those terms of reference mean. For example ... what is "the conurbation of Brighton and Hove"? Does it mean the City? Or the built-up area? Where exactly does that end?

Plenty of scope for debate and plenty of scope for dragging the Inquiry on, with the Albion having to incur the costs of preparing and presenting rebuttals of any nonsense that a maverick witness chooses to come up with.

Is it any wonder that Tony Blair was talking during the Labour Party Conference about the need to reform the planning system and how he understood the frustration of Albion fans that this is dragging on so long?

 

[BensGrandad]

LB If I am reading your post correctly somebody, lets use perseus as an example, could suggest Pende without any facts and figures to back up his proposal and just rely on by smooth talking be able to persuade the Inspector to consider that site. That if effect would then delay a decision until such time as that has been throughly investgated and would cause an adjournment of the inquiry whilst that happened.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

LB Could this be used as a delaying tactic.

I know when a one way system was suggested near one of my pubs the police said certain saftey criteria had to be determined to make it official and if one person obtained 6 signatures against the proposal it would go back to square one and start again and then another person could obtain 6 signatures and go on ad infunitum (sp?)

The big players (major local authorities - even Lewes) tend to have more respect for the planning process than to allow things to drag on forever. Smaller players (like Falmer Parish Council) usually run out of money and give up.

As far as road schemes like the one you mention are concerned, the police view that you describe isn't strictly correct. Traffic Management schemes are the responsibility of the Highway Authority (in Sussex, that's West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council, or - for trunk roads - the Highways Agency, acting on behalf of the Department for Transport). Those bodies have the power to make the necessary Road Traffic Regulation Orders, but have to listen to objections before they finalise them. Whatever the police may have told you, they do not have to "go back to square one" if they receive objections. They must listen to any objections that are submitted during the six-week objection period, but they can then decide to ignore them if they wish.

 

[BensGrandad]

Many thanks for your views. The question of the one way sytem got lost in local elections etc as most people in the area treated it unofficially as such it was only a pain when somebody didnt and unexpectedly came towards you down a road with cars parked on both sides.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

LB If I am reading your post correctly somebody, lets use perseus as an example, could suggest Pende without any facts and figures to back up his proposal and just rely on by smooth talking be able to persuade the Inspector to consider that site. That if effect would then delay a decision until such time as that has been throughly investgated and would cause an adjournment of the inquiry whilst that happened.

Perseus could, I suppose, put forward his potty scheme for Pende. But he'd need to present a case, not just a smooth tongue.

The Albion would then have to rebut that case.

In the unlikely event that Perseus presented a good case and the Albion couldn't rebut it, it would then be up to the Albion - not the Inspector - to ask for an adjournment. However, in my view, the Inspector would be more likely to expect the Albion to produce the rebuttal without the need for an adjournment.

As I've said above, rebuttals cost money.

 

[Albion Rob]

It's just not going to happen, is it?

Am I right in saying this (and I don't think I am|).

When this public inquiry is over the Albion will have been told wher they can build their new stadium. It may be Falmer or some other site but as soon as it is done and the land is procured then building can begin.

Or could we have a site told to us (ie Waterhall) then have to face another inquiry as Friends of the Earth or whoever oppose that site?

The club's spin seems to be that we have been told we can have a stadium, that's why JP didn't throw it out when his inspectors told him to but I'm not convinced.

If the inquiry continues to be murky, is there jno way the club could sit down with the council and discuss a site that suited everybody, us financially and the council and the people of Brighton and Hove.

This is gettinbg beyond a joke now. I refuse to accept that there is not somewhere in Brighton where a stadium could start building tomorrow if the funds were in place.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Rob...

Don't despair. The answer is Falmer. Always has been. Still is.