Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Poster found in corridor of Brighton & Hove Council Offices



Jam The Man

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
8,284
South East North Lancing
Poster found on bulletin boardof Brighton & Hove Council Offices

Got this from a mate...Can you believe this tosh.. can you believe Brighton & Hove Council are allowing info to be in their building!?

STOP PRESS... turns out that it's a Unison bulletin board message. I'm in UNISON.. how very DARE they represent me!


Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to confirm the award of planning permission for Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club to build a new stadium in the village of Falmer. Lewes District Council is challenging the decision in the High Court. They will be supported there by several conservation bodies, and by the village parish council. Villagers will be required to pay £25 000 up-front for their share of the legal costs, and are urgently seeking donations. Please make cheques out to "Falmer and the South Downs Appeal", and send them to

Falmer and the South Downs Appeal
Falmer Parish Council
Falmer Parish hall
South Street
Falmer
Easy Sussex
BN1 9PQ

The parish council has said that cheque donations will be refunded if the challenge is successful (so write your name and address on the back).

There are many reasons why you should support the appeal. Here's a handful that influenced me.

Planning. Lewes DC say in their press release that the DPM's decision "conflicts with his own government's planning guidance... [and that] a number of important planning issues were either overlooked or not properly considered". In particular, the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (some on the pro-stadium case have argued that perhaps it shouldn't be; nevertheless, it is) and (partially) in the new South Downs National Park. The executive of the South Downs Joint Committee, commenting on the DPM's decision, said "the implications ... are very worrying for all organisations involved in caring for protected landscapes... [the government has] set aside strict national planning policies in favour of local considerations".

The Campaign to Protect Rural England puts it stronger: "... [the] transport interchange on land close to the proposed stadium site [will be] within the proposed boundary of the National Park and within the boundary of Lewes District Council. The proposed stadium site is within the boundary of the existing Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and immediately adjacent to the proposed National Park boundary. [...] Both National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty... [According to PPS7] development should not take place in these areas except in exceptional circumstances ... of national need ..." "Highest status" means exactly that; you cannot get more protected than Falmer. In planning terms, building there is equivalent to building in the middle of the Peak District or the New Forest.

The CPRE adds caustically: "The football club has limited its search for possible development sites to those... not considered suitable for development [and therefore whose price is low]. [...] If the proposed stadium is given the go-ahead, the planning system would effectively be subsidising the football club by relaxing clear planning policies by which everyone is expected to abide." It is interesting that the club has not attempted to get the site's protected status removed; that of course would push up the price of the land.

The planning implications were considered by two independent inspectors appointed by the DPM himself, the first of whom "recommended the Falmer stadium be rejected as unsuitable" and the second of whom "drop[ped] a massive bombshell in his report, ripping apart almost every claim made in support of [a stadium at] Falmer and recommending it be refused" (both quotes from the Albion-friendly Argus). Lewes DC again: "[local plan policies leaving Falmer protected] were endorsed by Government Inspectors through two Public Inquiries, leading to their formal adoption in March 2003. Therefore, they carry great weight in planning decisions.... In planning policy terms, the Football Club rely mainly on the draft planning policy put forward by Brighton & Hove City Council (SR25) for a football stadium at Village Way in [B&H's] Local Plan. This policy was roundly rejected by another Planning Inspector in January 2004, and was recommended to be struck out. Accordingly, it carries very little weight in planning decisions."

Conservation groups also oppose the new stadium because of the DPM's own principle that green-field sites should only ever be built on "in exceptional circumstances" and when brown-field sites are not available. I myself am surprised that we still build on green-field sites at all, for whatever reason; but, in any case, a football stadium is hardly exceptional, and there are brown-field sites available (they may be too expensive for the club, or not to their taste for other reasons, but that's irrelevant to the rules).

The transport concerns - one of the main reasons I personally oppose the stadium (I live in Woodingdean, and expect to be completely grid-locked in on match & special event days, as will Rottingdean, Ovingdean, Falmer, the Universities... - and anywhere east of Wilson Ave, really). Here's Lewes DC's Dereck Wade in his 2003 "proof" [that is, analysis or test] of the evidence: " ... [in] the Withdean data published by [B&H] City Council, only 43.7% use of sustainable transport was achieved against the original forecast target of 75% for the season 1999 to 2000.... This target [has] been reduced to 55% [but it still isn't being met, as evinced by the] fundamental breaching of the parking cordon around [Withdean] on match days... [Similarly, in the case of Falmer,] notwithstanding all the proposed measures aimed at discouraging the use of individual vehicles, ... a significant number of visitors and fans ... will travel by private car.... In this context, the traffic projections as contained in the [club's] Transport Assessment are fundamentally flawed, being based on predicted levels of 71% of non-car use and 29% by private car. But the actual usage at Withdean ... clearly indicates that the Assessment`s assumptions are ... over-optimistic ... I consider therefore that the sustainable transport choices promoted by the Club are no more than theoretical proposals as opposed to hard and fast guaranteed elements as part of their application ... a hope that fans coming to the Football Club and other [users] of the stadium will [not use their cars]." In short, wishful thinking - the club's philosophy ever since they sold their ground in Hove, I'd say.

The club has lost the planning argument. It would now be unjust for them to win by chicanery and electoral blackmail. The place to test the DPM's decision is the High Court, away from grimy everyday politics. If Albion are right, they have nothing to fear and legitimacy to gain from a further review. If they are afraid of this final step, it must be because in their hearts they know there has been something improper and ugly about the DPM's decision.

For the pro-Falmer case see: www.falmer.org.uk.
 
Last edited:




Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
You're trying to catch us out with this wind-up right?

F**king shame that oil depot fire didn't happen in Falmer 'village'.
 
Last edited:


Pigsy

New member
Jul 14, 2004
1,245
That's UNISON even lower in my estimation than before. GMB is the way forward!
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
I'm a little concerned that the momentum is now with the anti-stadium lobby. They are the ones taking action, they are the ones now actively campaigning-for their cause and for funding. Frigging hell-they've even got a campaign poster in Brighton and Hove Council offices!!!

Meanwhile we all sit back assuming that the battle has been won and that the villagers and LDC are simply wasting time and money.

Do we need to keep our own arguments in public view to counter the LDC bullshit?

Maybe there should be some pro-stadium posters in the offices-to add some balance?
 






Bombardier

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 22, 2004
920
Hove actually
And that UNISON rep lives not four doors down from me. He was also a councillor for Wish ward (getting nearer to an address here) but failed to be re-elected as he was....guess what...disillusioned with the Labour party and set himself up as the rep for the George Galloway party.

More dirt if required but in the meantime if this appears to be true, I think I am going to have to have words with him.

PS...funny how he appears NOT to acknowledge me anymore since I have been sporting the little Albion man in the back of my car??
 




Dandyman

In London village.
Re: Poster found on bulletin boardof Brighton & Hove Council Offices

Jam The Man said:
Got this from a mate...Can you believe this tosh.. can you believe Brighton & Hove Council are allowing info to be in their building!?

STOP PRESS... turns out that it's a Unison bulletin board message. I'm in UNISON.. how very DARE they represent me!


...For the pro-Falmer case see: www.falmer.org.uk.

Just a suggestion - but, why not find out if this is coming from your UNISON branch (which seems unlikely) or just some individual using the union noticeboard.
 
Last edited:




Uncle C

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2004
11,713
Bishops Stortford
The Great Cornholio said:
I see their website is on a free host. It would be a shame if they were subject to a denial of service attack.

So how could that happen?
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
Re: Re: Poster found on bulletin boardof Brighton & Hove Council Offices

Dandyman said:
Just a suggestion - but, why not find out if this is coming from your UNISON branch (which seems unlikely) or just some individual using the union noticeboard.

If it UNISON approved then they are being somewhat hypocritical as a quick visit to their website reveals their boasts of their involvement in lifelong learning opportunities....

here
 








Uncle C

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2004
11,713
Bishops Stortford
The Great Cornholio said:
I wouldn't know! :blush:

Seriously, I don't know. I just hope that someone who does know doesn't decide to launch such an attack. That would be terrible if their website didn't work.

I agree this would be a terrible blow for local democracy. But I can't believe any Albion supporters are clever enough to do this. :wave: :wave:
 






Faldo

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
1,648
I didnt think unions could do anything without balloting their membership - at least locally?

So, if not, are they not acting unlawfully, assuming to represent the views of an unconsulted membership?

Faldo says: "Tear them a new @rsehole!"
 


Ex Shelton Seagull

New member
Jul 7, 2003
1,522
Block G, Row F, Seat 175
I think that this poster must be a personal effort, not something that is official UNISON policy. Look at the language used in it, it's all "I oppose it because" and "I don't think we should build anything on green field sites". Seems to me that this is something this bloke has knocked up on his computer at home and has stuck it to the nearest messageboard in a desperate bid to get money off people.
 


Jam The Man

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
8,284
South East North Lancing
It's not come from my employ and the Unison branch here.. I'll try and make some enqs with the Unison reps here though. Like I said it came from a mate at the council.. whether it's legitimately backed by Unison, I don't know... i doubt it a la the post immediately above.
 
Last edited:


Dandyman

In London village.
Ex Shelton Seagull said:
I think that this poster must be a personal effort, not something that is official UNISON policy. Look at the language used in it, it's all "I oppose it because" and "I don't think we should build anything on green field sites". Seems to me that this is something this bloke has knocked up on his computer at home and has stuck it to the nearest messageboard in a desperate bid to get money off people.

Agree with you. Which means that the correct approach is to complain to the UNISON Branch about unauthorised literature on their notice board, whcih may harm UNISON's standing with it's members...
 




Faldo

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
1,648
Ex Shelton Seagull said:
I think that this poster must be a personal effort, not something that is official UNISON policy. Look at the language used in it, it's all "I oppose it because" and "I don't think we should build anything on green field sites". Seems to me that this is something this bloke has knocked up on his computer at home and has stuck it to the nearest messageboard in a desperate bid to get money off people.

A fair point, and reading back, I agree entirely:

Faldo says: Ill conceived reactions often prove foolhardy.
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
Dandyman said:
Agree with you. Which means that the correct approach is to complain to the UNISON Branch about unauthorised literature on their notice board, whcih may harm UNISON's standing with it's members...

...and THEN rip it down and shove it up the backside of the perpetrator:eek:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here