Pre-Inquiry Meeting at Brighton Town Hall

[The Large One]

It's not relevant to the Inquiry. It's just as Rangdo says - "they are going to try and squeeze everything they can out of us. It's only natural. Bastards".

They are also upset about some of the things that Collyer said about them in his report and would appear to be seeking an opportunity to whinge about this at the Inquiry. As TLO says, this is irrelevant. But it doesn't stop them trying.

I though that the Inquiry won't be allowed to discuss Collyer's report. Anyway what did Collyer say that so upset them?

Plus... (there'll be plenty more of these my Lord)

If Falmer Parish Council mentions alternatives to the alternatives - call them 'Site X' (despite not being allowed to produce 'rabbits from the hat'), do they still have to stick to the deadline of January 7 to declare it? Can the Inspector reject their proposed Site X on the grounds that he can tell that they are pissing about? Is anything presented after January 7 still allowed to be discussed at the Inquiry?

What happens if Lewes DC start pissing about and don't declare the proofs of evidence by January 7? Can the Inspector do anything about this?

The main thrust of what I am saying is, is the Inspector aware that Lewes District Council and Falmer Parish Council are probably are going to mis-behave and that he will be able to see through this, and what powers does he have for eventually saying 'right, you've had your chance, now you're just messing about and I am not interested in what you have to say...' ?




PS, f*** off Perseus, you f***ing scab.

 

[Easy 10]

the lawyer for Lewes District Council won't be available for a whole week of the Inquiry, yet wants to be present when all of the other major parties are presenting their evidence.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this totally unacceptable ? The Inquiry is only due to run for about 3 weeks, and yet the lawyer for Lewes isn't even going to be present for one third of it, so it seems everyone else has to juggle their timings around to fit in with him.

That is just taking the piss. The Inspector and the other major parties should agree to an agenda and either Lewes D C fit in with the majority, or they get another lawyer who can actually commit the time to carrying out the job he has been employed to do.

This is a hugely expensive Public Inquiry with a government inspector present, it isn't a f***ing knitting circle, you don't just turn up as and when its convenient.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The Uni are well skint, they'll get the club to pay for anything and everything if they can. It's just the way they work.

 

[Heffle Gull]

but they are holding a meeting next week to discuss things.

I this a public meeting?

do we need to send in a mole?

 

[perseus]

Brighton University have a track record for mucking everybody about in development schemes. It is all because they have have not got any money of their own and cannot get any (apparently) for their part of the bargain on a previous occasion (s).

So if any agreement (from previous experience) requires Brighton University paying for part of the capital expenditure, they may say they will do this, but when it comes down to the crunch, they will pull out because they cannot raise the money.

This is secondhand (hearsay) information so it may have lost a bit along the route.

I do not know how it applies to Falmer, but suppose the University lose out in some needed access facilities or whatever, they have not got the dosh to build their own, so they are going to need somebody else to pay for it.

It might have had something to do with the Planning Inquiry before, but I cannot see it has anything to do with the new Planning Inquiry.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Brighton University's track record is consistent.

Fanny about as much as possible. At the very last minute they fall into line.

And, perseus ...
I'm sorry that my earlier irony was lost on you.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Pre-Inquiry Meeting at Brighton Town Hall

I this a public meeting?

do we need to send in a mole?

Rather bravely (I thought), I asked Tom Carr this very question at the end of the meeting.

He spluttered, ummed and aarghed, and eventually admitted that he "didn't know".

"Shall I ask Melanie Cutress?" I said.

"Errr. Yes. Possibly" was the response.

I won't. And I don't think it will help our cause if we try to get someone into the meeting. Remember this is an organisation that has been known to exclude Tim Cutress from meetings in his own front room, on the grounds that he is an Albion season ticket holder and therefore can't be fully trusted.

What we need is for Falmer Parish Council to get on with it, not give them excuses for further delaying the process.

They have, after all, promised the Inspector that they'll try to reveal some of the cards in their hand by the end of October.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I though that the Inquiry won't be allowed to discuss Collyer's report. Anyway what did Collyer say that so upset them?

Plus... (there'll be plenty more of these my Lord)

If Falmer Parish Council mentions alternatives to the alternatives - call them 'Site X' (despite not being allowed to produce 'rabbits from the hat'), do they still have to stick to the deadline of January 7 to declare it? Can the Inspector reject their proposed Site X on the grounds that he can tell that they are pissing about? Is anything presented after January 7 still allowed to be discussed at the Inquiry?

What happens if Lewes DC start pissing about and don't declare the proofs of evidence by January 7? Can the Inspector do anything about this?

The main thrust of what I am saying is, is the Inspector aware that Lewes District Council and Falmer Parish Council are probably are going to mis-behave and that he will be able to see through this, and what powers does he have for eventually saying 'right, you've had your chance, now you're just messing about and I am not interested in what you have to say...' ?




PS, f*** off Perseus, you f***ing scab.

The Inspector hasn't said that he "won't allow" rabbits to be pulled out of the hat. He may have to. This is a PUBLIC Inquiry. What that means is that any member of the public is allowed to make representations about any alternative site they think might meet the criteria. They will be entitled to a hearing and someone would have to prepare counter-evidence.

As an example (I've just dreamt this one up) ... If someone claims that a football stadium on the Level might be a good idea, then the Inquiry would be bound to listen to the arguments. Potentially, this could add to the length of time the Inquiry takes.

It's to stop this sort of disruptive intervention that the Government recognises the need to reform the planning system. Tony Blair "understands the frustration of Albion supporters", if you recall his TV interview at the end of the Labour Conference. But the system hasn't yet been reformed, so we have to play to the existing rules.

The "rabbits out of hats" comment by the Inspector was essentially a hope, directed at the main parties who have legal representation at the Inquiry. The lawyers present all promised to do their best to avoid upsetting the Inspector. We have to trust them.

*Cue stories about how lawyers can't be trusted*

 

[Superseagull]

Sounds like this inspector is determined to keep the new inquiry focused and ain't going to accept any waffle from the Nimbys about theoretial sites for a stadium. Hard facts are going to be considered this time and that will work in our favour. I can see the inspector falling out with Tom Carr & Lewes DC as they ramble on & on about AONB and the vilage pond.

Can't wait to hear what new sites Falmer Parish Council will come up with. Bound to be some mad cap schemes in the true tradition of Parish councils who have not got a clue about any development bigger than new windows in the church hall, litter bins & park benches.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Sounds like this inspector is determined to keep the new inquiry focused and ain't going to accept any waffle from the Nimbys about theoretial sites for a stadium. Hard facts are going to be considered this time and that will work in our favour. I can see the inspector falling out with Tom Carr & Lewes DC as they ramble on & on about AONB and the vilage pond.

Can't wait to hear what new sites Falmer Parish Council will come up with. Bound to be some mad cap schemes in the true tradition of Parish councils who have not got a clue about any development bigger than new windows in the church hall, litter bins & park benches.

Does anyone remember the City Council Planning Committee meeting? The one where they voted 11-1 to give the Club planning permission for Falmer?

Falmer Parish Council turned up at that meeting and suggested that Moulsecoomb Wild Park would be a better site.

I expect it's sites like the Wild Park that we might see emerge from Duck Pond Cottages, once they've had their meeting.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

it sounds a lot closer than some first thought

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I am a tad confused.

As I understood it, Prescott said the there will be a Yes for Falmer if the other sires that are mentioned are not acceptable for development or some such other reason.

If that is so, then I assume as soon as someone mentions Falmer, the inspector will shut them up as its not about Falmer. Which also brings me to the point of why Lewes DC are getting involved. As Falmer has in effect been accepted by JP, then unless LDC come up with some other site ( which if it is Brighton and Hove Authority duristriction then can't comment on anyway) I fail to see what the hell it has to do with them.

 

[The Large One]

When the Albion went about determining the best site - and obviously came up with Falmer - did they rule out places like Wild Park, Preston Park etc? Because if they did, there must be some paperwork somewhere that says why these places are no good. Or did they just not consider them in the first place?

 

[The Large One]

I am a tad confused.

As I understood it, Prescott said the there will be a Yes for Falmer if the other sires that are mentioned are not acceptable for development or some such other reason.

If that is so, then I assume as soon as someone mentions Falmer, the inspector will shut them up as its not about Falmer. Which also brings me to the point of why Lewes DC are getting involved. As Falmer has in effect been accepted by JP, then unless LDC come up with some other site ( which if it is Brighton and Hove Authority duristriction then can't comment on anyway) I fail to see what the hell it has to do with them.

I think that's one of the main reasons for the disgruntlement of the extra £35,000 that they are putting - sorry, wasting - in fighting this.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I am a tad confused.

As I understood it, Prescott said the there will be a Yes for Falmer if the other sires that are mentioned are not acceptable for development or some such other reason.

If that is so, then I assume as soon as someone mentions Falmer, the inspector will shut them up as its not about Falmer. Which also brings me to the point of why Lewes DC are getting involved. As Falmer has in effect been accepted by JP, then unless LDC come up with some other site ( which if it is Brighton and Hove Authority duristriction then can't comment on anyway) I fail to see what the hell it has to do with them.

Exactly.

This point was made by the Albion's lawyer during the discussion about how the Inquiry would manage without the Lewes lawyer being available for a whole week.

The Inspector took the point and agreed that there was no need to give them the adjournment that they seemed to be angling for.

The compromise that was reached was to allocate that week for representations by "Other Interested Parties" - people like the Friends of Sheepcote Valley (who are opposing any development there and were talking about producing evidence from wildlife and bird migration experts).

 

[Lord Bracknell]

it sounds a lot closer than some first thought

Don't panic.

Read the letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 26 July. and ask whether any site that is coming before this Inquiry meets the criteria better than Falmer.

None of them do.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

i think i will only stop worrying when the first brick is layed!

 

[The Auditor]

When the Albion went about determining the best site - and obviously came up with Falmer - did they rule out places like Wild Park, Preston Park etc? Because if they did, there must be some paperwork somewhere that says why these places are no good. Or did they just not consider them in the first place?

Lets hope so or this may be a issue that could deflect the proceedings - would these fall out on the transport issues? are these sites owned by the council who would surely have offered them up as options if they were viable, is it a complete red herring?

 

[Bart]

Question:

I am a tad confused.

As I understood it, Prescott said the there will be a Yes for Falmer if the other sires that are mentioned are not acceptable for development or some such other reason.

If that is so, then I assume as soon as someone mentions Falmer, the inspector will shut them up as its not about Falmer. Which also brings me to the point of why Lewes DC are getting involved. As Falmer has in effect been accepted by JP, then unless LDC come up with some other site ( which if it is Brighton and Hove Authority jurisdiction then can't comment on anyway) I fail to see what the hell it has to do with them.

Answer:
The interpretation of JP’s letter is that there will be a Yes for Falmer if the sites are not acceptable but that isn’t actually what he has said. The re-opened inquiry will have to have Falmer as its reference point as all the alternatives will be judged against it (and each other) so there may be some discussion of the issues surrounding Falmer. This will depend on how the Inspector controls the inquiry.

Question:
When the Albion went about determining the best site - and obviously came up with Falmer - did they rule out places like Wild Park, Preston Park etc? Because if they did, there must be some paperwork somewhere that says why these places are no good. Or did they just not consider them in the first place?

Answer:
If you read Collyer’s report on the application, he gave the evidence produced by the Club on alternative sites quite a mauling. In the circumstances I wouldn’t want to rely solely on what the Club’s advisor’s produced a few years ago. Everything needs to be revisited. (Rhetorical question: would better evidence on alternative sites at the inquiry have avoided the need for the inquiry to be re-opened?)

 

[Spiros]

Surely the simplest/easiest way to deal with the 'rabbit out of a hat' sites is to have a list of every open space in Brighton & Hove which is big enough to take the proposed stadium (however ridiculous it seems). There can't be too many of them. If anyone mentions a site that isn't on the list it can be immediately discounted on the grounds that it isn't big enough. This would almost certainly rule out suggestions like the Level.

It stands to reason that there needs to be a ready case against any site that is big enough - again however stupid the suggestion - as someone is bound to bring it up.

Lord B - I've not seen anything similar to this from the club, but do you know if they've prepared a list of this kind?