The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

[The Oldman]

Re: Re: Re: The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

Don't get me wrong, Mr Hark.

I'm as angry as you are about the delay.

The thing to cling on to is that, however long it takes, it'll be Falmer - and that will be quicker than any alternative.

The bit of the correspondence I haven't yet quoted gives us much more grounds to be cheerful.

LDC wrote to Ruth Kelly's department on 21 November, seeking clarification of something that the DCLG had written the previous day:-

In paragraph 3b you [the DCLG] set out three bullet points as follows:

"+ any national considerations
+ the need for regeneration
+ the impact of permitting the proposed development, or refusing it, upon the local economy"

We can see where the first and third of these bullet points have come from in that they are lifted directly from paragraph 22 (i) of PPS7 [the statement of government planning policy on development in rural areas and AONBs]. We do not know where the second bullet point ie "the need for regeneration" comes from. It forms no part of the public interest test set out in PPS7. So why is it included here?

The answer from Ruth Kelly's department was this:-

The need for regeneration is a matter on which the Secretary of State has asked parties to make representations. While not mentioned in paragraph 22 of PPS7, regeneration and sustainable economic growth are mentioned in the list of the Government's Objectives and in the section "Sustainable Rural Communities, Economic Development and Services". The regeneration benefits of the proposeal were also a matter referred to in your authority's [ie LDC's] claim to quash the original decision on this case, and are a matter on which the Secretary of State would like to see more information.

In other words ... Ruth Kelly's people are telling LDC that the council don't understand the planning process and that the undoubted regeneration benefits of Falmer ARE a factor that can and will influence Ruth Kelly's decision.

Which is very good news.

Ed is there any reason why the whole correspondence between Lewes and Kelly cannot be seen by us?

 

[Screaming J]

Re: Re: Re: The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

Don't get me wrong, Mr Hark.

I'm as angry as you are about the delay.

The thing to cling on to is that, however long it takes, it'll be Falmer - and that will be quicker than any alternative.

Sorry Lord B, but I am having trouble with your assertion above. That is for two reasons, one planning and one not.

(1) I am concerned that La Kelly may well decide that the transport concerns around Sheepcote are - at best - 'unproven'; i.e. that the club/Brighton & Hove Council haven't proved that Transport difficulties are insurmountable. On that basis she may reject Falmer. We then - by implication - have to apply for a site at Sheepcote which we know will never be approved by Brighton Council and if we appeal on rejection and it is taken to PI will mean even more objections than to Falmer.

(2) The 'however long it takes' you use has me filling my kecks. How can the club continue to survive in all the continuing hiatus surrounding this whole issue, which I can now see lasting potentially another 2-3 years? Which is just - as we both know - what the bastard scum who control LDC want.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "deficiencies in the evidence" about Sheepcote Valley

Ed is there any reason why the whole correspondence between Lewes and Kelly cannot be seen by us?

None whatsoever.

Apart from the fact that I haven't got it in electronic form.

It's all in the public domain.

 

[ac gull]

Guess the future timetable is now:

15 Feb - evidence submitted

by 15 Aug - Govt have to give decision by then within six months of evidence closure

Thus we MUST WIN controlling votes as LDC councillors for SEAGULLS PARTY next May - we will need to get between 5 and 10 councillors elected to ensure LDC council is no longer under Lib Dem control

If we hold casting votes on LDC then there can be no appeals against another YES decision for Falmer

Assuming worst case is that LDC still Lib Dem, they would then still appeal to high court again, have case thrown out, and waste another year until summer 2008 in the process

Thus ground would start to be built at end of 2009 and would open in summer of 2011

Most depressing thing is if LDC had challenged YES decision last autumn, we would be ON SITE at Falmer about now, with ground due to open in summer of 2008

LDC have already ensured the earliest ground can open is 2010, possibly 2011 if more delays

And all because of a clerical error in the wording of the decsion letter!!!

No wonder Martin Perry does not explode in anger at times - probably does I suspect!!!

 

[Dover]

Many thanks for Lord B and others who have explained what is going on to a simple soul.

I am at the end of my tether, and if the delay goes on by this time next year will, consider direct action.

 

[lovelyboy]

Does anyone know how much we are losing per year due to all of this...

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Apart from the delay - which is potentially VERY serious - I think it is.

Lord B - you say the delay is potentially VERY serious.

Is that because of the political timetable - ie May Elections etc, or because of lack of Cash that the club doesn't have?

Are we waving bye bye to Cox and Lynch in January to pay for these delays?

IF ANYONE - especially Ian Hart on the phone in, claims that LDC are NOT affecting the playing side of the Club they are seriously mistaken.

LDC know they will not win the planning battle, but they can do untold damage to the club financially in the meantime.

Download and get your Seagulls Party membership forms NOW!!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Lord B - you say the delay is potentially VERY serious.

Is that because of the political timetable - ie May Elections etc, or because of lack of Cash that the club doesn't have?

Don't take a Lord B to answer that one. Lack of cash is the bottom line, and through it, the club are slowly but surely slipping down the leagues through lack of investment while any money generated by the club's admirable youth policy - and any other windfall that comes their way - is chucked into the black hole of Falmer.


Vote the current LDC out and Things Can Only Get Better. As it were.

 

[ditchy]

She won't say "You can have a stadium at xxx". She can only say "You can't have one at Falmer. You will have to apply for planning permission somewhere else".

Dont forget ...

It would take a year or so to prepare the full plans, And we haven't begun to negotiate the acquisition of an alternative site. And the City Council are opposed to a stadium at Sheepcote Valley, Toads Hole Valley and Waterhall. As things stand at the moment, there would be a load of preparatory work to do. And it would be unlikely that the Council would give us planning permission.

If they turn us down, we'd have to appeal. And that would mean another Public Inquiry.

Thanks for that LB .. but correct me if im wrong but didnt the city vote for a stadium in the town so if Falmer were to fall through would the council not come up with another site if it had to ?