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

The delay could be a blessing - no, really.



larus

Well-known member
To start with, I was sure we would get Falmer, and was a bit irritated by having a new inquiry.

However, as has been posted by people who were predicting the announcement on Mon/Tue, the ODPM has now removed any grounds for a Judicial Review. I'm not a lawyer, but by having an additional inquiry, he has taken away one possible reason that the NIMBY's may have been able to refer to as grounds for the review.

As for delaying a NO until the after the election. The inquiry/report and decision won't take that long. The remit is clearly defined, and some of the sites can be ruled out immediately.

If he wanted to say NO, he could have done so easily. To delay a NO until next year with an election will be ludicrous. You may not vote for the Lib-Dems or Toires, but you would be less willing to vote labour. The time to have said no was earlier this year, as by next year the memories would have faded, and the fans who aren't as committed as us may have still voted Labour. If the decision is still fresh in your mind, you're less likely to.

Look at the other sites, the only realistic one is waterhall, but we stand no chance there being that it's north of the bypass in an AONB. They will all get dismissed, one by one, and the Prescott will look at this report, and compare that to Hoiles recommendations and will be able to go against the advice as it is flawed.

I'm not happy, but the Falmer NIMBY's have had their day (yesterday). Ours is still to come.
 






Scoffers

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2004
6,868
Burgess Hill
I would like to thank the honourable member for Telscombe Cliffs for his most accurate account of the current findings
 










Wardy

NSC's Benefits Guru
Oct 9, 2003
11,219
In front of the PC
Hear, hear. Though there is still a part of me that thinks that Prescot is a politician and they never tell you the full truth.
 






Biscuit said:
Looks like this issue is going to cut the Albion faithful right down the middle.

Quite right, into those who are using knowledge of the planning process and politics to analyse a complex situation and those who are clinging to a few simple-minded beliefs like Middle Age flat-earthers.
 


Rangdo

Registered Cider Drinker
Apr 21, 2004
4,779
Cider Country
larus said:

I'm not happy, but the Falmer NIMBY's have had their day (yesterday). Ours is still to come.

It wasn't their day they just hijacked it. Obviously I'm biased and by no means think its a certainty for us but no matter how I look at it I can't see how they could think it was a victory for them.
 


Scoffers

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2004
6,868
Burgess Hill
It's a victory for them only because we didn't get a resounding Yes. What happens next, is stuff up for debate (quite literally)
 




Scoffers

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2004
6,868
Burgess Hill
or even STILL up for debate

(it's been a long day!)
 


berkshire seagull

New member
Jul 5, 2003
5,707
reading
Can't see this being good whats so ever,as the club needs a ground as soon as pos as debts will mount and yet again the price to build will increase.??? :drink:

Not had a ground now for what 7 years or so grrrrrrrr,just how long does it bloody take and why didn't all this crap i.e othersites get dealt with before is a shambles.:censored:
 


perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,459
Sūþseaxna
The Biscot Aslyum centre example has showed that a Council can fork out the dosh to make a fallacious Judicial Review to the High Court (on the grounds that Prescott over-ruled the Local Inspector) knowing fully well that they would lose, and this was for the sole purpose of causing a further delay. And furthermore, not satisfied about the Judicial Review going against them, they appealed against the decision and it has just gone to the High Court.

They achieved a further year's delay by this tactic. It must also have cost the rate payer a great deal of money.

Don't pick me too much on the details on this one. I think I have got the jist right.

Could Lewes Council do the same?
 
Last edited:




larus

Well-known member
Would they be able as it is outside their area? Surely their tax payers won't be happy (well I won't, and I'm one of them), if they waste the councils money on something not in their district.

Surely a judge would say "What the f*** is it to do with you?"
 


Scoffers

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2004
6,868
Burgess Hill
But perhaps in not so many words!
 


james

Member
May 14, 2004
97
Lindfield
perseus said:
The Biscot Aslyum centre example has showed that a Council can fork out the dosh to make a fallacious Judicial Review to the High Court (on the grounds that Prescott over-ruled the Local Inspector) knowing fully well that they would lose, and this was for the sole purpose of causing a further delay. And furthermore, not satisfied about the Judicial Review going against them, they appealed against the decision and it has just gone to the High Court.

They achieved a further year's delay by this tactic. It must also have cost the rate payer a great deal of money.

Don't pick me too much on the details on this one. I think I have got the jist right.

Could Lewes Council do the same?


I think it's time to boycott Lewes District Council. No wonder my council tax keeps going up!!
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,146
Location Location
I think its fair to say that the majority of constituents in Lewes couldn't really give a toss about the stadium proposals at Falmer. LDC would have to be very, VERY confident of a judicial review successfully overturning the ODPMs decision if he rules in our favour. I can't see them frivolously chucking taxpayers money down the drain merely on a delaying tactic, they'd end up getting lynched.

As for Falmer Parish Council - they clearly would not have the resources to mount a challenge to the ODPM under a judicial review. Is there a wealthy individual amonst the Anti's to risk stumping up the cash ? Doubtful I'd have thought. Would the Falmer residents pool their resources ? Again, its doubtful, specially when you consider that no-one can possibly know how much the costs of a J R could run to. It would be prohibitive though.

Whatever way you cut it, whoever chooses to force a judicial review would have to be seriously confident of getting their way...and if all they can hang their hat on is some other site being more suitable, I think they'll be struggling.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here