Toads Hole Valley - Argus Letters Page

[Easy 10]

Fair point TLO - I got drawn in by some of Perseus's statements and started trying to address/debate them. Shan't bother in future, I might have known !

 

[perseus]

FFS You brainless bellend. The 'strong case' is contained in the evidence supplied at the Inquiry - not in what the Argus peddles in order to sell its papers.

Easy 10 - you were a wee bit wrong there, it's not like talking to a small shrub - they can grow in to something pretty and nicely-scented. It's like talking to a bowl of turgid cat sick.

You're WRONG!

We have to have to have the media on our side. The Public Inquiry result might do it on its own, but I would want a helping hand from the Argus and all the high circulation media.

The people have to come through the turnstiles to pay off the wacking great mortgage.

The fans can help by writing informed letters, fanzines etc.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If anyone is interested in what will appear in tonight's Matchday Programme about the THV offer, here it is:-


Day 17 – Tuesday 8 March

Today we had the first appearance of the representatives of the owners of Toads Hole Valley. Robert Stiles, Director of Stiles Harold Williams, was their main witness, there to demonstrate that a stadium at Toads Hole Valley was a realistic proposition and that it could be built there without incurring unaffordable development costs. He failed.

He did, however, set out the terms on which the Albion might be allowed to move there. A couple of options were on offer. The Club could have the site at a peppercorn rent (plus a premium payment up front of £500,000 a hectare), subject to agreeing to pay all of the development costs, including the necessary roadworks and other infrastructure costs.

Alternatively, subject to planning permission being given for an adjacent business development and the Albion funding all infrastructure costs, the Club could have eight hectares of land for a stadium and parking, alongside the business space.

Either of these options, said Mr Stiles, would be much cheaper than Falmer.

This looked to be a tremendously attractive deal. Until, as the details unfolded, it emerged that Mr Stiles’ costings were about £24.8 million less than the costs that Martin Perry estimated. Extraordinary. How come?

Well, for a start, Mr Stiles believed that a stadium and parking would fit on a site of eight hectares, not the 11 hectares that the Club considered necessary – ‘a total waste of land’, said Mr Stiles. There would be no community facilities. There was no need for an ‘iconic’ stadium. There would be no protection of the aquifer. Only 700 parking spaces would be provided, not 1,467. The road access costs would be negligible. Off-site road improvements weren’t included. There was no allowance for inflation between now and building the stadium. Less parking was part of Mr Stiles’ proposals, and his project costs didn’t include the costs of the extra park and ride facilities that he agreed would be necessary.

But, no matter, Mr Stiles considered that his cut-price stadium would be affordable. He even claimed that it would bring public benefits, because not building a stadium in Falmer would ‘free up land for the University to build on and would free up grants that could be used elsewhere’. Or, to put it another way, the Albion wouldn’t benefit from them. Nor would the people of East Brighton. Marvellous.

It was quite apparent that the owners of Toads Hole Valley had an agenda of their own. Local planning policy rules out development on the site, which is currently an AONB and may yet be in the National Park.

Mr Stiles claimed he was only motivated by a wish to help the Albion get a stadium. But, to Jonathan Clay, he seemed much more interested in getting a lucrative commercial development for his clients. The site was only being offered up if current planning policy could be breached. And the figures were being manipulated to suggest that the deal on offer would benefit the Albion financially.

Mr Clay put it succinctly. ‘Mr Stiles, do you know what the word ‘disingenuous’ means?’




Day 18 - Wednesday 9 March

...

At the end of the session, an opportunity was given to the Toads Hole Valley representatives to question Martin Perry’s assertion that their offer of ‘free land’ (trumpeted in an Argus headline earlier in the day) came with an obligation to spend £24.8 million on supporting infrastructure. Mr Blaney announced calmly that his clients weren’t going to challenge Martin Perry’s figures.

 

[The Large One]

You're WRONG!

We have to have to have the media on our side. The Public Inquiry result might do it on its own, but I would want a helping hand from the Argus and all the high circulation media.

The people have to come through the turnstiles to pay off the wacking great mortgage.

The fans can help by writing informed letters, fanzines etc.

WTF?

 

[Easy 10]

Give it up TLO. I have.

Its easier in the long run.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Well, under Simon Bradshaw's editorship, I was 100% confident that the Argus was behind us. He's an incredibly bright guy, he's a big football fan and was totally convinced of the pro-stadium case.

The trouble is, he's gone now. Under him, the Argus was a bit of a one-man show and I don't have similar confidence in the calibre of editorial management that are now left behind.

I didn't see the Argus article that Lord B and TLO are complaining about, but I've been gritting my teeth waiting for something shit like this to happen. It's not a sign that the Argus has changed editorial direction, it's just a sign that, after Bradshaw, the newpaper is just not as competent a journalistic product.

It's one of the oldest hack f***-ups in the book believing a developer's words at face value without doing the research. What the Argus did wrong was to treat the inquiry business as a court of law where it is usual to just report the side of the case that the reporter is present for. But of course the issues are not sub judice in the same way so the Argus SHOULD have sought a balancing comment to the developer's PR exercise, which would have given readers both sides of the story.

The new editor Michael Beard has yet to arrive and you've just got the paper treading water at the moment led by mediocre hacks who've never had the guts to go to the nationals to work.

Writing letters to the Argus is a very good idea because it will show Beard the strength of feeling of the issue among Albion fans (I think he's due to arrive very shortly). He is coming from the Hastings paper, so should be familiar with Sussex issues, but you never know. Before that he was at Plymouth, where it's fair to say he was not universally popular among his fellow hacks, according to what I picked up at the weekend. Graduate of charm school he ain't, but let's hope he refocuses the Argus behind the pro-stadium fight.

The letters' page thing is a red herring, the NIMBY idiot is entitled to his view and the Argus letters editor doesn't have time to append explantory footnotes to that definition of the word "free" or any of the other thousands of dubious opinions that appear on the letters' page. But there are no such excuses for the reporter, news editor and subs who let through a misleading account of the THV situation. The Argus do an editorial feedback column every Friday and they should be called to account for their THV coverage there.

There is a massive difference in the coverage that the Argus is giving to this Inquiry, compared with the first one.

At the first Inquiry, reporter Chris Baker was present on most days and delivered fairly comprehensive reports. He spent quite a lot of time talking informally with a number of the parties to the Inquiry and took the trouble to delve beneath the surface.

Rob Hustwayte simply isn't being given the time to do the same job. He's been able to be in Brighton Town Hall only on about four or five occasions - and then only for a couple of hours at a time. As it happens, I find him to be sympathetic to the Albion's cause, but professional in his reporting. However, as LI points out, he's only able to report what unfolds in front of him, while he's there.

Chris Baker's brief clearly went further - he reported and he analysed. It's a shame that the Argus doesn't seem to be doing this anymore. (And I'm not just thinking of their Inquiry coverage).

 

[Lady Bracknell]

We have gotta do both.

Have a sound case and PR machine to back it all up. The strong case is the most important bit.

You utter PRIVET, Horton.

 

[dougdeep]

You utter PRIVET, Horton.

Language young lady,

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

On reflection, it was premature. The important time to get the Press Statement out is at the summing up stage.

I think the Argus would want the information from the Albion.

If you put information in a letter to the Argus, the sub-editors may want to verify any details (cost of land) and they may edit this bit out (even if you include the sources for them to verify).

The recreational bit, I am not sure of. I have played football a long time ago at Toad's Hole until the mist came down and we couldn't see. Unlike Sheepcote, it is not public open space. I think it is described in the Local Plan as benign trespass land. Therefore, it is not protected by the planning guidelines for open spaces like Sheepcote. It is still an AONB though.

The reporters could conceivably interview anybody appearing at the Public Inquiry for their views.

That still doesnt answer my question about being able to prepare a press statement with facts that the club didnt know about at the time you wanted the press statement to be handed out. So therefore I still owe Easy 10 a Pizza, thanks a lot.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Unlike Sheepcote, it is not public open space. I think it is described in the Local Plan as benign trespass land. Therefore, it is not protected by the planning guidelines for open spaces like Sheepcote. It is still an AONB though.

I know you haven't been at the Public Inquiry, perseus. If you had been, you would know that you are - yet again - wrong.

Currently, THV is protected by its AONB status. If that status disappears (which will depend on the decision of the Secretary of State about the National Park Boundary), it will then enjoy the protection of Brighton & Hove City Council's Policy NC6 (in the new Local Plan).

That is exactly the same policy that protects Sheepcote Valley against development.

So you can re-phrase what you wrote:-

"THV is protected by the planning guidelines for open spaces like Sheepcote, with - for the moment - the added protection of being an AONB".