WHEN Prescott says YES to Falmer, do the NIMBYs get a chance to appeal?

[Lord Bracknell]

I don't think Falmer do have the money to blow on a Judicial Review. I may be wrong, but I got the distinct impression that they had spent their pot by the time the Inquiry finished.

Bearing in mind that the applicant has to produce the costs of any Judicial Review up front, they'll be in some difficulty, since their next opportunity to levy a massive Council Tax charge won't come until April next year, well after they are out of time to apply to the High Court against a decision announced in October.

As far as grants and loans coming the Albion's way are concerned, some of these would certainly be delayed by any Judicial Review case.

 

[rogue]

I reallly don't see the point in challenging the governments decision if Brighton are granted planning permission.Surley your on a loser already.I really cannot see a general Custer last stand move from the NIMBY supporters.



I'm also confident we will be given permission to build Falmer.

 

[y2dave]

Provided it's a yes(and I think it is given Prescotts carefully worded acknowledgement yesterday) the nimbys have 90 days to lodge an appeal. The club estimated up to a year to modify/remove and replace the existing university buildings. During this time the club should have sorted contracts and funds to allow building to commence. I reckon 3 years after a yes is a fair estimate to when we could move in. I reckon the first game will be towards the end of 2008/9 season.

If they again decide to change the build sequence and finish off the main stand first it may be sooner.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

I reckon the Falmer residents will have another plot up their sleeve. The tree-huggers will probably come to town when the diggers do move in and it'll be Newbury By-Pass all over again

 

[Publius Ovidius]

LB, can we put in progress the applications for tenders for work, during the 91 day period that the NIMBY's have to appeal?

If Not, then lets say 12 months from 31st October 2005 = 31st October 2006.

Pull down Uni buildings = say 12 months = Oct 2007

24 months to build it and put in place road alterations etc etc ( based on Oxford's ground which was prefab, not as fancy as Falmer) = October 2009

I will therefore be 51 before we can move in.

Christ this is rediculous

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

it would be WELL funny if they appealed again, lost, then had a huge wad of legal costs to pay, forcing them to sell their homes and move to moulscoomb or somewhere similar

 

[hans kraay fan club]

LB, can we put in progress the applications for tenders for work, during the 91 day period that the NIMBY's have to appeal?

If Not, then lets say 12 months from 31st October 2005 = 31st October 2006.

Pull down Uni buildings = say 12 months = Oct 2007

24 months to build it and put in place road alterations etc etc ( based on Oxford's ground which was prefab, not as fancy as Falmer) = October 2009

I will therefore be 51 before we can move in.

Christ this is rediculous

Now you're being silly.

A lot of these things will go on concurrently. First job is to gather the funding, but that doesn't stop the tenders going out.

Also, don't get your hopes up. I don't think they'll let you move in.

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

Yes, but they only have 91 days to do so.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Now you're being silly.

A lot of these things will go on concurrently. First job is to gather the funding, but that doesn't stop the tenders going out.

Also, don't get your hopes up. I don't think they'll let you move in.

Tenders will take 12 months, answer given by MP to a question at the fans forum FACT

We cant do any work until tender are agreed, answer given by MP FACT

We can't start on the ground until the Uni buildings are down and resighted!!!!! - see LB andwer above

Where am I being silly?.

 

[Strike]

LB, can we put in progress the applications for tenders for work, during the 91 day period that the NIMBY's have to appeal?

If Not, then lets say 12 months from 31st October 2005 = 31st October 2006.

Pull down Uni buildings = say 12 months = Oct 2007

24 months to build it and put in place road alterations etc etc ( based on Oxford's ground which was prefab, not as fancy as Falmer) = October 2009

I will therefore be 51 before we can move in.

Christ this is rediculous

I was a innocent 11 year old boy when we played our last game at the Goldstone, christ I am going to be 23 and twice the age I mentioned earlier if we get Falmer at the time u say.

 

[Hadlee]

LB, can we put in progress the applications for tenders for work, during the 91 day period that the NIMBY's have to appeal?

If Not, then lets say 12 months from 31st October 2005 = 31st October 2006.

Pull down Uni buildings = say 12 months = Oct 2007

24 months to build it and put in place road alterations etc etc ( based on Oxford's ground which was prefab, not as fancy as Falmer) = October 2009

I will therefore be 51 before we can move in.

Christ this is rediculous

I'm not Lord B but I would have thought that the process for tenders would start straight away as I cannot see MP or DK sitting on their arses for 3 months waiting to see if any NIMBY appeals.

Also surely it does not take 1 year to pull down a few buildings ?? a month at most.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Also surely it does not take 1 year to pull down a few buildings ?? a month at most.

1 month? to pull down about 10 buildings, take away all the crap, re-level the site? Do you want to quote me on a conservatory mate..


LB, do we have to build the Uni buildings before we start on the stadium?

 

[The Large One]

1 month? to pull down about 10 buildings, take away all the crap, re-level the site? Do you want to quote me on a conservatory mate..


LB, do we have to build the Uni buildings before we start on the stadium?

Three buildings are coming down, and yes, it's only about a month. Meanwhile, other aspects of the construction continue around that area of the site. It's not a case of everything stops for the buildings to come down. Jeez, we have an entire road networl infrastructure to build as well, and that's not even on the stadium site.

The new Uni buildings are on the other side of the campus to the stadium.

Dave, stop flapping, you girl.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Three buildings are coming down, and yes, it's only about a month. Meanwhile, other aspects of the construction continue around that area of the site. It's not a case of everything stops for the buildings to come down. Jeez, we have an entire road networl infrastructure to build aas well, and that's not even on the stadium site.

Dave, stop flapping, you girl.

Whose flapping? He hasn't even said Yes yet!!!!

I am 1000000000000000000% convinced he will say No, because Sheepcoat Valley is an alternative ( albeit a shitty one)

I wait to be pleasantly surprised when I am wrong

 

[The Large One]

Whose flapping? He hasn't even said Yes yet!!!!

I am 1000000000000000000% convinced he will say No, because Sheepcoat Valley is an alternative ( albeit a shitty one)

I wait to be pleasantly surprised when I am wrong

You northern nob. Sheepcote is NOT an alternative. Unless you are a wanker.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

No need to resort to petty insults is there?


So I am a nob then...as much as you are a nob who was telling me how the original inspectors were convinced of our arguements and we would get a YES the first time round?

I bet you a crisp tenner he says yes to sheepcoat.

 

[The Large One]

I wasn't specifically referring to you as a wanker, dearest. I am just amazed and flabbergasted that you can consider Sheepcote a viable alternative. It's just plain shit.

However, I'll have your tenner and raise you a tenner.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I am not suggesting it you tit, I was saying that Prescott asked that for falmer to be agreed there be no other site available.

reading LB and other's report on the 2nd PI, the case made for Sheepcoat appeared to be sound -even if we would all ( including me) think it was a crap site.

I refer you to the first enquiry when everyone thought the two inspectors were on our side and turned out not to be.....it is only the goodness of Prescotts heart that we are in this position now.

With all due respect to you and LB, you were wrong then and I hope you are wrong again. You can buy me a pint tonight and I will forgive you for misleading us so last time.

 

[The Large One]

Sheepcote (the site) is sound, but Sheepcote (the location) is dire. Transport issues, old love.

One of the reasons Prescott didn't say YES was because the case had not been proven that nowhere else was available and suitable.

One of the reasons he didn't say NO was because those reports got it so badly wrong. They were not up to speed on the latest government policies and commented on things outside their remit.

It was hardly Prescott's good heart that got us the re-opened inquiry but common sense and proper legal procedures. You can blame me if you want, but I am happier to blame two ill-conceived and badly-written reports.

However, I'll still HAPPILY buy you a pint.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

No I am sorry it was all your fault


See you tonight