Argus NIMBY-slaying

[Nemesis]

i think you'll find 5000 signatures in 48 hours speaks volumes for the feelings of LDC voters

Now look here-we'll have none of this accurate and truthful facts argument. Septic doesn't understand that concept-preferring, as he always does, to use the LDC, behind closed doors, lying bunch of bastards style of democracy.

He clearly is one of the NIMBY's bitches and has to stay within Cuttress's and DeVagi's guidelines.

 

[Brovion]

Nothing I have read here makes me feel any different about the stadium. ...

Some advice: you're not going to win on facts so stick to abstract concepts.

No one's expecting you to change your opinion. Your next post should be something along the lines of "Ok, so even if Falmer IS the best site in the Brighton and Hove conurbation - it's still wrong and I will contine to oppose it." This is pretty much what you said in one of your first posts and as I said about ten pages ago that is a perfectly valid opinion. Where you've let yourself down is trying to argue details with people who have lived and breathed this for the last TEN YEARS.

I would like to know how you feel about the other developments planned in Brighton (Black Rock, Marina, King Alfred) and what you think about the proposed wind turbine at Glyndebourne. (Something else that has a practical use).

 

[Nemesis]

I would like to know how you feel about the other developments planned in Brighton (Black Rock, Marina, King Alfred) and what you think about the proposed wind turbine at Glyndebourne. (Something else that has a practical use).

I'd be more interested to learn how he feels about some EXISTING developments/buildings in Brighton and or Sussex-starting with his own house which is built on what was, at some time, virgin downland.

If the likes of Septic and his fellow anti-football bigotted NIMBYs had been around during periods of Brighton's past we wouldn't have any of the buildings that are special to Brightonians.

His, De Vagi's, Cutress's, LDC's, FPC's, Neighbour's, Pepper's and CPRE's anti-stadium stance has nothing to do with protecting pristine downland-it is all about anti-football snobbery. We know it, he knows it, so why don't they just be honest about it?

 

[Brovion]

I'd be more interested to learn how he feels about some EXISTING developments/buildings in Brighton and or Sussex-starting with his own house which is built on what was, at some time, virgin downland.

If the likes of Septic and his fellow anti-football bigotted NIMBYs had been around during periods of Brighton's past we wouldn't have any of the buildings that are special to Brightonians.

His, De Vagi's, Cutress's, LDC's, FPC's, Neighbour's, Pepper's and CPRE's anti-stadium stance has nothing to do with protecting pristine downland-it is all about anti-football snobbery. We know it, he knows it, so why don't they just be honest about it?

There was once an incredibly humourous, brilliantly-written article in the old fanzine 'Keep the Faith' about that very subject. I'll have to see if the sadly-underrated author has a copy of it.

 

[Brovion]

... Yes he did! This was published some time in 2001!


“We just don’t want it there!”

We all know that there is an unholy alliance of misguided environmentalists and terminally selfish NIMBYS opposed to Falmer. I’ve been going back through the local records and I wasn’t surprised to discover that every major development in Brighton has had its critics. Here’s a selection of what I found:


Railway station ‘will ruin the area’
(From the Evening Argus, 1838)

Campaigners are up in arms about the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway’s plans to build a major new rail terminus at Brighton. The LBSCR have appointed David Mocatta as the architect and are said to be ‘very impressed’ with his designs. “The station will be a visually stunning structure of brick, glass and steel,” said an LBSCR spokesman, “It will quickly become an integral part of the town and an essential facility that will serve Brighton for many, many years.” He went on to add, “If we miss this opportunity to stay abreast of the modern era future generations will forever condemn us for our narrow, parochial thinking; they will see the objections raised by our opponents and laugh at us for taking them seriously.” A local supporter of the scheme agreed. “Other towns have built new stations so why should Brighton be condemned to stay as a decaying, Regency backwater? I hope the Town Councillors have enough vision to support the scheme.”

However Mr. Paul East, convener of the Brighton branch of the Luddite Party, was unimpressed. “The population of London is nearly half a million. What if they all decide to visit Brighton at the same time? How will the town, the trains and this supposedly wonderful station cope? - the LBSCR have absolutely no coherent plans to deal with this possibility.” He then added, “Anyway the people of Brighton don’t want or need such a huge monstrosity blighting the town, also it’s been proved that the transportation of people above speeds of 20 mph is dangerous and should be banned. Why can’t they be happy with horse-drawn vehicles and coaching inns?”

Local residents were outraged at the plans. “High up on the western side of Brighton is totally the wrong place to build a station,” said one, “We’ll all suffocate in our beds because of the smoke - not that we’ll be able to get much sleep anyway because of the constant whistling and clanking from the locomotives and the foul language from the railway gangers.” Her friend Mrs. Codfish agreed. “We just don’t want it there.” she said.

NOTE: The Argus is running a campaign to support the proposed new station - but read this and every other issue for unedited, wholly critical articles masquerading as news items.


Proposed Royal Pavilion ‘will ruin the area’
(From the Evening Ash Grate, 1801)

Campaigners are up in arms about the Prince Regent’s plans to build a huge summer palace in the middle of Brighton. Despite the objections architects William Porden and John Nash maintain that the new development will be an asset to the town “The Pavilion will be a unique building.” said Nash, “Not only will it put the new town of Brighton firmly on the map but it will give it a place in history that lesser towns can only dream of.” He admitted that some people might question the need to build such a large dwelling when the prince already owned a house in the town but he maintained that the existing farmhouse, despite skillful work by Henry Holland, was simply “too small”.

However protesters are unconvinced. “We’ve seen the plans and it’s nothing more than a grotesque series of upturned bowls and silly, spikey towers,” said one. “Not only will it utterly spoil the natural beauty of the area but we’re happy the way we are and we certainly don’t want the Prince Regent and all his friends coming down every weekend. As soon as it’s finished there will be hundreds of these so-called ‘Dandies’ running amok through our beautiful Lanes aggressively waving their handkerchiefs and powdered wigs at innocent bystanders. And where are they going to put all the Sedan chairs? The Royal Family just can’t answer that question.”

Local residents too joined the protests. An inhabitant of the Lanes said “The seaside is totally the wrong place to build such a massive palace, why doesn’t he build it in Germany where his family comes from?” Another added: “If this vulgar eyesore is built I’ll never be able to walk along the beach and feed the seagulls in peace again.” Her friend Mrs. Codfish agreed. “We just don’t want it there.” she said.

NOTE: The Ash Grate is running a campaign to support the Royal Pavilion - but read this and every other issue for unedited, wholly critical articles masquerading as news items.


Cottage development ‘will ruin the area’
(From the Evening Archer, 1580)

Campaigners are protesting are about developers’ plans to build a series of cottages in the heart of Brigthelmstone. Supporters claim that this development, to be known as ‘The Lanes’, will enhance Brighthelmstone’s reputation as a fishing village and encourage more trade.

Opponents of the scheme are appalled at the prospect. “It’s totally the wrong place to build a set of fishermen’s cottages” said one protester. “More people in the centre of Brigthelmstone is exactly what we don’t want,” said another, “Remember what the French raiders did in 1514? This will be even worse. Every Saturday afternoon they’ll be hundreds of demented fishwives, high on fumes from smoking kippers, running amok through our peaceful little village.” Her friend Mrs. Codfish agreed. “We just don’t want it there.” she said.

NOTE: The Archer is running a campaign to support the Lanes development - but read this and every other issue for unedited, wholly critical articles masquerading as news items.


Wooden huts ‘will ruin the area’
(From the Evening Marsh Gas, circa 400AD)

If there were any local residents they would doubtless be complaining about plans to build a settlement of wooden huts at the mouth of a small river. One of them would have said “It’s totally the wrong place to build a village.” Her friend Mrs. Codfish would have added “We just don’t want it there.”

However a passing fisherman said, “One day on these marshy fields between the Downs and the sea a great city will be built. It will be a striking mixture of architectural styles and tastes; it will have shops, universities, good communication links, a vibrant nightlife and a cultural diversity that will see it host the largest Arts festival in England and also be home to sports teams that will give it pride, win it respect and give it a sense of community focus. These factors will combine to make it the envy of many places in Europe three times its size and the only people who can stop this city from evolving and improving throughout the ages are small-minded yokels for whom any change is for the worse.”

NOTE: The Marsh Gas is running a campaign to support the building of Wooden Huts - but read this and every other issue etc. etc. etc. etc.


Plus ca change!

‘ofab’

 

[antifalmer]

Some advice: you're not going to win on facts so stick to abstract concepts.

No one's expecting you to change your opinion. Your next post should be something along the lines of "Ok, so even if Falmer IS the best site in the Brighton and Hove conurbation - it's still wrong and I will contine to oppose it." This is pretty much what you said in one of your first posts and as I said about ten pages ago that is a perfectly valid opinion. Where you've let yourself down is trying to argue details with people who have lived and breathed this for the last TEN YEARS.

I would like to know how you feel about the other developments planned in Brighton (Black Rock, Marina, King Alfred) and what you think about the proposed wind turbine at Glyndebourne. (Something else that has a practical use).

What I'm not going to do now, as I have in the past in the Argus threads, is go through the documentation and then extract snippets to support my argument - I just can't be bothered enough, which is why I am unmoved by the arguments I have read here. Been there, done that, and I remain unbowed.

What seems to me very obvious is that the choice of location in an AONB is primarily what has caused the delays. It has given LDC every opportunity to play by the book and delay. Did you think they could just be bullied into rolling over? It was obvious that there would be huge opposition to the plan - remember there are 39 million day visits to the Downs each year. I would like to understand why you feel that LDC don't have the right to reject a planning application that affects their own land? I also notice the most vocal B&HAFC fans seem not to be local. What does it have to do with anyone living outside of the two authorities?

Other developments: Always difficult to say, because by and large feelings on these developments is affected by one's own taste in architecture etc. If the developments meet the planning criteria then I'm happy for them to go ahead, even if I don't like them myself, as long as the process has been fair and rigorous. I like the idea of the i360. The King Alfred looks awful, and thank God I don't live near it; I pity the residents who will be blighted by it. Where will the extra cars park? Where will kids go to school? The marina needed a covenant overturning in order to get permission; given that the thing was signed in good faith, I think that is very disappointing. Black Rock; no idea. Glyndebourne wind turbine - probably the rejection is a good thing, but again, I haven't followed the saga.

The appearance of a building may not lead on to a good experience. Example: The new Brighton library. We went to look at it and my wife asked: "Where are the books?" In this case the function should come first, but clearly the appearance won out.

To quote from the CPRE website:

"Whilst CPRE Sussex have no objection with the Club's desire for a new stadium, the decision to place it at Falmer flies in the face of planning policy specifically designed to protect these areas of high conservation value. The decision makes a mockery of government planning policies and, as such, is surely political".

Also:

"Previous Public Inquiries had rejected this site in environmental grounds. We can only assume that the Deputy Prime Minister has bowed to party political pressure to overturn the statutory planning procedure. This decision totally invalidates the planning process and begs the question of the faith accepted in the past that any decision is unprejudiced by partisan presentation".

Even if the stadium is given planning permission, what is concerning is that the Minister has the freedom to do whatever they want, as if it were their own little fiefdom. This is a huge responsilbility and should not be abused nor perceived to be abused if stringent rules and regulations exist. You could easily argue that the fact they have so much latitude has contributed to the delay. If the rules were cast in stone, another location would have been found by now outside the AONB. Nothing will persuade me differently. As B&HCC say in their recent local plan, if the govt. say no, they will work with the club to find another location. If there's nowhere, why say it? Do you really think if the decision is a no that you won't either hang on at Withdean or get Sheepcote Valley? Withdean can also accommodate the average crowd from the last ten years at the Goldstone. I believe also that your attendances are in line with the division you're in. You couldn't fill Withdean whilst in the Championship.

There will be novelty value when Falmer gets built (which it will). This will see initial large crowds. However, looking at attendances from other clubs, there is no reason to think that attendances will be anything other than in line with divisional averages. Withdean's capacity would be suitable for all of the clubs in CCFL1 with the exception of four clubs. Your problem in terms of attendance is that you play in a low division, and that your ticket prices are more expensive than a number of Premier League clubs. I did an exercise last year looking at the club's prices versus the premier league. Did you know it's cheaper to go and see Chelsea in some parts of Stamford Bridge?

Anyway, this is my last post, I wish you well at Falmer, I won't be back to see the inevitable abuse.

 

[Nemesis]

What I'm not going to do now, as I have in the past in the Argus threads, is go through the documentation and then extract snippets to support my argument - I just can't be bothered enough, which is why I am unmoved by the arguments I have read here. Been there, done that, and I remain unbowed.

What seems to me very obvious is that the choice of location in an AONB is primarily what has caused the delays. It has given LDC every opportunity to play by the book and delay. Did you think they could just be bullied into rolling over? It was obvious that there would be huge opposition to the plan - remember there are 39 million day visits to the Downs each year. I would like to understand why you feel that LDC don't have the right to reject a planning application that affects their own land? I also notice the most vocal B&HAFC fans seem not to be local. What does it have to do with anyone living outside of the two authorities?

Other developments: Always difficult to say, because by and large feelings on these developments is affected by one's own taste in architecture etc. If the developments meet the planning criteria then I'm happy for them to go ahead, even if I don't like them myself, as long as the process has been fair and rigorous. I like the idea of the i360. The King Alfred looks awful, and thank God I don't live near it; I pity the residents who will be blighted by it. Where will the extra cars park? Where will kids go to school? The marina needed a covenant overturning in order to get permission; given that the thing was signed in good faith, I think that is very disappointing. Black Rock; no idea. Glyndebourne wind turbine - probably the rejection is a good thing, but again, I haven't followed the saga.

The appearance of a building may not lead on to a good experience. Example: The new Brighton library. We went to look at it and my wife asked: "Where are the books?" In this case the function should come first, but clearly the appearance won out.

To quote from the CPRE website:

"Whilst CPRE Sussex have no objection with the Club's desire for a new stadium, the decision to place it at Falmer flies in the face of planning policy specifically designed to protect these areas of high conservation value. The decision makes a mockery of government planning policies and, as such, is surely political".

Also:

"Previous Public Inquiries had rejected this site in environmental grounds. We can only assume that the Deputy Prime Minister has bowed to party political pressure to overturn the statutory planning procedure. This decision totally invalidates the planning process and begs the question of the faith accepted in the past that any decision is unprejudiced by partisan presentation".

Even if the stadium is given planning permission, what is concerning is that the Minister has the freedom to do whatever they want, as if it were their own little fiefdom. This is a huge responsilbility and should not be abused nor perceived to be abused if stringent rules and regulations exist. You could easily argue that the fact they have so much latitude has contributed to the delay. If the rules were cast in stone, another location would have been found by now outside the AONB. Nothing will persuade me differently. As B&HCC say in their recent local plan, if the govt. say no, they will work with the club to find another location. If there's nowhere, why say it? Do you really think if the decision is a no that you won't either hang on at Withdean or get Sheepcote Valley? Withdean can also accommodate the average crowd from the last ten years at the Goldstone. I believe also that your attendances are in line with the division you're in. You couldn't fill Withdean whilst in the Championship.

There will be novelty value when Falmer gets built (which it will). This will see initial large crowds. However, looking at attendances from other clubs, there is no reason to think that attendances will be anything other than in line with divisional averages. Withdean's capacity would be suitable for all of the clubs in CCFL1 with the exception of four clubs. Your problem in terms of attendance is that you play in a low division, and that your ticket prices are more expensive than a number of Premier League clubs. I did an exercise last year looking at the club's prices versus the premier league. Did you know it's cheaper to go and see Chelsea in some parts of Stamford Bridge?

Anyway, this is my last post, I wish you well at Falmer, I won't be back to see the inevitable abuse.

Same old, same old.

Once again you have been selective with your facts and show an incredible ignorance about the football club and why it costs so much to see a match-interestingly, you and your little band of bigots are directly responsible for the costs involved to watch the Albion.

 

[Curious Orange]

Anyway, this is my last post, I wish you well at Falmer, I won't be back to see the inevitable abuse.

Game, set and match.

 

[Nemesis]

I won't be back

I bet you will be.....

 

[Seagullible]

What a cretin. I'd love to see how many people actually go to the site where the stadium will be built

 

[unnameable]

Credit to antifalmer for fighting his corner, even if he was talking utter bullshit.

 

[sully]

What I'm not going to do now, as I have in the past in the Argus threads, is go through the documentation and then extract snippets to support my argument - I just can't be bothered enough, which is why I am unmoved by the arguments I have read here. Been there, done that, and I remain unbowed.

But you manage to get a couple of quotes in at the end! You just can't help yourself, can you?

remember there are 39 million day visits to the Downs each year.

And how many, exactly, visit Brighton University to gaze in wonder at that field? I'd wager NONE.

I also notice the most vocal B&HAFC fans seem not to be local. What does it have to do with anyone living outside of the two authorities?

So you would agree that none of the 39 million day visitors (many of whom are visiting places on the Downs that are also not even within the two authorities) should also have no opinion?



This whole thread just appears to be a re-run of the old Argus one, to the point where many of your posts seems familiar, like you've saved them somewhere knowing you'd be able to use them again in another setting at another time.

I don't know if you've found a message board anywhere that you have managed to convince that you are right, but the fact that every time different people take your arguments apart to such an extent that you have to move on to the next bit of bullshit must be telling you something by now, surely?

 

[The Large One]

Unbridled arrogance borne of complete ignorance.

Bet he's a real wow at parties.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Well done Brovian and everybody. If that is the best of the opponents to Falmer it makes you realise how the planning process panders to the “We just don’t want it there” brigade.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Oh, he'll be back in some guise or other. It's the mainstay of his life and the only time people appear to take any notice of him.

 

[The Large One]

Oh, he'll be back in some guise or other. It's the mainstay of his life and the only time people appear to take any notice of him.

He is the product of an unholy union 'twixt Perseus, Looney, Tom Catt and Simon Barnes.

 

[sully]

He is the product of an unholy union 'twixt Perseus, Looney, Tom Catt and Simon Barnes.

In fairness to the much maligned Mr Horton (perseus), I believe it was he who first locked horns with Septic on the Argus website. It was definitely perseus who started the long lost thread that became a two year epic!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

And how many, exactly, visit Brighton University to gaze in wonder at that field? I'd wager NONE.

Indeed. Interesting that a head count has never been done in that area. I can't imagine someone heading off to The Long Man of Wilmington only to make a Bee-line for Falmer.

 

[sully]

I never bother to do the digging when the answer to the question is a simple Google search away. When this info was posted on the Argus forum as a web link people still didn't believe it.

St Thomas Aquinas (paraphrase) "For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who do not believe no proof could ever be sufficient".

Sorry, Septic, I've tried searching the Council website and Gooling it, but to no avail. I'll just have to accept that once again, the information you rely on isn't available.

 

[ROSM]

antifalmer didn't answer my question - although he tried to challenge me to answer it. So here goes:

Lewes DC have spent (including officer time) in excess of £300k fighting the stadium. This is over and above their time spent on reviewing the planning application made to them for the coach stops (x2). This means they have spent in excess of £150k per bus stop!

The B&H City Council have never publicly provided their costs on this, however as their costs (on the same level playing field as LDC e.g. public inquiries and beyond) is believed to be less that £150k based on officer time and barrister costs. They of course have 75% of the land area of the application and 98% of the construction application. They also have a policy of the full council, backed by referendum, for their stance. Something that LDC dont.

Of course our costs from inquiry to now are somthing in the region of £1m.

The trouble is that septic/anti falmer in trying to persuade people on the argus website said' for the avoidence of doubt..........Brighton and Hove City council have spent far more supporting the scheme than LDC have spent objecting'. As B&H council didn't legally support the scheme until after planning permission was granted, the cost basis above is fair and reasonable. It also clearly identifies that Septic/Anti Falmer was wrong and uses any innaccuracy to try and persuade people of his point of view. In this instance he either could not know the answer therefoew was making it up, or knew the answer and just lied.

On here, he met his match!