Argus NIMBY-slaying

[sten]

Septic me old fruit - you are missed on the other forum (The Martlet), there is a lot of speculation in there, particularly point 2.

I would be interested to see those figures re: Gillingham and the return to Brighton - does it take into account other factors? Plus, we are a small club until we have a stadium to be proud of - our impact will be relatively small until then. Although I guess these figures do not measure the benefits of Albion in the Community.

As for LDC winning two elections, surely they can't lose? The Liberal Democrats have managed to stay in control, but I think you are ignoring the fact that a lot of the residents are ambivalent to it. Did we see a mass uprising demanding the council object to the stadium? The only people that have asked the electorate are the Seagulls Party (28% of the available vote) and the Falmer4All team who managed to collect 5,000(?) signatures in a weekend.

As I am sure many will agree, Falmer is not the perfect site, but it is deemed to be the best one thus far. The fact that the Stadium Site is still deemed to be an AONB just goes to show how old and decrepit the system is. I really don't think there is a danger of further development on the Downs or on AONB. A part brownfield/farmland is surely a small price to pay for the benefits that the stadium will bring.

And that is it in a nutshell, i thank you

 

[mattieoo]

added my bit along with my kebab and lump of wood

 

[larus]

Oh, sorry antifalmer. The Stadium & coach park will not be located in an AONB. It's being excluded from the South Downs National Park.

Is it an ideal location; no. Is it better than anything else put forward, (in my best Churchill voice - that's the dog, not the ex PM), "oh yes".

 

[ROSM]

I have a question for septic

On the argus thread after the local elections he claimed that Brighton and Hove CIty Council has spent more fighting for the stadium than LDC have fighting against.

So, as he failed to answer this before:

How much have B&HCC and LDC respectively spent on this?*

Bearing in mind that B&HCC have a policy in open committee backed by a referendum to spend their money.

I thank you and God Bless

*I know the answer and the LDC one will shock many of you although many do know so no clues and helping septic out here. Let's leave him to either put up or shut up shall we?

 

[Curious Orange]

Okay, I'll bite...

Thanks for the compliment. I couldn't resist coming back for a look. If Easy 10 wants to invite all you guys over to the Argus message board, then I think he should expect me to come over for a look at you guys as well. I enjoy the sport of debating with the Brighton fans.. why not, it's good for a laugh! Thanks for amusing us!

I gave up on the Argus boards and its "replacement" as well as the one started by one of its members.. too boring, all the good posters who were up for an argument went long ago. But the stadium debate gets me going like one of Pavlov's dogs. The Argus has an incredibly one eyed view of the stadium saga, and fails to report with any balance IMHO. Given that it's really the only source of news, it's a disgrace really. Which is why I can't resist just making a few comments whenever the subject is brought up. The fact that a lot of posters on here think that the Argus haven't supported the stadium bid enough is perhaps a good indication that they've probably got the balance right.

I have crossed swords on the board with Ed Bassford and numerous others over the last couple of years. The reason I do not want to go into the arguments is because I and many others have done them to death over the years. In summary:

1. The club sold their own ground. It was theirs to sell, not yours. You may not have liked it, but there it is. Whether you like it or not, you have a supplier / customer relationship. I know you will flame me and say it was an underhand deal, club belongs to the fans etc., but unfortunately, business is a murky world. Welcome to the world of corporate greed. You could always have bought it, of course - except you probably couldn't afford it. The sale was legal and above board. Yes, Bill Archer asset stripped the club. Well done, you are technically correct. But that isn't the reality of the situation. The club is now under new ownership, and has been for TEN years, and laying the "corporate greed" of the previous owner at their door is extremely disingenuous.

2. The planning application is for a football stadium. The educational facilities are not location dependent, nor are they unique, many clubs provide them. The council could have provided them too, but of course they have spent more money than LDC on supporting the application. The jobs created are great - except of course that there are already a surplus of jobs in B&H that could be claimed by East Brighton residents. They don't want to take minimum wage jobs now, why will they want them in the stadium? Official figures show that the club going to Gillingham and then returning to the Withdean have made no difference to the economy of Brighton and Hove. Would you really expect a stadium of limited capacity and restricted use to make much of a difference?

3. Many years ago when the club decided to go for building on the AONB, it must have known that getting planning permission would be difficult. Whether you like it or not, the area is AONB. It may not be in the future, but that is a long way off. If the stadium is given permission, which it almost certainly will be, it will pave the way for any development anywhere that creates a few jobs. Nonetheless, this is patently not in the national interest, it is a local matter only. It rarely, if ever, gets discussed outside of local circles. I'm not local, yet here I am, discussing it. That aside it is quite right and proper that planning applications for sites that have a level of protection are properly scrutinised. As for what constitutes National Interest, that is always going to be open to be open to interpretation within the guidelines (which do say that the regeneration of deprived areas is in the national interest - and there are precedents to back this up), ultimately the interpretation that matters is that of the authority that makes the decision - the Secretary of State.

4. So far, the scheme has been rejected by LDC, East Sussex County Council and two independent inspectors. I note that in any history of the struggle the club has had, the independent inspectors reports have now been airbrushed out. Prescott's report leant heavily on the fact that the stadium was in the built up area of the local plan, but of course it never was. He agreed effectively that it would otherwise have failed, except for the jobs etc. It will be interesting to see how the politicians spin this. I have no doubt that it will be a political decision.
Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council are not the planning authorities for this application so cannot "reject" it, neither could the Inspectors you refer to, they made recommendations.

5. The issue of the referendum always makes me laugh. You are very lucky that one of the conditions wasn't that the plan be supported by in excess of 50% of the electorate. Not doing it this way guaranteed a victory for the Falmer "Yes" campaign - after all, there was nowhere else to vote for. Had it been 50%+, you wouldn't have come even close. No wonder the only people that give this vote credence are the people who want it built. The people of Brighton did have the option to say yes to a stadium within Brighton & Hove and no to it being at Falmer, they still said yes on both counts.

6. LDC have won two elections since the stadium saga started. Sure, some politicians have lost their seats, but some change is to be expected. The fact is, if LDC residents really thought their money was being wasted, they would have been voted out like the B&H Labour politicians were. Yes, and people still voted for Tony despite the Iraq war.

You will of course disagree with all this, but I will not go into detail any further, because I can't be bothered. My view is held in good faith based on all the details I have read. Whilst you may "hate" the Falmer residents for opposing this (I'm not one of them), you can be sure, wherever the stadium were to be proposed in B&H, it would be vigorously opposed. The inspectors reports clearly stated that the stadium would be detrimental to the Falmer residents, and the users of Stanmer Park. That's the thing about building in AONBs you can only build in them if its in the national interest and there isn't anywhere else to build. It always amazes me how people ignore the second Inquiry - the recommendation was clear, there is no other site.

Good night and God bless. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate the sentiment

 

[The Large One]

I'm not going to quote Septic's post, but he does make some very selectively crude points, editing out an entire swathe of truth and evidence.

Point 1, If it was known the ground was being sold, someone else could have made a bid for it. But we didn't. And they lied about it being sold. So, yes, we could all say tough shit to you as well. Touche.

In point 2, he states that this paves the way for development on AONB sites. That is not necessarily true. If the national interest cannot be proved, there will be no development on that given site. It then falls to the point of whether the stadium is in the national interest. He makes out that this is a matter rarely discussed nationally. Really? I speak to fans from across the country on a regular basis who have a keen interest in the Falmer Stadium story. The Sun carried the story last week. It has been in the national Dailies and Sunday papers on a a semi-regular basis since 2002. It has also been the subject of three Early Day Motions in Parliament.

In point 3, Prescott did not lean heavily on the 'built-up area' aspect of the site - he used it as supporting evidence.

In points 4 and 5, he makes the point about the so-called low turnout for the referendum was low, while neglecting to mention that the proportion of people voting the Lib Dems back into power was even lower. Either the majority of the voters' opinions holds sway or it doesn't. He can't have it both ways.

He is also being very selective about what the third inspector said, to the point of omitting it completely. The first and second inspectors' reports came in for some heavy criticism from the third inspector who was not satisfied with their information-gathering and the nature of how they arrived at their conclusions.

Even though I can quite easily be accused of being selective in not damning more of his post, in all, and despite the appreciation we have that he has taken time to reply to the charge of justifiying his actions and opinions, I'm afraid the gaping holes in his argument do not tell the entire story, and therefore lack his elusive 'killer arguement'.

 

[Easy 10]

I and many others have gone into this at great length in the past on the Argus forums TLO. Septic is intelligent and articulate which means that on face value his posts come across as vaguely credible and reasoned. However, he does deal in a multitude of twisted logic, warped opinion and numerous half-truths that he invariably presents as FACT, when it is actually utter bollocks. You can go round and round in circles with this guy, and I could practically wallpaper my hallway with the vast threads his diatribe causes.

His arguments can be routinely dismantled by fact and evidence from anyone who's even vaguely followed this whole sorry saga. Doesn't stop the perpetual landslide of claptrap being spouted by dear old Seppy though, and he does love falling back on the same tired old drivel, even when its been carved to bits by anyone with half a clue. Its a real "Groundhog Day" having him on here actually.

Still, it passes a dull afternoon at work.

 

[Mr deez]

Its a real "Groundhog Day" having him on here actually.

Well on that note, I think I should tell you I'm not buying any of his arguements on principle.

 

[The Large One]

I and many others have gone into this at great length in the past on the Argus forums TLO. Septic is intelligent and articulate which means that on face value his posts come across as vaguely credible and reasoned. However, he does deal in a multitude of twisted logic, warped opinion and numerous half-truths that he invariably presents as FACT, when it is actually utter bollocks. You can go round and round in circles with this guy, and I could practically wallpaper my hallway with the vast threads his diatribe causes.

His arguments can be routinely dismantled by fact and evidence from anyone who's even vaguely followed this whole sorry saga. Doesn't stop the perpetual landslide of claptrap being spouted by dear old Seppy though, and he does love falling back on the same tired old drivel, even when its been carved to bits by anyone with half a clue. Its a real "Groundhog Day" having him on here actually.

Still, it passes a dull afternoon at work.

Yeah, I know that. I used to read his stuff on the Argus website. It appears he appears he has an opinion (sorry, the complete knowledge) for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING from the Gehry Towers to Falmer Stadium and all points in between. It wouldn't be so bad if his so-called reasoned points were based on all or most of the facts - but they're not, and that's what's irritating. But the point is, he is so thick-skinned (perhaps that's what ignorance does to you), the abuse just bounces off him like yo-yo off a rubber pavement.

I tried to reason against some of his points, but I think ultimately there is little point because, despite his clear ignorance of much of the process (or at least, his clumsy manipulation of some of it in order to prove his point), you eventually get to realise that 'shut the f*** up, you ignorant twat' is merely his cue to think he has won the argument.

 

[Easy 10]

you eventually get to realise that 'shut the f*** up, you ignorant twat' is merely his cue to think he has won the argument.

Very true. But sooner or later it just HAS to be said, or you go INSANE.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Fair do's to septic for his last post.

But I'd like to know where he crossed swords with that Bassford chappie. Only I'm fairly sure it wasn't on the Argus forums and wonder whether he's got his Bracknells in a twist.

 

[Brovion]

Thanks for the compliment. I couldn't resist coming back for a look. If Easy 10 wants to invite all you guys over to the Argus message board, then I think he should expect me to come over for a look at you guys as well. I enjoy the sport of debating with the Brighton fans.. why not, it's good for a laugh!

I gave up on the Argus boards and its "replacement" as well as the one started by one of its members.. too boring, all the good posters who were up for an argument went long ago. But the stadium debate gets me going like one of Pavlov's dogs. The Argus has an incredibly one eyed view of the stadium saga, and fails to report with any balance IMHO. Given that it's really the only source of news, it's a disgrace really. Which is why I can't resist just making a few comments whenever the subject is brought up.

I have crossed swords on the board with Ed Bassford and numerous others over the last couple of years. The reason I do not want to go into the arguments is because I and many others have done them to death over the years. In summary:

1. The club sold their own ground. It was theirs to sell, not yours. You may not have liked it, but there it is. Whether you like it or not, you have a supplier / customer relationship. I know you will flame me and say it was an underhand deal, club belongs to the fans etc., but unfortunately, business is a murky world. Welcome to the world of corporate greed. You could always have bought it, of course - except you probably couldn't afford it. The sale was legal and above board.

2. The planning application is for a football stadium. The educational facilities are not location dependent, nor are they unique, many clubs provide them. The council could have provided them too, but of course they have spent more money than LDC on supporting the application. The jobs created are great - except of course that there are already a surplus of jobs in B&H that could be claimed by East Brighton residents. They don't want to take minimum wage jobs now, why will they want them in the stadium? Official figures show that the club going to Gillingham and then returning to the Withdean have made no difference to the economy of Brighton and Hove.

3. Many years ago when the club decided to go for building on the AONB, it must have known that getting planning permission would be difficult. Whether you like it or not, the area is AONB. It may not be in the future, but that is a long way off. If the stadium is given permission, which it almost certainly will be, it will pave the way for any development anywhere that creates a few jobs. Nonetheless, this is patently not in the national interest, it is a local matter only. It rarely, if ever, gets discussed outside of local circles.

4. So far, the scheme has been rejected by LDC, East Sussex County Council and two independent inspectors. I note that in any history of the struggle the club has had, the independent inspectors reports have now been airbrushed out. Prescott's report leant heavily on the fact that the stadium was in the built up area of the local plan, but of course it never was. He agreed effectively that it would otherwise have failed, except for the jobs etc. It will be interesting to see how the politicians spin this. I have no doubt that it will be a political decision.

5. The issue of the referendum always makes me laugh. You are very lucky that one of the conditions wasn't that the plan be supported by in excess of 50% of the electorate. Not doing it this way guaranteed a victory for the Falmer "Yes" campaign - after all, there was nowhere else to vote for. Had it been 50%+, you wouldn't have come even close. No wonder the only people that give this vote credence are the people who want it built.

6. LDC have won two elections since the stadium saga started. Sure, some politicians have lost their seats, but some change is to be expected. The fact is, if LDC residents really thought their money was being wasted, they would have been voted out like the B&H Labour politicians were.

You will of course disagree with all this, but I will not go into detail any further, because I can't be bothered. My view is held in good faith based on all the details I have read. Whilst you may "hate" the Falmer residents for opposing this (I'm not one of them), you can be sure, wherever the stadium were to be proposed in B&H, it would be vigorously opposed. The inspectors reports clearly stated that the stadium would be detrimental to the Falmer residents, and the users of Stanmer Park.

Good night and God bless.

Coherently put and I thank you for having the honesty to say that 'wherever the stadium were to be proposed in B&H, it would be vigorously opposed.' That is a FAR better and, like I say, more honest viewpoint than the Peppers and Neighbours of this world who say "Yes of course you should have a ground - but not at Falmer." You are also correct in saying 'the club' sold the Goldstone. We always like to point out that it was the previous, discredited regime that did it (and tried to pocket the profit) but I accept that if you have no interest in football then that is an academic point.

Where we disagree is in the place the football club has in our community. It's interesting that the opposition you quote all come from outside the borders of Brighton and Hove (as do a fair number of our supporters but we'll let that pass). Inside the city the Council, the MPS and the MAJORITY of people (who hold an opinion) are in favour. We believe the survival of the football club, which has been in existence for over 100 years, is a worthy cause. In this era with everybody spending more and more time in their cosy velvet-lined cells it's the one thing that acts as a focus of 'community spirit'. Granted most of the time it's existence doesn't impinge on the consciousness of a lot of the residents, but during a cup run or a promotion season for example the shops have Albion displays and old ladies talk about it in the bus queue. It's a bit old-fashioned but we believe that having something that brings us together as a community is a good thing.

Although you may not like it sport is an important part of modern culture. Although a stadium in that location in East Brighton is not ideal it (just) about fits through the planning doorway, even with all the objectons you can throw against it. It is NOT being built in an 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty', and even if it was it would be well-worth sacrificing a bit to help the cultural and social well-being of Brighton.

Finally I notice from your Biography that you say you are 'keen on preserving the South Downs'. There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but this whole debate has made me look at the Sussex countryside with new eyes. The Downs aren't something to be preserved in aspic: they're a resource to be exploited for the common good as they have been throughout the human occupation of Sussex.

 

[sully]

Fair do's to septic for his last post.

But I'd like to know where he crossed swords with that Bassford chappie. Only I'm fairly sure it wasn't on the Argus forums and wonder whether he's got his Bracknells in a twist.

Sorry Roz, but Ed was most certainly on the old Argus forum for a few days, but lost patience with septic much faster than the rest of us!

(If it wasn't Ed, then it was someone doing a pretty good impression and using his full name to sign in)

 

[Dave the OAP]

Coherently put and I thank you for having the honesty to say that 'wherever the stadium were to be proposed in B&H, it would be vigorously opposed.' That is a FAR better and, like I say, more honest viewpoint than the Peppers and Neighbours of this world who say "Yes of course you should have a ground - but not at Falmer." You are also correct in saying 'the club' sold the Goldstone. We always like to point out that it was the previous, discredited regime that did it (and tried to pocket the profit) but I accept that if you have no interest in football then that is an academic point.

Where we disagree is in the place the football club has in our community. It's interesting that the opposition you quote all come from outside the borders of Brighton and Hove (as do a fair number of our supporters but we'll let that pass). Inside the city the Council, the MPS and the MAJORITY of people (who hold an opinion) are in favour. We believe the survival of the football club, which has been in existence for over 100 years, is a worthy cause. In this era with everybody spending more and more time in their cosy velvet-lined cells it's the one thing that acts as a focus of 'community spirit'. Granted most of the time it's existence doesn't impinge on the consciousness of a lot of the residents, but during a cup run or a promotion season for example the shops have Albion displays and old ladies talk about it in the bus queue. It's a bit old-fashioned but we believe that having something that brings us together as a community is a good thing.

Although you may not like it sport is an important part of modern culture. Although a stadium in that location in East Brighton is not ideal it (just) about fits through the planning doorway, even with all the objectons you can throw against it. It is NOT being built in an 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty', and even if it was it would be well-worth sacrificing a bit to help the cultural and social well-being of Brighton.

Finally I notice from your Biography that you say you are 'keen on preserving the South Downs'. There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but this whole debate has made me look at the Sussex countryside with new eyes. The Downs aren't something to be preserved in aspic: they're a resource to be exploited for the common good as they have been throughout the human occupation of Sussex.

This is a far better way of argument that the histerical " This bloke and all NIMBY's are C***s" way some people have been suggesting.

This guy is obviously an articulate chap who doesnt give two hoots about football...fair play to him. Whether he represents the vies of residents of the County is perhaps debatable, but he is right that when you speak to people who are not fans of football or the club specifically, many many people do regard this as something of our own making and another example of rampant urbanisation.

Its good to hear other people's point of view...even if we believe them to be totally wrong!

 

[Brovion]

This is a far better way of argument that the histerical " This bloke and all NIMBY's are C***s" way some people have been suggesting.

This guy is obviously an articulate chap who doesnt give two hoots about football...fair play to him. Whether he represents the vies of residents of the County is perhaps debatable, but he is right that when you speak to people who are not fans of football or the club specifically, many many people do regard this as something of our own making and another example of rampant urbanisation.

Its good to hear other people's point of view...even if we believe them to be totally wrong!

Yeah. I've actually got more time for NOTEs like antifalmer than I have for the traditional NIMBYs who claim they want us to have a ground - but somewhere else (when you know they'll protest against that as well). I notice some of our esteemed colleagues on this board have picked his other arguements to bits - I'm not going to do that; who knows, he might even be right about the lack of economic benefits. The bottom line is I think that the cultural importance of Brighton and Hove having a stadium and a professional football club more than outweighs any environmental damage - and he doesn't. Fair enough.

I don't know what his views are on the King Alfred, Marina and Black Rock redevelopments are - but from his reactionary standpoint I'm guessing he's agin' 'em! If he'd lived in Brighton during the 1960s he would have been opposed to the Marina itself. If he'd lived here in the 19th century he'd have opposed the railway and if he'd lived here in the 18th century he'd have opposed the Pavillion.

In 50, 100 years time the future inhabitants of Brighton and Hove will be pleased he lost - not just the practical arguement of opposing the stadium but the whole 'old buildings good, new buildings bad' philosophy will hopefully be gone by then as well.

 

[antifalmer]

I really didn't want to come back but:

As far as I can see the third inspector / second enquiry agreed with the first ones in as much as neither Falmer nor any other site would qualify for planning permission. Therefore, the arguments around national interest are the ones that will allow the politicians to frig the outcome.

The main planks of the argument are the revenues it will bring to B&H, the educational opportunities and the jobs created. The problem is that the education can be done anywhere and is not location dependent. The revenues can be proven not to exist by precedent, using B&H City Councils's own figures, and the jobs of the type created by the stadium already exist in B&H but aren't taken up. Prescott also made it clear that it wasn't an issue if the club went bust. I haven't seen the govt. step in and save any debt ridden football clubs, have you? And that includes the Albion. They will leave you to sink or swim. The best you can hope for is to come to some sort of arrangement with the Revenue. As for community, there are thousands of towns, cities, villages etc. that have nothing to do with pro soccer. Real community is the mums, dads and kids who support and play in their local amateur clubs. I have yet to see any argument that will persuade me that the stadium yes decision, which it will be, is anything other than a political decision.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I really didn't want to come back but:

As far as I can see the third inspector / second enquiry agreed with the first ones in as much as neither Falmer nor any other site would qualify for planning permission. Therefore, the arguments around national interest are the ones that will allow the politicians to frig the outcome.

The main planks of the argument are the revenues it will bring to B&H, the educational opportunities and the jobs created. The problem is that the education can be done anywhere and is not location dependent. The revenues can be proven not to exist by precedent, using B&H City Councils's own figures, and the jobs of the type created by the stadium already exist in B&H but aren't taken up. Prescott also made it clear that it wasn't an issue if the club went bust. I haven't seen the govt. step in and save any debt ridden football clubs, have you? And that includes the Albion. They will leave you to sink or swim. The best you can hope for is to come to some sort of arrangement with the Revenue. As for community, there are thousands of towns, cities, villages etc. that have nothing to do with pro soccer. Real community is the mums, dads and kids who support and play in their local amateur clubs. I have yet to see any argument that will persuade me that the stadium yes decision, which it will be, is anything other than a political decision.

fair enough...you are right and everyone else is wrong. Well done. I hope you are very happy in the remainder of your life.

Goodbye then

 

[sully]

The revenues can be proven not to exist by precedent, using B&H City Councils's own figures.

I've asked you each time you've made that statement elsewhere to state where the information is located.

I'm still waiting........

 

[Brovion]

I really didn't want to come back but:

As far as I can see the third inspector / second enquiry agreed with the first ones in as much as neither Falmer nor any other site would qualify for planning permission. Therefore, the arguments around national interest are the ones that will allow the politicians to frig the outcome.

The main planks of the argument are the revenues it will bring to B&H, the educational opportunities and the jobs created. The problem is that the education can be done anywhere and is not location dependent. The revenues can be proven not to exist by precedent, using B&H City Councils's own figures, and the jobs of the type created by the stadium already exist in B&H but aren't taken up. Prescott also made it clear that it wasn't an issue if the club went bust. I haven't seen the govt. step in and save any debt ridden football clubs, have you? And that includes the Albion. They will leave you to sink or swim. The best you can hope for is to come to some sort of arrangement with the Revenue. As for community, there are thousands of towns, cities, villages etc. that have nothing to do with pro soccer. Real community is the mums, dads and kids who support and play in their local amateur clubs. I have yet to see any argument that will persuade me that the stadium yes decision, which it will be, is anything other than a political decision.

You keep coming back because we keep trumping your arguments! You say that 'real community is mums and dads and kids who play for their local amateur clubs'. Yes, that is indeed part of it. But that's like saying that real theatre is school plays and am-dram.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

...Prescott also made it clear that it wasn't an issue if the club went bust...

He stated that there was no tangible evidence, but is it worth the risk? Who knows how the fans will react if a permanent home is not forthcoming? We can't sustain losses indefinitely. Where would be play? Redevelop Withdean Stadium?

I have yet to see any argument that will persuade me that the stadium yes decision, which it will be, is anything other than a political decision

It is easy not to see something when you have your eyes closed.