Argus NIMBY-slaying

[Brovion]

You have got to be kidding me! I haven't even broken sweat yet over any of the comments you guys have made!

Oooh I don't think so. Re-reading this thread every single argument you've put forward has been comprehensively trashed. You then simply move on and try another tack rather than answering the points raised. Still, you believe what you want to. It's been fun though.

Why don't you join in with some of the other threads? With your plodding pedantry, your ability to twist selective facts to try and make them fit your point of view and your refusal to accept any other opinion you'll fit in well here!

 

[Curious Orange]

You cannot claim that local people are in favour of the stadium. If you are referring to the so-called referendum, 65% of a 38% turn out voted for Falmer. Over 60% failed to express a view one way or another. If you think about it, nearly, if not all, rules, regulations and laws are intended to protect one group of people or individuals from those who would abuse them. Using your argument, it is logical to assume that all our MP's should side with the majority and ban immigration, bring back capital and corporal punishement, and so on. But they don't. Nor do they make any difference to the NHS, education or anything else that really matters. MP's are opportunists first and foremeost it appears, which is why the public believes politics has little credibility.

Probably better tell the Welsh to close their Assembly then, seeing as 75% of them didn't vote in favour of it.

Planning battles appear to be won by people with either money, influence or both. And in high profile cases, it's all about politics, especially when the Secretary Of State appears to have arbitrary powers that can ignore everything that has gone on in a public enquiry.

Well hopefully this will be a case where the underdogs actually manage to get past all the political shennanigans and actual get the result that the Public Inquiries pointed to - yes you can stop ignoring the second Inquiry, it provided the information that was missing from the first regarding the availability of alternative sites, a lack of information that led the first Inspector to recommend refusal.

Any developer can now lay claim to building on greenbelt as long as a few minimum wage jobs are in there. They will have a precedent to claim that the jobs are in the national interest, even though the main purpose of the development isn't.

The stadium site isn't in greenbelt, its currently in an AONB. Anyway, the precedent that you refer to has already been set by a campsite in Wales.

 

[antifalmer]

Probably better tell the Welsh to close their Assembly then, seeing as 75% of them didn't vote in favour of it.



Well hopefully this will be a case where the underdogs actually manage to get past all the political shennanigans and actual get the result that the Public Inquiries pointed to - yes you can stop ignoring the second Inquiry, it provided the information that was missing from the first regarding the availability of alternative sites, a lack of information that led the first Inspector to recommend refusal.



The stadium site isn't in greenbelt, its currently in an AONB. Anyway, the precedent that you refer to has already been set by a campsite in Wales.

Even if I were wrong in every single respect, the stadium was overwhelmingly rejected by two independent planning inspectors. The second enquiry stated that there was NO site that had any prospect of gaining planning permission. INCLUDING Falmer. How strange that B&H should approve the plans beforehand then. Of course politically it was a good move - if the stadium went through, then the politicians are heroes, if it doesn't, they won't lose votes because they can claim to have supported it. The only person to have approved it was a non-professional - Prescott, a politician. So if he was going to ignore the evidence of two enquiries, what was the point of having them? All the enquiries were exhaustive and found the stadium couldn't get planning permisssion. Had this happened on something like the Waste Transfer Station there would have been uproar. And many here would rightly have called foul.

 

[Yorkie]

Even if I were wrong in every single respect, the stadium was overwhelmingly rejected by two independent planning inspectors. The second enquiry stated that there was NO site that had any prospect of gaining planning permission. INCLUDING Falmer.

Your facts are completely wrong. Did you actually attend any of the hearings at the public inquiry?

 

[dougdeep]

All the enquiries were exhaustive and found the stadium couldn't get planning permisssion. Had this happened on something like the Waste Transfer Station there would have been uproar. And many here would rightly have called foul.

Stick to the facts, just show us where it says that no planning permission would be granted. You were lucky it was called in for an inquiry, the incinerator wasn't and that could cause premature death for people with breathing problems, at least nobodies health will suffer because of a stadium.

 

[Curious Orange]

Even if I were wrong in every single respect, the stadium was overwhelmingly rejected by two independent planning inspectors. The second enquiry stated that there was NO site that had any prospect of gaining planning permission. INCLUDING Falmer. How strange that B&H should approve the plans beforehand then. Of course politically it was a good move - if the stadium went through, then the politicians are heroes, if it doesn't, they won't lose votes because they can claim to have supported it. The only person to have approved it was a non-professional - Prescott, a politician. So if he was going to ignore the evidence of two enquiries, what was the point of having them? All the enquiries were exhaustive and found the stadium couldn't get planning permisssion. Had this happened on something like the Waste Transfer Station there would have been uproar. And many here would rightly have called foul.

Well, that is spectacularly inaccurate. The Falmer site was NOT one of the sites examined by the second inquiry. The conclusion of the second Inquiry was that none of the ALTERNATIVE sites (as we're using capital letters) had a prospect of ever getting planning permission, and it did not make a recommendation as to whether Falmer should:

FINAL CONCLUSION

10.168 The merits of the applications site at Falmer were examined fully during the first stage of the inquiry and were concluded upon by the previous Inspector. As the re-opened inquiry focused primarily upon the merits of alternative locations, I offer no view on the proposals in contention. I discount Brighton Station and Brighton Greyhound Station from the equation. But some of the other locations examined have certain particular attributes that, when considered in isolation, appear more attractive than at Falmer. And,I would not rule out the possibility that further investigations could provide practical and workable solutions to some, at least, of the problems I have identified, for example traffic congestion.

10.169 Nevertheless, from what is before me, and viewing matters in the round, I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that any of the locations under consideration are sufficiently advantageous that they represent feasible, practical and realistic alternatives that should be preferred to Falmer. There are site specific issues relating to each one of the sites that lead me to conclude that, at present, there is no reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted for a community stadium at any of them.

And before you start banging on about the "workable solutions" bit, we've just gone through that process and are now awaiting the decision.

 

[The Large One]

Even if I were wrong in every single respect, the stadium was overwhelmingly rejected by two independent planning inspectors. The second enquiry stated that there was NO site that had any prospect of gaining planning permission. INCLUDING Falmer. How strange that B&H should approve the plans beforehand then. Of course politically it was a good move - if the stadium went through, then the politicians are heroes, if it doesn't, they won't lose votes because they can claim to have supported it. The only person to have approved it was a non-professional - Prescott, a politician. So if he was going to ignore the evidence of two enquiries, what was the point of having them? All the enquiries were exhaustive and found the stadium couldn't get planning permisssion. Had this happened on something like the Waste Transfer Station there would have been uproar. And many here would rightly have called foul.

Bloody hell, where do you start with such history revisionism?

Inspectors don't 'overwhelmingly' reject sites. They recommend rejection as an abolsute - there are no degrees of rejection. The fact that there were two inspectors doesn't make it a '2 v 1' scenario. These inspectors were not independent of each other - indeed one of them didn't even attend every day of the inquiry. Prescott did not 'ignore' the advice of the inspectors. Indeed, the first two inspectors (one of whom was there for the Stadium Inquiry and the other for the Local Plan Inquiry) to whom you hold so much reverence saw many merits in the Falmer site. To that end, Prescott's priorities for consideration were different to those of the Inspectors.

And one of the principle reasons that the first two Inspectors rejected Falmer was because that they felt an alternative site (Sheepcote Valley) was more acceptable despite their being little evidence or information to make that recommendation. In other words, they went outside their remit.

I would put good money on you NOT slating Prescott if he had rejected it - even though the same due process was followed. It's not the politics that's pissing you off - it's the judgement, pure and simple.

 

[B.W.]

Love it... antifalmer torn apart (again)... what untruth will he come up with next? Can't wait...:falmerspi

 

[Captain Haddock]

Love it... antifalmer torn apart (again)... what untruth will he come up with next? Can't wait...:falmerspi

It strikes me that this "Anti-Falmer" character must be an Albion fan in disguise. Surely it is beyond the realms of possibility that an opponent of the stadium proposals could so laughably and publicly bend the truth, presume audaciously and without any foundation and evade any of the serious questions posed to him / her pertinent to his / her 'arguments'...



Could it?




Oh.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Splitter....

I did sit down again straightaway though!

 

[antifalmer]

Bloody hell, where do you start with such history revisionism?

Inspectors don't 'overwhelmingly' reject sites. They recommend rejection as an abolsute - there are no degrees of rejection. The fact that there were two inspectors doesn't make it a '2 v 1' scenario. These inspectors were not independent of each other - indeed one of them didn't even attend every day of the inquiry. Prescott did not 'ignore' the advice of the inspectors. Indeed, the first two inspectors (one of whom was there for the Stadium Inquiry and the other for the Local Plan Inquiry) to whom you hold so much reverence saw many merits in the Falmer site. To that end, Prescott's priorities for consideration were different to those of the Inspectors.

And one of the principle reasons that the first two Inspectors rejected Falmer was because that they felt an alternative site (Sheepcote Valley) was more acceptable despite their being little evidence or information to make that recommendation. In other words, they went outside their remit.

I would put good money on you NOT slating Prescott if he had rejected it - even though the same due process was followed. It's not the politics that's pissing you off - it's the judgement, pure and simple.

Even if I am wrong about the second enquiry.....

Prescott's decision has been quashed, i.e. it is as if had never existed. The evidence will therefore have to be judged against the existing reports.

The first stated that planning permission be refused ABSOLUTELY because the evidence against was overwhelming. The second report stated there was no other site.

How will that turn into a yes decision if the planning inspectors are considered to be competent? There is nowhere.

Even in the discredited Prescott decision, he endorsed the site because he erroneously believed it was in the local plan. Otherwise he made it pretty clear it wouldn't be a disaster if the Albion disappeared.

Another question. I see the Albion owe £13m. Who do they owe it to, and how will it be re-paid? If Falmer is turned down, will it become another Leeds United? If any money is owed to the tax payer, through either the revenue or local taxes, money for tradesmen etc., can it still lay claim to being a community club?

 

[sten]

Stick to the facts, just show us where it says that no planning permission would be granted. You were lucky it was called in for an inquiry, the incinerator wasn't and that could cause premature death for people with breathing problems, at least nobodies health will suffer because of a stadium.

IT BLOODY WILL IF WE DON'T GET IT

 

[Yorkie]

Even if I am wrong about the second enquiry.....

Prescott's decision has been quashed, i.e. it is as if had never existed. The evidence will therefore have to be judged against the existing reports.

The first stated that planning permission be refused ABSOLUTELY because the evidence against was overwhelming. The second report stated there was no other site.

How will that turn into a yes decision if the planning inspectors are considered to be competent? There is nowhere.

Even in the discredited Prescott decision, he endorsed the site because he erroneously believed it was in the local plan. Otherwise he made it pretty clear it wouldn't be a disaster if the Albion disappeared.

Another question. I see the Albion owe £13m. Who do they owe it to, and how will it be re-paid? If Falmer is turned down, will it become another Leeds United? If any money is owed to the tax payer, through either the revenue or local taxes, money for tradesmen etc., can it still lay claim to being a community club?

Firstly you are wrong about the inspectors decisions (as The Large One pointed out the first inspector wasn't even there to make a decision on the stadium but the Local Plan for Brighton)

Secondly the decision was rescinded because the boundary changed between the first inquiry and the second inquiry so it was purely a technical error and changes nothing. The wording was wrong.

The money that is owed is partly director's loans (who aren't likely to pull out when the stadium is built and we start making money.) and bank loans (who also have it in their best interests to keep the club going)
The second inquiry looked into the finances of the club and the financial plan for the stadium and the inspector was satisfied with it.

The Falmer site is going to be redeveloped by Brighton & Hove council in any case whether it is for the stadium or something else.
Fancy a 24/7 supermarket instead?

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Those of us who have come across Septic elsewhere know he always has an answer. He doesn't waste time cluttering his brain with the facts of the matter but of answers he has an exhausting supply. Which is why I don't engage with him in the first place! Life is just too short to be wasted!

 

[Yorkie]

Those of us who have come across Septic elsewhere know he always has an answer. He doesn't waste time cluttering his brain with the facts of the matter but of answers he has an exhausting supply. Which is why I don't engage with him in the first place! Life is just too short to be wasted!

Quite right Roz. The sun is shining and I have an evening wedding do to get ready for.
I won't waste my fingers trying to bring some truth into the debate.

 

[tedebear]

Quite right Roz. The sun is shining and I have an evening wedding do to get ready for.
I won't waste my fingers trying to bring some truth into the debate.

Blimey - they've been lucky with the weather then today!! Given the recent downpours!!

I haven't even entered into this debate - not really a debate when one side never really listens to us.

 

[Lady Bracknell]

Enjoy the wedding! The sun is forecast to keep shining too!

 

[Curious Orange]

Even if I am wrong about the second enquiry.....

Prescott's decision has been quashed, i.e. it is as if had never existed. The evidence will therefore have to be judged against the existing reports.

Blimey, you've got something correct!!

The first stated that planning permission be refused ABSOLUTELY because the evidence against was overwhelming.

No it didn't. It recommended refusal on the basis of the possible availability of other sites.

The second report stated there was no other site.

See, you've learned something today. Good for you!!

How will that turn into a yes decision if the planning inspectors are considered to be competent? There is nowhere.

Because the first Inspectors recommendation was based on incomplete evidence, whereas the Secretary of State's decision will be based on far more evidence, both reports will be considered as you yourself have already pointed out - the question you should be asking is would the first Inspector's recommendation still be the same if he had access to the far greater level of evidence that now exists?

Even in the discredited Prescott decision, he endorsed the site because he erroneously believed it was in the local plan. Otherwise he made it pretty clear it wouldn't be a disaster if the Albion disappeared.

The site IS designated in the adopted Local Plan as being for the stadium, and if not that some other commercial business. There was an error in the decision letter regarding where the built up area zone was, which was undoubtedly a cock up, but easily made given that that line had moved between the end of the second Inquiry and the issuing of the decision letter, as Yorkie has already pointed out. Its not a fatal flaw, its a line on a map, and nowhere does it state that you can't build outside of a built up area otherwise nothing would get built anywhere other than where something already stands.

Another question. I see the Albion owe £13m. Who do they owe it to, and how will it be re-paid? If Falmer is turned down, will it become another Leeds United? If any money is owed to the tax payer, through either the revenue or local taxes, money for tradesmen etc., can it still lay claim to being a community club?

Most of that is owed to the directors, most of whom are also fans.

 

[ROSM]

sorry antifalmer - you seem to have ignored my question. Can I please have your wisdom.

Thanks as always

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?

go on - give it a go. On the argus forum you used this nugget to try and get peopke to agree with you. I'd like to know the accuracy of that nugget

 

[Brovion]

I rest my case.