BBC Article on Falmer Deadline

[Rusco]

Apologies if Fixtures

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/6364647.stm

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Was it clarified what to deficiencies in evidence were? Can anyone shed light on this?

 

[Dave the OAP]

She has said that, in particular, there were "deficiencies" in the evidence on the brownfield Sheepcote Valley site.



As my right honourable friend mr Fun said...what deficiencies? We had a re-opened enquiry which we were told looked at all the evidence and dismissed Sheepcoat. Did this enquiry miss something out?

If that is true, have we any recourse to this plethera of expensive barristers that are supposed to be fecking well advising us?

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Ms Kelly is to consider whether to re-open the public inquiry or grant planning permission for the Falmer development.

If she decides to reopen the public inquiry, how many years will this eke up?

 

[British Bulldog]

It all sounds a bit worrying, I bet she calls for another public enquiry!

 

[Tooting Gull]

There are a couple of things on there it would be nice to have clarified by those that know about these things - may have been buried on here before, but there's so many Falmer threads.

What are the supposed 'deficiencies' in the Sheepcote evidence - and are they the only two options, success or reopening the enquiry? Throwing it out altogether? Any other options?

 

[Dave the OAP]

ED
Ade
Alan

You input is required here

 

[Drumstick]

Was it clarified what to deficiencies in evidence were? Can anyone shed light on this?

maybe when prescot said falmer site was a build up area and he should have wrote semi built up area?

pos?

 

[ROSM]

She has said that, in particular, there were "deficiencies" in the evidence on the brownfield Sheepcote Valley site.



As my right honourable friend mr Fun said...what deficiencies? We had a re-opened enquiry which we were told looked at all the evidence and dismissed Sheepcoat. Did this enquiry miss something out?

If that is true, have we any recourse to this plethera of expensive barristers that are supposed to be fecking well advising us?

as has been mentioned on here before by my learned friends The Right Hon Lord Bracknell and his able assistant Ms South.

the deficiencies that were highlighted referred to a specific paragraph of the inquiry report by Inspector Brier. In this paragraph he was referring to evidence provided by the representative of Cook estates (the owners of Toads Hole Valley) in which they claim that the traffic figures for sheepcote were incorrect (to justify their claim that Toads Hole was a viable site) were the points in which there were deficiencies.

So Lewes have had the fun aspect of having to justify and correct data in evidence provided by a third party about a site that they do not now support for a stadium.

 

[The Large One]

As I understand it, I think there was an issue which needed clarifying about the effect on the A27 / Falmer junction that a stadium at Sheepcote Valley would have.

Needs Lord Bracknell to confirm or deny.

 

[Dave the OAP]

maybe when prescot said falmer site was a build up area and he should have wrote semi built up area?

pos?

she is referring to the deficiencies in the evidence on sheepcoat isnt she?

 

[Dave the OAP]

as has been mentioned on here before by my learned friends The Right Hon Lord Bracknell and his able assistant Ms South.

the deficiencies that were highlighted referred to a specific paragraph of the inquiry report by Inspector Brier. In this paragraph he was referring to evidence provided by the representative of Cook estates (the owners of Toads Hole Valley) in which they claim that the traffic figures for sheepcote were incorrect (to justify their claim that Toads Hole was a viable site) were the points in which there were deficiencies.

So Lewes have had the fun aspect of having to justify and correct data in evidence provided by a third party about a site that they do not now support for a stadium.

So it is something we knew about at the time.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If she decides to reopen the public inquiry, how many years will this eke up?

Before or after any objections and/or appeals and any change of minister at the department or indeed any change of responsible department?

Gotta be minimum of a year to set up the inquiry + three months for it to rumble on + a year to decide the outcome + eighteen months for the appeals process + possibly another year for another minister to get up to speed. Oh, and three years to build the thing.

Looking to play the first game in about 2015 or thereabouts IMHO

 

[Pavilionaire]

You'd hope that if the club made a big hoo-ha about the 10th Anniversary of the Goldstone demolition Kelly might actually make some sort of bold decision...

 

[Drumstick]

she is referring to the deficiencies in the evidence on sheepcoat isnt she?

yes I think so, I miss read it!

 

[Tooting Gull]

Cheers for that ROSM. But still not quite clear whether that means these supposed deficiencies in evidence should help our case, or harm it?

PS OK, read your original post now and see what's happening. I hadn't realised Kelly could effectively put the ball back into their court quite as much as that. Feeling a bit happier, in fact. Ta.

 

[British Bulldog]

You would'nt have thought it would be that difficult to find a bit of land to build 4 stands and lay a lawn!

 

[Napper]

i expect another public enquiry due to the numerous kick in the nads this falmer project gives us.

If she grants planning permision , can anyone appeal or is that it ?

 

[ROSM]

So it is something we knew about at the time.

yes it is - here is the thread when her last letter came out starting from page 7 which was when ed and myself had a chance to review the contents and understand what it all meant (it saves me retyping it):

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92171&perpage=20&pagenumber=7

 

[Dave the OAP]

Sorry...I am getting confused here.

we were told that the 16 points that Prescott made in support of the stadium at Falmer were cast iron and then LDC spotted that 1 of them was wrong....ie the built up area bit.


Now we are also being told that the Sheepcoat evidence has been challenged because of a transport issue, and Kelly is looking at that also. Why did Prescott not spot that one?

Is there anything else in the cupboard waiting to jump out and chop off our bollocks?