BBC Article on Falmer Deadline

[The Large One]

The word is that the Government REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the Public Inquiry re-opened.

That, officially, is also Lewes District Council's line - but, as we all know, they're lying bastards.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

The Chuckle Brothers could do a play based on the Falmer process

to me, to you, to me , to you , to me , to you, to me, to you , to me , to you, ad infinitum

 

[Drumstick]

If shes says yes for the final final time and doesnt go to a public enquiry is that it or can lewis do anything else?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

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

The 2012 Olympic site will have been built and the Olympics come and gone by the time this poxy thing gets the nod. Probably the 2018 World Cup also.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The word is that the Government REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the Public Inquiry re-opened.

That, officially, is also Lewes District Council's line - but, as we all know, they're lying bastards.

Still, the LibDems in LDC will be TOAST come the May elections

Should speed things up a bit.

 

[Mendoza]

I heard it was because the statistical analysis for the vehichle/bat collision rate in 3 of the 9 proposed sights were misleading to the clubs benefit

And also that the population triple breasted, silver back, spotted, double headed, three eyed toads was vastly underestimated in the falmer area.

It is getting ridiculous now, i remember sitting through lots of the enquiry (part of my job) and had to sit through a 3 hour discussion into the affects of soil acidity in the surrounding fields of falmer if the stadium got the go ahead

 

[eastlondonseagull]

If shes says yes for the final final time and doesnt go to a public enquiry is that it or can lewes do anything else?

Appeal? Drag it on again? Start tree-hugging?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Ade can you answer my points please mate

 

[The Large One]

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?

Prescott's letter said that the case for the stadium has been made. Therefore, the issue is 'where?' LDC say Sheepcote, we say Falmer.

I'm over-simplifying here, but it does look as though it's a case of 'Falmer unless proven otherwise'. The burden of proof appears to be with LDC.

 

[ROSM]

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?

to try and clear the confusion:

LDC raised 16 points of objection. The Treasury Solicitor said only one was valid. Under a review process, all evidence and points of contention have to be reviewed but with the proviso that ther is legal advice here that says prima faci they are without merit.

In his decision letter, Brier refers to a deficiency in evidence presented by Cook estates in relation to sheppcote but he concludes that the club evidence on that site was the most acceptable one and he supported it. Prescott went along with that.

When asking for clarification and evidence. kelly (as is her right) has asked for the deficiency to be clarified which is what all parties are having to do - it is part of the what criteria was Sheepcote rejected and has anything changed since then.

 

[ROSM]

Ade can you answer my points please mate

give us a chance, I'm trying to do some work here too

 

[Tooting Gull]

Prescott's letter said that the case for the stadium has been made. Therefore, the issue is 'where?' LDC say Sheepcote, we say Falmer.

I'm over-simplifying here, but it does look as though it's a case of 'Falmer unless proven otherwise'. The burden of proof appears to be with LDC.

Yes, having now read ROSM's thorough answer on the previous thread, that's exactly how I understood it.

 

[The Large One]

And also that the population triple breasted, silver back, spotted, double headed, three eyed toads was vastly underestimated in the falmer area.

They're fantastic with a little bearnaise sauce served on a bed of rice...

 

[Barrel of Fun]

This information should be in the public realm, shouldn't it?

I thought Black Rock (Capacity 10,000) had been delayed due to transport issues!

 

[Dave the OAP]

Prescott's letter said that the case for the stadium has been made. Therefore, the issue is 'where?' LDC say Sheepcote, we say Falmer.

I'm over-simplifying here, but it does look as though it's a case of 'Falmer unless proven otherwise'. The burden of proof appears to be with LDC.

how do you read that?

I read it like this.

Prescott f***ed up with 1 ot the 16 points. LDC looking for an opening, move in.

BBC Now report there are "deficiencies" in our evidence according to Kelly.

We have spend a fortune on getting our evidence right...we were told all of our evidence was correct as we have employed experts. If that is so, and we knew about Toads Hole valley mob's challenge, then why was this not sorted out by Prescott in his final decision?

 

[The Large One]

When asking for clarification and evidence. kelly (as is her right) has asked for the deficiency to be clarified which is what all parties are having to do - it is part of the what criteria was Sheepcote rejected and has anything changed since then.

What concerns me about that is the parties may well present conflicting evidence (especially bearing in mind that Lewes' best interests are served by creating as much confusion as possible) - and that's when we're dragged back into the public inquiry.

Are the Highways Agency or some other independent body not providing any evidence which Ruth Kelly would be minded to accept?

 

[ROSM]

What concerns me about that is the parties may well present conflicting evidence (especially bearing in mind that Lewes' best interests are served by creating as much confusion as possible) - and that's when we're dragged back into the public inquiry.

Are the Highways Agency or some other independent body not providing any evidence which Ruth Kelly would be minded to accept?

as per my post back in November - this is very much a possibility and whilst all and sundry may want the club focussing on nothing but the playing side, I'm sure this issue has been at the forefront of Martin perry's mind.

 

[ROSM]

Please also see this thread from Lord B which very detailed explains these 'deficiencies'

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92343

 

[Dave the OAP]

What concerns me about that is the parties may well present conflicting evidence (especially bearing in mind that Lewes' best interests are served by creating as much confusion as possible) - and that's when we're dragged back into the public inquiry.

Are the Highways Agency or some other independent body not providing any evidence which Ruth Kelly would be minded to accept?

i am sorry Alan...why are we asking these questions now. This should have been something that was cleared up at the 3rd/4th Enquiry shouldnt it?

 

[ROSM]

i am sorry Alan...why are we asking these questions now. This should have been something that was cleared up at the 3rd/4th Enquiry shouldnt it?

These issues have been raised and debated before. They have also been discussed on here before - there are no shocks or surprises in the BBC article.