Falmer - ODPM asks interested parties to comment on Inspectors report

[Dave the OAP]

Albion dan

If they release the news now and it is no, then because of the coverage we have had and the support of clubs, we can expect a reaction and hopefully action. If they release it in Euro 2004 then IMHO it would be a "oh dear.never mind, England are doing well though"sort of reaction.

Also there is the momentum issue. At the moment we have the momentum, as we had at the end of the Bellotti Archer era, leave it a couple of months and that momentum will/could fizzle( holidays cricket...no footy etc etc)

 

[Albion Dan]

Sorry Dave I dont buy it. I really dont think Euro 2004 would make sod all difference to national interest. And it would be a huge gamble to even risk that on England not going out in the first phase.

Again with the momentum thing, its not as if were not going to be as pissed off in August as we are in May is it. I and most will be itching to get back so the campaign can begin in earnest.

Again I point out that we are flattering oursleves to think that we are worthy of having buried news.

 

[Storer68]

I expected this to happen. For no other reason than Prescott's office did the same thing over the Arsenal CPO Public Inquiry putting that enquiry back a further six months.

But he approved it by overturning the planning inspector's report

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Having now read today's Argus report, I'm in a position to clarify what is going on.

Following the publication of the Hoile Report on the Local Plan, the Albion have written to the ODPM with a detailed explanation of how Hoile's report is factually wrong and why it shouldn't be relied on. The ODPM have now written to all of the people and organisations who appeared at the Public Inquiry, sending them a copy of the Albion's latest representation, and inviting them to comment on it. Those comments have to be with the ODPM by 9 April.

After 9 April, the ODPM may then decide to circulate all of the comments received to all of the parties who have responded - for further comment. If ODPM decide to do that, they will then set a new final deadline. That would probably be three weeks after the circulation of the comments received by 9 April - I would guess sometime in early to mid May. The decision will then follow, once all representations have been considered. If I were a betting man, I would expect this to be no earlier than late May or early June (with late May being an unlikely prospect).

There is an explicit statement in the letter from the ODPM (not quoted in the Argus) that the Secretary of State does not propose to allow a lengthy series of cross-representations and that he is not inviting the parties to restate their case.

How do I know this? Because, as a witness at the Inquiry, I received the letter from the ODPM on Monday.

 

[Marc]

How do I know this? Because, as a witness at the Inquiry, I received the letter from the ODPM on Monday.

excellent thanks for clearing the whole thing up Lord B, not that it was messy but you know what I mean!

Early-Mid May then....COME ON!

 

[The Large One]

Having now read today's Argus report, I'm in a position to clarify what is going on.

Following the publication of the Hoile Report on the Local Plan, the Albion have written to the ODPM with a detailed explanation of how Hoile's report is factually wrong and why it shouldn't be relied on. The ODPM have now written to all of the people and organisations who appeared at the Public Inquiry, sending them a copy of the Albion's latest representation, and inviting them to comment on it. Those comments have to be with the ODPM by 9 April.

After 9 April, the ODPM may then decide to circulate all of the comments received to all of the parties who have responded - for further comment. If ODPM decide to do that, they will then set a new final deadline. That would probably be three weeks after the circulation of the comments received by 9 April - I would guess sometime in early to mid May. The decision will then follow, once all representations have been considered. If I were a betting man, I would expect this to be no earlier than late May or early June (with late May being an unlikely prospect).

There is an explicit statement in the letter from the ODPM (not quoted in the Argus) that the Secretary of State does not propose to allow a lengthy series of cross-representations and that he is not inviting the parties to restate their case.

How do I know this? Because, as a witness at the Inquiry, I received the letter from the ODPM on Monday.

Does this mean that 'we' (the fans) don't have to do anything; that this is something purely for the witnesses at the Inquiry to comment upon? Also, in your opinion, what do you think this says about the ODPM's way of thinking about this?

 

[Marc]

Does this mean that 'we' (the fans) don't have to do anything; that this is something purely for the witnesses at the Inquiry to comment upon? Also, in your opinion, what do you think this says about the ODPM's way of thinking about this?

But fans did witness the inquiry so could we get away with saying that the next 6,000 letters to fall on his doorstep all came from people who attended at least 1 day of it? Not so sure but might be worth a try!

 

[Yorkie]

Witness as in gave evidence as opposed to witness as in spectator?

 

[Icy Gull]

. The decision will then follow, once all representations have been considered. If I were a betting man, I would expect this to be no earlier than late May or early June (with late May being an unlikely prospect).
. [/B]

Sounds like we're unlikely to know until after the end of the season, which will be rather convenient for nimbys and the government if it's a no.

What at first seemed to be a reason for optimism is now not looking so good, to me anyway.

 

[Mr C]

Sounds like we're unlikely to know until after the end of the season, which will be rather convenient for nimbys and the government if it's a no.

What at first seemed to be a reason for optimism is now not looking so good, to me anyway.

I don't see why. The reason for the delay is not so that the decision is made after the season has finished. The reason for the delay is because these things take time. It's just coincidence it happens to be falling after the season.

 

[The Large One]

Sounds like we're unlikely to know until after the end of the season, which will be rather convenient for nimbys and the government if it's a no.

What at first seemed to be a reason for optimism is now not looking so good, to me anyway.

Don't see how. Nor is it any better or worse for NIMBYs. YES is YES, NO is NO, no matter when that is called. Is there only a certain time of year when we can persecute and lynch the 'people' of Falmer?

Clarifying my earlier question, I meant people who gave evidnce in the witness box.

 

[Kent Seagull]

The Falmer campaign and in particular todays Argus article got a mention on Radio 2 this afternoon on the Steve Wright show.

I reckon all this is good news and an ideal time for a final big push for Falmer.

What we need now is a big idea that will really have an impact. This is such an important time to let Prescott know just how important this stadium is to the Albion, football and Sussex.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Does this mean that 'we' (the fans) don't have to do anything; that this is something purely for the witnesses at the Inquiry to comment upon? Also, in your opinion, what do you think this says about the ODPM's way of thinking about this?

The Inquiry witnesses have been sent a 28 page submission by the Albion. That is what they are being asked to comment on.

What it says about the ODPM is that they are meticulous in the way in which they treat people who appeared as witnesses at the Inquiry. And just as well ... that way we can all avoid a Judicial Review of the process.

 

[berkshire seagull]

Well according to teletext its a big boost,so i'll settle for that.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Why can't somebody just suggest that Prescott get in one of his two Jags and come and take a look at the damn place. Soon settle the argument of how outstanding an area of natural beauty it is

 

[Gullet]

Why can't somebody just suggest that Prescott get in one of his two Jags and come and take a look at the damn place. Soon settle the argument of how outstanding an area of natural beauty it is

I put this exact same point forward in a seperate thread about 6 weeks ago, but was told by LB that apparently he's not allowed to. Dont really understand why not but who am I to argue?

 

[Yorkie]

He has been past Falmer because he visited the Sunblest site at the corner of Bexhill Road and Falmer Road.

 

[Caveman]

Personally I think Dick Knight has offered to buy Prescott a third Jag, if he delays his decision until after the 6th April 2004 it's in the new financial year and our Dick will save ££££'s on tax

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Why can't somebody just suggest that Prescott get in one of his two Jags and come and take a look at the damn place. Soon settle the argument of how outstanding an area of natural beauty it is

The problem is that it IS an AONB. And is therefore protected by the legislation that covers AONBs.

An AONB does not actually have to be an area of any beauty at all. All that it takes to be an AONB is to be located beyond the line that was drawn on a map many years ago. If that's the case, then the law says that major development is only permitted if:-

1. the need for the development cannot be met elsewhere; and
2. the development will deliver significant social or economic benefits that outweigh the loss of land; and
3. the need is material in terms of national considerations.

 

[The Large One]

Well, the stadium proposal covers those three points quite comfortably.