Falmer - ODPM asks interested parties to comment on Inspectors report

[Hadlee]

I think this could mean one of two things:

Collyier's report has recommended a yes, thus completely contradicting Hoile's one, so JP has asked for further submissions to clarify his final decision.

or (more worryingly)

Collier's report agrees with Hoile's and is a big no, but with all the support this application has received, coupled with the political implications on a no decision JP is desperately looking for more information to justify a yes without triggering a legal challenge from the anti's on his final decision.

Either way this is good news and hopefully a yes !!!

 

[The Oldman]

Seems like good news but I doubt if we will get a decision until the end of the year. As I understand the report in the Argus JP has not only agreed to allow supplementary evidence from all those who addressed the original hearings but those responses may then be circulated for further comments. So, after this new April 9 deadline there could be another round of consultation.
What happens if there is a government reshuffle and JP moves on to other jobs? Does not bear thinking about.
"Keep the faith" has never been so appropiate!

 

[Dave the OAP]

If it is the end of the year, then I think it will go into the " lets get important things done before the election" like hospitals and schools" etc etc., because I think that there will be an election early next year before the budget date and everything will go on getting re-elected.

If Labour are defeated, then although the Tories are for this now, will they support it once they are in power and if so how long before the new secretary of state will look at it.

This just gets worse and worse

 

[Easy 10]

A cabinet reshuffle is one thing, but surely Tony wouldn't change his Deputy. Dunno if the Deputy has been changed in previous reshuffles, but I wouldn't have thought its very commonplace, is it ?

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

I think this could mean one of two things:

Collyier's report has recommended a yes, thus completely contradicting Hoile's one, so JP has asked for further submissions to clarify his final decision.

or (more worryingly)

Collier's report agrees with Hoile's and is a big no, but with all the support this application has received, coupled with the political implications on a no decision JP is desperately looking for more information to justify a yes without triggering a legal challenge from the anti's on his final decision.

Either way this is good news and hopefully a yes !!!

both of those sound really true - quite worryingly!

 

[The Large One]

I think this could mean one of two things:

Collyier's report has recommended a yes, thus completely contradicting Hoile's one, so JP has asked for further submissions to clarify his final decision.

or (more worryingly)

Collier's report agrees with Hoile's and is a big no, but with all the support this application has received, coupled with the political implications on a no decision JP is desperately looking for more information to justify a yes without triggering a legal challenge from the anti's on his final decision.

Either way this is good news and hopefully a yes !!!

I strongly suspect the former is the case. As Easy 10 states, if it's a NO which the ODPM has already reached, they won't give two monkeys about saying so. I believe Collyer and Hoile have come to answers that are completely contradictory to each other. Which then begs the question, who does the ODPM believe?

The fact he is asking for Hoile's report to be torn to shreds by everyone indicates he wants clarification that Hoile is indeed up his own backside. One report saying one thing, and another stating the opposite can be (in the eyes of very blinkered determined people) grounds for a judicial review. And I think Prescott wants to avoid that.

Probably an unfortunate phrase in recent times, but Prescott wants this decision to be 'bomb-proof'.

BTW Prescott is elected Deputy Prime Minister (or Deputy Leader of the Labour Party), by Labour Party members, so Tony Blair can't sack him without incurring the wrath of the members. He is very unlikely to do that.

 

[Superseagull]

Why hasn't Collier's report been made public? After all it is a report on a PUBLIC INQUIRY!

Do the findings of the report only get disclosed after a final decision has been made or are they hidden from public knowledge forever?

 

[Marc]

Why hasn't Collier's report been made public? After all it is a report on a PUBLIC INQUIRY!

Do the findings of the report only get disclosed after a final decision has been made or are they hidden from public knowledge forever?

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20419

 

[Yorkie]

Crabbers, that is Charles Hoille's report not John Collyer's.

 

[Zeitgeist]

The leader of Falmer parish council was intervied on SCR at lunchtime. He's not a happy man. He's accused the Albion and its supporters of "nobbling" John Prescott! He's insisting that Prescott should go by the inspectors recomendations and nothing else. Is he hedging his bets that Collyers report is similar to Hoille's? He then went on to say that no representations should have been made after the enquiry was over and they were consulting their legal representives. I can smell an attempt to get a judicial review should Prescott say YES.....

 

[Marc]

The leader of Falmer parish council was intervied on SCR at lunchtime. He's not a happy man. He's accused the Albion and its supporters of "nobbling" John Prescott! He's insisting that Prescott should go by the inspectors recomendations and nothing else. Is he hedging his bets that Collyers report is similar to Hoille's? He then went on to say that no representations should have been made after the enquiry was over and they were consulting their legal representives. I can smell an attempt to get a judicial review should Prescott say YES.....

yeah does sound like the Anti-Falmer Brigade will take the Judicial Review option if it is a Yes...bastards! But accusing the Fans is totally wrong, I bet the villagers all wrote to JP which is undermining his words as its exactly the same thing! We are allowed a voice as we are citizens of the Nation and if we are not aloud to vent our voice then the Free Speech of the country is a joke and we may aswell be called ID Numbers and have no life. Ridiculous.

 

[Faldo]

But the only representation after the inquiry (to date) was from Hoile. So basically, they can rattle sabers and make their case against the stadium all they like, but as soon as Prezza looks to give us a chance to have a pop back, toys go flying everywhere...

Double standards anyone?

 

[Yorkie]

Surely a judicial review would look at the legality of John Prescott's department's handling of the reports.

What the fans do is nothing to do with it.

 

[Albion Dan]

The argument that the ODPM are waiting till close season to announce a No is so flawed.

The close season is only 10 weeks anyway, as if that will stop major disruption at the begining of next season. If there is going to be trouble for a No then it will be as severe in August as it would be now.

What would hiding the news during Euro 2004 acheive? Its not like we wont notice is it.

The 2nd argument is that I really dont think Prescott would give a toss when he said No if that was his decision, hes hardly one to be intimidated. I honestly think we are being naive if we think we as supporters of a Div 2 team carry that much clout.


We will definately get an awnser by next September one way or another, and this development in my opinion is very good news for us, look how rattled the Nimbys are. That tells its own story imo.

 

[The Large One]

Prescott has the power to ignore any reports and recommendations, and is under no obligation to follow them. It has been made plain that representations AFTER the public inquiry may or may not be taken into consideration, depending on its relevance. It is all above board. He could say NO, even if Hoile's and Collyer's reports have said YES.

The fact that the Falmer NIMBY has said this stuff and having a strop implies what are thinking on this board - that a YES decision is on its way, although in this case, he doesn't like it.

I honestly believe we will get a decision by the end of April 2004.

 

[Marc]

I honestly think we are being naive if we think we as supporters of a Div 2 team carry that much clout.

I agree, JP looks at us and probably thinks "well they may want a 22,000 seater stadium but thats all the fans in the country in theirs", I mean its not as if we're someone bigger like Forest/Norwich etc etc. I'm sure he's not worried in the slightest about us fans UNLESS he has been advised to read into the disturbances during the Archer/Belotti debacle?! but I highly doubt that

 

[Hadlee]

I agree with TLO, I don't go for this he will wait until end of season/year etc, once he has made up his mind and is happy with the decision he will announce it right away.

I suspect once the April deadline is passed he will only need 2 or 3 weeks to take in the additional info and come to a decision.......late April/early may I reckon !!

Imagine, on the eve of the play off final (Us v QPR) he announces a YES ? ........what a party in Cardiff that'll be !

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

If the Falmer numpties are pissed off then i'm feeling good!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Just one other thing- I heard a while ago that the cost of taking this to a judicial review would be in the region of £2 million+.

The Albion probably have contingency plans to raise some of this, just in case, but could Falmer Parish Council and 250 pitchfork wielding villagers really raise two million quid if Prescott gives them the answer they don't want to hear?

Hopefully not. At least not without raising the Falmer council tax to £32,000 per household....

 

[perseus]

What has Prescott done is

to widen the scope of the public representations beyond the narrow remits of the Falmer Public Inquiry.

If the case for Falmer is good enough compared to the other sites (and I am not saying it isn't), we should have nothing to worry about.

If you are paranoid, it has given the opportunity of the opponents of Falmer to put in their reasons why Sheepcote Valley or Shoreham Harbour, or Waterhall is to be preferred. I am sure they will not be able to do that because these other sites are just plain cruddy.

Then Prescott can say in his report he has given everybody a fair chance to air their views. Thereby giving the opponents the opportunity, and the Prescott's office the defence against the notion that Falmer was railroaded through without giving the opponents the chance to have their say.

I am reminded of the Inspector (exasperated) at the Wycombe Ground Public Inquiry when he asked the Council where does the Council want the Ground (cf. Stadium) to go. The Council was not able to come up with an answer so their plan was given the go-ahead.

It is like saying that "Prescott is a mind to say yes" but gives the opportunity of the public and stakeholders to come up with something better. This is what happened at the Arsenal CPO Inquiry as well.



PS: This actually WRONG! See Lord Bracknell's message below.

Just the stakeholders (groups that made representations at the Public Inquiry can comment).