Falmer Shock! - No Need for the Case to go to Court

[Dave the OAP]

why do you have to shout!!!

thankyou for this mr rosm

Sportsman or your ponsey pub in town?

FORZA ITALIA

FORZA FIORENTINA

FORZA MUSSOLINI

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

LDC have a problem here, assuming Prescott says yes second time around. They have put forward all their arguments in favour of a JR, many of which are saying that Prescott didn't take acount of this or that. When Prescott reissues the permnission letter, you can bet your boots that he will say "I did consider this and that but in my opinion it's not relevant" And, as I understand it, it's his opinion that counts.

In other words, LDC have shown their cards to the OPDM who now have a chance to come up with a letter that covers all their points.

And if then LDC do decide to go for a JR, their inital complaints will hopefully have all been covered. they may come up with others of course, but the Court may well ask them why they didn't come up with these new objections in the first place.

I still think that the way out of this is for LDC to take the opportunity that they will amost certainly have to say "well, we tried, but there comes a time when it would be irresponsible of us to throw good money after bad". No politician - JP or LDC - will ever simply change their mind and back down from a position without being able to put some sort of favourable spin on it.

But there's a dificult dilemma in all of this for us. It may be that the more we put pressure on LDC to withdraw, especially what they can describe as irresponsible or football-hooligan pressure, the less likely they are to back down. DK was right at the press conference when we first got the permission when he called on everyone to put our differences behind us, accept the decision, and get on with the job of building the stadium and getting the best out of it for everyone.

 

[ROSM]

why do you have to shout!!!

thankyou for this mr rosm

Sportsman or your ponsey pub in town?

FORZA ITALIA

FORZA FIORENTINA

FORZA MUSSOLINI

sorry, was trying to be heard above Gnarls Barkley

No pub for me today - what with being teatotal an all.

Say what you like about Mussolini - at least he made the trains run on time

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Dave - My responses are in RED

I am now awake and fully refreshed.

So can the people who know everything on here ( ie ED and SM) tell me this:

1. Did this decision come in court? ie did it cost LDC anything at all?

No and Yes. The decision not to dispute the LDC case on the Built Up Area Boundary was made by the Treasury Solicitor (ie the Government's Lawyer). The ODPM have accepted this decision. LDC have already incurred costs, by paying for external legal advice to prepare and present their Case.

2. I was told by many people that the Government had NEVER lost an appeal...do I take it you will revise your comments as it appears to me they have now lost this one.

If that's what you were told, you will told wrong. Between 2000 and 2005, the government lost 43 per cent of appeals heard in the Administrative Court. This includes planning and non-planning Judicial Review cases.

3. As you are so confident that the GVT will just amend the wording, are you also as confident that LDC are just going to lay down and accept it, or do you believe they will appeal further?

The reworded decision will undoubtedly address ALL of the issues that LDC have raised and will reflect the legal advice that the ODPM have received that LDC have no substantive case on the other matters. LDC have said that they will not commit more expenditure than they have already. A further appeal will break that promise

4. Just what the f*** is it to do with Mark macghee anyway. Can someone tell him that this is a B&HAFC matter and 100% of his efforts must be concentrated on keeping the club up.

This affects the whole of the Albion. Fans are supporting the Club. McGhee is supporting the fans - see today's Argus

5. Why are we always so confident about something that two inspectors have turned down and now a judge has agreed that the wording was flawed. Blind stupidity or blind optimism?

No judge has been involved. The third Inspector concluded that Falmer is the only possible site. The first two Inspectors failed to address the Issue of alternative sites in any depth - the only detailed evidence presented on alternative sites at the first Inquiry came from opponents of the Falmer site. The terms of reference of the first Inquiry weren't set to include a detailed investigation of alternative sites. Faced with one-sided evidence, it's hardly surprising that the first two Inspectors came to the wrong conclusions.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

why do you have to shout!!!

thankyou for this mr rosm

Sportsman or your ponsey pub in town?

FORZA ITALIA

FORZA FIORENTINA

FORZA MUSSOLINI

I can't let this go.

The day before the Italian general election, why the hell are you promoting Berlusconi's political movement?

Fiorentina are scum! Remember 4 September 1260!

As for Mussolini ... words fail me.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Seems to me that LDC residents should be pressing their council to say just how much costs have already been incurred, and will they have to be incurred all over again when Prescott's got the wording tight.

Must be approaching 25K already, I've have thought. Wasn't one of their number promising to resign when it reached that figure?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Seems to me that LDC residents should be pressing their council to say just how much costs have already been incurred, and will they have to be incurred all over again when Prescott's got the wording tight.

Must be approaching 25K already, I've have thought. Wasn't one of their number promising to resign when it reached that figure?

Indeed.

Councillor Neil Commin, lead councillor for Planning.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I can't let this go.

The day before the Italian general election, why the hell are you promoting Berlusconi's political movement?

Fiorentina are scum! Remember 4 September 1260!

As for Mussolini ... words fail me.

OI


Mussolini made the trains run on time...what more can you ask as a commuter


1260 Yes those Siennese bastards defeated the Forces of Firenze - WE WILL NEVER FORGET

FORZA FIERENZE

 

[Lord Bracknell]

But you agree about Berlusconi?

There's still hope for you, Dave.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Berlusconi reminds me too much of Murdoch.

Are you going to the sportsman?

 

[perseus]

Re: Lewes win on a technicality

The mistake was made deliberately by the ODPM. (From someone in the trade. These mistakes do not happen on purpose.)

I thought at first, they were just too busy to do a proper job, but this is not so likely as a deliberate sabotage and then tipping off the objectors.

Today's Argus
http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS0.html


Falmer bid rocked by Prescott's blunder

by Rob Hustwayte

PLANNING permission for Albion's Falmer stadium has been sensationally quashed after John Prescott admitted making a blunder in his letter of approval.

The Deputy Prime Minister made a fundamental factual error when he said "Yes" to the 22,000-seat arena last October and will now reconsider the application.

Lawyers for Lewes District Council pointed out the mistake in their evidence to the High Court, where they were seeking a judicial review of the planning permission.

A spokesman for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) said Mr Prescott acknowledged he had made an error in his decision letter, when he said "Yes" to Falmer.

As a result, his office has decided not to challenge Lewes District Council's legal action.

The spokesman said: "Instead, the planning permission will be rescinded and the Secretary of State will make a new decision.

"This does not mean the original decision was wrong. We have conceded because of a technical error, not because of the substance of the decision."

In his approval letter, Mr Prescott made a number of references to the stadium being inside the development boundary of Brighton and Hove as designated by the local plan.

But Lewes District Council pointed out only a small part of the stadium site at Village Way was inside the boundary.

It was understood to be the council's key argument in its attempt to get the stadium permission overthrown in the High Court in a joint action with Falmer Parish Council and the South Downs Society.

Anti-stadium campaigners are claiming victory but Albion bosses said fans had nothing to worry about and the news was likely to actually speed up the long-running stadium saga.

Albion Chief Executive Martin Perry said: "The club is pleased that the Treasury Solicitor has decided to take this route.

"Although it will give a Pyrrhic victory to Lewes, this is the most sensible and quickest route out of the mess Lewes have created, because the club will not have to wait for a court hearing, or the time it takes for the judgement to be made. It is only a minor technicality and was not a determining factor in the decision."

He said it would not affect the club's latest target of opening the ?50 million arena in time for the 2009/10 season.

Club chairman Dick Knight added: "It is extremely frustrating that Lewes have been be able to delay the process on a technicality. I fail to understand why they should be so hostile towards the stadium, which will bring massive sporting, social and economic benefits, not just to Brighton and Hove but to the whole of Sussex including Lewes."

Mr Prescott will now invite the football club, Lewes District Council, Brighton and Hove City Council and other parties to the planning inquiry to submit written evidence on the mistake.

The ODPM could not say how long that would take or what the outcome would be, but Mr Perry predicts the club will have final, water-tight planning permission by August this year.

But if Mr Prescott says "Yes" again there is a chance Lewes District Council could seek another judicial review.

The boundary issue was not the only point made by the council in its evidence to the High Court. It also questioned whether Mr Prescott was right to allow development on a legally-protected landscape and that he failed to recognise other suitable sites, like Sheepcote Valley and Toad's Hole Valley.

Buffoon The ODPM spokesman added: "The Secretary of State does not concede on any of the other grounds of challenge that Lewes District Council have made."

Norman Baker MP, who opposed the Falmer site, said: "It seems like a pretty major mistake to make and it will mean more unwelcome uncertainty for both the club and the people of Falmer. I'm not surprised in one way because the ODPM is the most useless department in the Government and John Prescott is a buffoon.

"Whatever happens now we need a decision in the shortest possible time. This can't go on indefinitely."

Tim Carder, chairman of Brighton and Hove Albion Supporters' Club, said: "Congratulations to Lewes, it looks like they will have won the day on this one technicality.

"But Mr Prescott wording his decision incorrectly doesn't alter the fact the stadium was approved because it significantly helps the regeneration of a deprived area. It is still in the national interest, and it was given the go-ahead because the benefits hugely outweigh the harm to this nondescript, urbanised part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty."

Falmer For All campaigner Ed Bassford sounded a warning note, saying: "A lot will depend on whether or not Lewes District Council accepts the other points it made were invalid.

"If not then they could well seek another judicial review if Mr Prescott says yes again."

A spokesman for Lewes District Council was unavailable for comment last night.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

You've lost me, percy.

Not for the first time.

 

[perseus]

You've lost me, percy.

Not for the first time.

It is the Conspiracy Theory.

What do you think?

1) An innocent mistake by an incompetent Civil Servant?

2) A deliberate mistake introduced by the Civil Servant in sympathy with the original Inspector's findings?

It ius usually a cock-up, but NOT in this case! How can it be?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It is the Conspiracy Theory.

What do you think?

1) An innocent mistake by an incompetent Civil Servant?

2) A deliberate mistake introduced by the Civil Servant in sympathy with the original Inspector's findings?

It ius usually a cock-up, but NOT in this case! How can it be?

I can't see how this error helps the opponents of Falmer Stadium win their case. It's a mistake. No more.

 

[perseus]

Oppponents can never win their case. They can only delay it. (If they had a winnable case against development on the grotty bit of land, no developer with any sense would even consider applying for Planning Permission.)

Anyrate, I asked the question.

I think they are clever and arrogant enough to try this sort of thing.

90% says it is a cock-up?

 

[Everest]

100% says you are a cock up.

 

[London Irish]

The day before the Italian general election, why the hell are you promoting Berlusconi's political movement?

One of our main sponsors does this on their website. I've always found this a bit and have subsequently trooped on further to the Al Duomo chain when in need of my carbonara.

http://www.donatello.co.uk/links.stm

 

[Screaming J]

But there's a dificult dilemma in all of this for us. It may be that the more we put pressure on LDC to withdraw, especially what they can describe as irresponsible or football-hooligan pressure, the less likely they are to back down. DK was right at the press conference when we first got the permission when he called on everyone to put our differences behind us, accept the decision, and get on with the job of building the stadium and getting the best out of it for everyone.

I'll put my differences with LDC behind ME when they put their differences with Falmer behind THEM.

Until then its bloody WAR I tell you!!!

 

[Screaming J]

You've lost me, percy.

Not for the first time.

Save your typing fingers Lord B. The man's a fruit bat; we all know it!