High Court dates confirmed - LDC press release

[Gwylan]

Southampton and Portsmouth are completely different.

Southampton were given St Marys by the council as it was in an area marked for regeneration and was pushed through quite quickly their problems were when they were attempting to build their ground at Stoneham and Portsmouth's problems have been due to acquiring the land around Fratton Park.

No-one anywhere has had to wait 10 years !!!!

Thanks for explaining that, I didn't know the history of Southampton's travails. But Portsmouth's troubles seem to confirm what I was saying about planning laws.

I'm sure Barnet have been trying for about 10 years.

 

[Curious Orange]

The council have backed themselves into a corner by suggesting that Waterhall, which every man woman and child in B&H knows is the prefect place for the ground and furthe development to sustain it, is not available becuase no development must take place North of the bypass....Oh yes, apart from Brighton Rugby club grounds, clubhouse, the new astro turf pitches etc etc.

Don't mention the W word Dave, we all know there is plenty of space there, but there are so many other problems with the site that even Mr Collyer, by far LDC's favourite Inspector, concluded that there would never be any reasonable likelihood of planning permission ever being given there.

And don't think its ever not going to be in an AONB any time soon.

 

[blockhseagull]

Thanks for explaining that, I didn't know the history of Southampton's travails. But Portsmouth's troubles seem to confirm what I was saying about planning laws.

I'm sure Barnet have been trying for about 10 years.

Not sure about Barnet to be honest

Aren't Portsmouth's problems actually due to purchasing the land from other people rather than getting permission to build on it ?

 

[Gwylan]

Not sure about Barnet to be honest

Aren't Portsmouth's problems actually due to purchasing the land from other people rather than getting permission to build on it ?

Sorry, yes. But I was including that as part of the problems faced by planners.

I'm not saying that planners should do whatever they want BTW, but at the moment, one individual can hold up something supported by a majority.

 

[blockhseagull]

Sorry, yes. But I was including that as part of the problems faced by planners.

I'm not saying that planners should do whatever they want BTW, but at the moment, one individual can hold up something supported by a majority.

Well that sums it up in a nutshell doesn't it.

At the end of the day if you have 'friends' in the right places it doesn't matter how many people want something, the minority can always cause problems.

 

[Arthur]

Have you read the Inspectors' reports?

Yes I have.

It still doens't detract from the fact that we are no nearer building a new football ground.

 

[Arthur]

I appreciate what you are saying and in some way agree with you, however, we have gone too far down the road to have a No now.

People know on here that I am of the opinion it will fail at some point, however I am prepared to back the Board in their efforts as I also believe that Falmer is the only place available.

That is the issue here.

The council have backed themselves into a corner by suggesting that Waterhall, which every man woman and child in B&H knows is the prefect place for the ground and furthe development to sustain it, is not available becuase no development must take place North of the bypass....Oh yes, apart from Brighton Rugby club grounds, clubhouse, the new astro turf pitches etc etc. I am still of the opinion B&H knew we would have horrendous problems getting Falmer passed, but saw it as the only option available.

Which brings me back to Withdean. For the short term future of the club, Withdean would be fine if we could negotiate some sort of deal to allow us to derive income from it to alleviate the losses( I have no idea what that would be) Long term, and to match the ambition of the fans, it is not ( Planning, bridge etc etc), therefore all the eggs are in one basket and Falmer is that basket.

Ahhh a sensible reply. thanks.

You've pretty much echo'd my point about the eggs being in one basket, I'm certainly not saying that we should not back the club and the Falmer campaign. Far from it! I'm simply saying there has to be a point where one side is going to have to admit defeat.

That point IMO isn't now. We have come soo far and we are very very close, but every time we get within touching distance the goalposts are moved costing the club more and more money.

I'd rather the club existed anywhere than not at all.

 

[Curious Orange]

Yes I have.

It still doens't detract from the fact that we are no nearer building a new football ground.

Well, at least you have an informed opinion. I just wanted to check, as some people start spouting without actually knowing anything.

As for being no nearer to building, well that is very subjective isn't it. With the announcement of the court dates yesterday, I'd say we are actually further down the line than we were the day before when we didn't know them.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

What does AFIAK mean?


No , it failed because the council has a plan that says nothing can be built North of the Bypass and if planning permission would be sought, we would not get it.

You cant walk from Huddersfields Station, or Derby, or Coventry, or Leicester, or Southampton...........

Dave, I'd have to disagree with you on Huddersfield and Southampton. I easily walked from the station when we last played your "other" mob, albeit via an hour in the Slubbers Arms, and Southampton did not look that far on the map (I drove there). However, I'll get to my main point. As I have bound on about for some while, I think legislation is needed to stop councils holding up developments that have been passed by neighbouring authorities that are not in their area. It's fine for individuals to raise their own protests (as a resident of Wealden District, I could object to the proposed East Grinstead bypass), but we surely have delineated council boundaries so that the relevant authority is deemed competent to make planning decisions within its area. By the way, can someone tell me if Lewes are so opposed to the Falmer stadium and the bus and coach park is in their area, how did we get permission for it? Did they refuse it and Prescott give us permission? Sorry if this is fixtures, Kanchelskis, or GOSBTS, but I am confused.

 

[sparkie]

... By the way, can someone tell me if Lewes are so opposed to the Falmer stadium and the bus and coach park is in their area, how did we get permission for it? Did they refuse it and Prescott give us permission? Sorry if this is fixtures, Kanchelskis, or GOSBTS, but I am confused.

They didn't have an opportunity to refuse it as the overall stadium plan was called in by Presott before any decision was required of them.

 

[Curious Orange]

Dave, I'd have to disagree with you on Huddersfield and Southampton. I easily walked from the station when we last played your "other" mob, albeit via an hour in the Slubbers Arms, and Southampton did not look that far on the map (I drove there). However, I'll get to my main point. As I have bound on about for some while, I think legislation is needed to stop councils holding up developments that have been passed by neighbouring authorities that are not in their area. It's fine for individuals to raise their own protests (as a resident of Wealden District, I could object to the proposed East Grinstead bypass), but we surely have delineated council boundaries so that the relevant authority is deemed competent to make planning decisions within its area. By the way, can someone tell me if Lewes are so opposed to the Falmer stadium and the bus and coach park is in their area, how did we get permission for it? Did they refuse it and Prescott give us permission? Sorry if this is fixtures, Kanchelskis, or GOSBTS, but I am confused.

The planning applications that came within LDC's jurisdiction were never considered by them as they were called in as part of the Public Inquiry for the Secretary of State to make the decision.

 

[The Large One]

In my eyes it's 50-50 as to which way it'll go, is it worth risking the life of this football club with odds like that?

I await my

I think it's more like 98-2 in our favour, rather than 50-50.

Lewes District Council's ENTIRE campaign has been about delay, delay, delay. They have no legal basis for the challenges (save one). The frustration (and the cornerstone of yours and Dave the Gaffer's argument) is borne from the amount of time this has taken. Every step of this process seems to have an eight month gap inbetween.

If you took aways those gaps, and condensed the process down into, say, a month's worth of debate, you will find it easier to see that the wind is very much in our sails, and NOTHING has been said by either the city council or the government to indicate a change of position in their planning consent. Everything you hear is hot air, misinformation and lies by Lewes District Council.

So the grounds for your pessimism are not particularly strong.

 

[Arthur]

So the grounds for your pessimism are not particularly strong.

The grounds for my pessimism are very strong, trust me!

20th July 2016 someone feel free to bounce this thread.

I hope I'm wrong, but I stand by what I said last night, in 10 years time a stadium at Falmer won't be built.

 

[Napper]

this is ok though , at least we have a date and can surely assume a decision will be with us March / April .

If it's a No , can we then appeal ?

 

[The Large One]

People know on here that I am of the opinion it will fail at some point, however I am prepared to back the Board in their efforts as I also believe that Falmer is the only place available.

Sorry, Dave, but I can't see the basis for this opinion (about failure). Time (aside from the fact that it is costing us money) is not an issue in terms of the club's, the fans' and the City Council's determination to have the stadium built.

Unless a new board took over and abandoned the project, the project will not fail. All pointers indicate to the stadium being built, and no relevant pointers say that it won't.

The council have backed themselves into a corner by suggesting that Waterhall, which every man woman and child in B&H knows is the prefect place for the ground and furthe development to sustain it, is not available becuase no development must take place North of the bypass....Oh yes, apart from Brighton Rugby club grounds, clubhouse, the new astro turf pitches etc etc. I am still of the opinion B&H knew we would have horrendous problems getting Falmer passed, but saw it as the only option available.

Waterhall failed on several levels. In summary...

1. North of the by-pass, so against Council policy on planning.
2. Poor public transport links (i.e. no railways station, and no prospect of one being built). Excess millions spent if it was to be built.
3. Poor road links. Excess millions would have to have been spent building link road from the pylons and from the Dyke Road junctions for access, egress and emergency services.

 

[The Large One]

The grounds for my pessimism are very strong, trust me!

20th July 2016 someone feel free to bounce this thread.

I hope I'm wrong, but I stand by what I said last night, in 10 years time a stadium at Falmer won't be built.

I don't have blue and white blinkered specs, I just pay attention to the legal and planning process. And in doing so, I see that ALL the indicators are in place (local authority approval, government approval, a sound legal justification for the decisions, precedent) to say that the stadium should be built, so what are the grounds for your pessimism?

Or do you believe Lewes District Council have a case? The grounds for your pessimism can only be based on believing Lewes District Council have a case. The Treasury Solicitor belives they don't. Aside from that, I see nothing in your argument to indicate that your '10 years' statement has any value.

Therefore, common sense dictates that the stadium will be built.

 

[Arthur]

I don't have blue and white blinkered specs, I just pay attention to the legal and planning process. And in doing so, I see that ALL the indicators are in place (local authority approval, government approval, a sound legal justification for the decisions, precedent) to say that the stadium should be built, so what are the grounds for your pessimism?

There are two

1) the form
2) money

Or do you believe Lewes District Council have a case?

Not at all

The grounds for your pessimism can only be based on believing Lewes District Council have a case.

There go those blue and white tinted specs again

The Treasury Solicitor belives they don't. Aside from that, I see nothing in your argument to indicate that your '10 years' statement has any value.

I hope you are right, as I said it's only my opinion.

Therefore, common sense dictates that the stadium will be built.

Good, I'm glad we got that cleared up!

 

[The Large One]

There are two

1) the form
2) money

What do you mean by those two?

The form - meaning Lewes' behaviour? The sod's law-ishness of everything?

Money - as in the club does not have enough money to build it, or the club will go bust before we get to build the stadium?

 

[Easy 10]

And if you don't believe that LDC have case, then why don't you believe the stadium will be built ?

(sorry to butt in)

 

[Arthur]

The form - meaning Lewes' behaviour? The sod's law-ishness of everything?

Yup exactly that.

How many obstacles that weren't account for (and that's not a dig at anyone - who could have predicted the wording on a letter would be incorrect for example) have we had to over come so far. I'm sure there are going to be several more.

Money - as in the club does not have enough money to build it, or the club will go bust before we get to build the stadium?

The former.