Lewes District Council Cabinet Meeting Wednesday 11 January

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord Bracknell

Curious Orange's point re: the South Downs National Park has not been commented on, and assuming that the wording from the letter he quotes is correct, this does seem to be a fundamental cock-up from Lewes. Comments?

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Letter Re-opening the Inquiry
d) The implications for the application site and for any of the other alternative sites located within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of the proposed designation of the South Downs National Park.

I would take it to mean that, because the SDNP public inquiry report has yet to be published, it wuld have been wrong for Prescott to take it into account as a factor one way or the other. Lewes, on the other hand wanted Prescott to wait until this report was out (Oct 06 it's due) before he made his mind up about Falmer? Would this be correct?

I have to say that I don't know what Prescott had in mind when he included this in the terms of reference for the re-opened Inquiry.

Presumably the ODPM will make their position clear if and when the case comes to Court.

The matter got discussed at the Inquiry mainly in the context of Toads Hole Valley - the one "alternative site" where (apparently) most people at the National Park Inquiry had accepted that it was likely to lose its protected status. To that extent, the designation of the National Park might be said to make it more likely that development would happen.

But far more important for THV is the fact - established without doubt at the Inquiry and confirmed by David Brier in his Report - that a football stadium there would be unacceptable on traffic grounds.

As far as Falmer is concerned, LDC seem to be under the impression that their advocacy of the stadium site being included within the National Park boundary is likely to be accepted by the Secretary of State. This seems to me to be very far from likely - and not even in line with the Countryside Agency's position at the National Park Inquiry.

 

[Strike]

.

 

[BensGrandad]

Lord B. I read that we are named as co-defendants does this mean that we will have to hire and pay for counsel? Hope this hasn't been covered elsewhere and I have missed it.

Point of interest if the stadium was built at THV the game would probably have been cancelled yesterday as you couldnt see very far in front of you as happens on most days in the winter. Totally unacceptable for that issue alone but not sure that it is a valid point for legal argument.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Lord B. I read that we are named as co-defendants does this mean that we will have to hire and pay for counsel? Hope this hasn't been covered elsewhere and I have missed it.

The Club hasn't yet said how much this will cost.

My guess is ... a lot of money. When LDC lose, they will no doubt see the Club claiming their costs.

 

[Bwian]

I'm glad there are some people still with their eyes on the Falmer ball because I have grown tired of it all. I, like many, many people have petitoned, written letters, marched, sent flowers, sent CDs, etc., etc. And still we're being dicked around by a bunch of chinless, monied inbreds who are lying like bastards at every opportunity. I'm suffering from Falmer fatigue...

 

[BensGrandad]

The Club hasn't yet said how much this will cost.

My guess is ... a lot of money. When LDC lose, they will no doubt see the Club claiming their costs.

I know it not the answer but what if as in our position we couldn't afford further legal fees. Would we just lose automatically after all we have done EVERYTHING that was expected of us and more but there must be a limit. Or is it a case of LDC can squander any amount of money in the hope that we can't match them and eventually lose.

 

[The Large One]

I know it not the answer but what if as in our position we couldn't afford further legal fees. Would we just lose automatically after all we have done EVERYTHING that was expected of us and more but there must be a limit. Or is it a case of LDC can squander any amount of money in the hope that we can't match them and eventually lose.

In theory, there is a finite amount of money required, because there is a limit to Albion's involvement in the case. Remember the Albion are co-defendants - it's the Government Lewes are after, much as it would delight Lewes to see the Albion go bust.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

I am getting very fecking bored with this continual misrepresntation of Falmer 'Village'. Frankly, it's getting on my f***ing NERVES.

They hope that if they keep repeating the same old shit all the time more and more people will believe them-and it's working to a certain degree.

The misrepresentation would surely end if, every time the " Virgin AONB/Falmer Village as Rural Idyll " issue got raised, the showing of this picture was REQUIRED BY LAW.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[BensGrandad]

So in a hypothetical manner we could just jump on the back of the governement and allow their legal team, which will obviously be funded out of public expenses with no limits, to conduct the case and us just be attached to the verdict with very little actual input and hardly any legal involvement..

Hope Cherie Blair doesnt advise the legal team against the government cos she normally wins.

 

[perseus]

> I would take it to mean that, because the SDNP public inquiry report has yet to be published, it wuld have been wrong for Prescott to take it into account as a factor one way or the other. Lewes, on the other hand wanted Prescott to wait until this report was out (Oct 06 it's due) before he made his mind up about Falmer? Would this be correct? (Curious Orange) <

It would make f.... difference either way. The whole caboodle was based on the AONB legislation at the time of the Planning Application. To do otherwise there would be a "point of law" to dispute.

When considering the best site, it may be regarded to bear in mind a possible change in designation in the future as part of one of many considerations, but this is point of opinion rather than law. Prescott has made his decision on that. So their argument is that the wordsmith could have scripted the answer in clearer words

To put it plainly their argument is CRAP (an acronym).

CARRYING RESENTMENTS AGAINST PRESCOTT.

 

[Bwian]

The misrepresentation would surely end if, every time the " Virgin AONB/Falmer Village as Rural Idyll " issue got raised, the showing of this picture was REQUIRED BY LAW.

[/URL][/IMG]

You know that, I know that, Melanie Fu**ing Cuttress knows that, LDC knows it, all of those chinless twits know it, nearly everybody knows it but they STILL peddle their lies and misrepresentation.

I hope it costs these people a shitload of money. I also hope the Albion sue these feckers for loss of earnings for the time they've held us up.

 

[BensGrandad]

The misrepresentation would surely end if, every time the " Virgin AONB/Falmer Village as Rural Idyll " issue got raised, the showing of this picture was REQUIRED BY LAW.

[/URL][/IMG]

One would assume that this aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area has been used and shown on countless occassions to help prove the point and still the NIMBYs say the site is in or adjacent to Falmer Village.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The misrepresentation would surely end if, every time the " Virgin AONB/Falmer Village as Rural Idyll " issue got raised, the showing of this picture was REQUIRED BY LAW.

[/URL][/IMG]

That picture misrepresents where the stadium will go.

The darker green patch in the top left hand quadrant of the oval is completely outside the site. It's in Falmer Parish and it's owned by the Church Commissioners.

The stadium will only occupy the bottom left quadrant of the oval, plus land that is outside the oval, to the bottom of it and left of it.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

That picture misrepresents where the stadium will go.

The darker green patch in the top left hand quadrant of the oval is completely outside the site. It's in Falmer Parish and it's owned by the Church Commissioners.

The stadium will only occupy the bottom left quadrant of the oval, plus land that is outside the oval, to the bottom of it and left of it.

Well, LB, that's the Argus for you! But at least it does include the site. And it makes clear that the stadium will not be atop Ditchling Beacon in a kind of Goodwood stylee. Nor hovering malevolently over the doomed village, a la Close Encounters finale.

At your next presentation, why not show the picture (sans white oval if you must) and invite those gibbering councillors to pick out the university, the railway and the A27... Then play Spot the Pond, Name That Church....

 

[Yorkie]

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I hope it costs these people a shitload of money. I also hope the Albion sue these feckers for loss of earnings for the time they've held us up.

Yeah, but just watch them bail out, one by one, as the costs mount, so they can say nothing to do with me guv.

Surely the thing to do is find out which LDC councillors are most strongly anti-Falmer and mount campaigns to get them voted out at the local elections on the grounds of taking decisions about constituents money behind closed doors. Then the request for the Judicial Review can be withdrawn.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Yeah, but just watch them bail out, one by one, as the costs mount, so they can say nothing to do with me guv.

Surely the thing to do is find out which LDC councillors are most strongly anti-Falmer and mount campaigns to get them voted out at the local elections on the grounds of taking decisions about constituents money behind closed doors. Then the request for the Judicial Review can be withdrawn.

The problem with this tactic is that the next council elections in Lewes aren't until May 2007. The Judicial Review will be all over by then.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The problem with this tactic is that the next council elections in Lewes aren't until May 2007.

I stand corrected m'lud

 

[The Large One]

The problem with this tactic is that the next council elections in Lewes aren't until May 2007. The Judicial Review will be all over by then.

Hypothetical I know but I would wager that LDC councillors wouldn't be doing this if the elections were this year.

 

[mona]

The problem with this tactic is that the next council elections in Lewes aren't until May 2007. The Judicial Review will be all over by then.

By their actions Baker, Commin, DeVecchi etc are taking a risk with their political careers. They are damaging BHAFC financially as a deliberate tactic. All of us should do everything we can to legitimately wreck their political careers. The fact that the LibDems are currently getting a lot of publicity is a definite advantage.
If the majority of Lewes DC voters are against the JR, then the more publicity the anti-football DeVecchi and the smug Commin get, the greater the pressure will be on them.