Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Decision - YES, but first prove there's nowhere else available
- Thread starter Lord Bracknell
- Start date
- Status
Answer me this to clear my head as still confused:
WHERE does JP say that Falmer is YES *if* no other site is viable enough?
As i read it he's just asking about other sites and wants reports on them, nothing I have read as categorically (sp?) stated that we WILL get Falmer if all other sites are crap.
WHERE does JP say that Falmer is YES *if* no other site is viable enough?
As i read it he's just asking about other sites and wants reports on them, nothing I have read as categorically (sp?) stated that we WILL get Falmer if all other sites are crap.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
CrabtreeBHA said:
Because the only issue being looked at is whether there are any suitable alternative sites. This is one of the criteria for building in an AONB, that it is permissable if there are no alternative sites. Therefore, prove that the other sites aren't suitable and suddenly it is definitely acceptable to build at Falmer, the other criteria for building in an AONB already having been met, and so a "Yes" decision is made.
(I'm inferring that the other criteria have been met from the fact that they aren't being considered at the re-opening of the Inquiry)
Last edited:
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
Thinking about this, there were 3 possible outcomes this morning.
(1) No, turn the plans down. We might have gone for a judicial review, at best would have taken a year or so, although the most likely outcome would have been a LOT more money spent and we still lose.
(2) Yes, permission granted. In this case, an almost certain judicial review, especially as JP would have ignored two inspectors recommendation. Best outcome, it takes at least another year but we win, although it costs us loads more dosh. And we may still lose.
(3) The maybe decision we got. Worst case scenario somebody miraculously finds that we can build somewhere else, although most likely outcome is a 3-4 month delay followed by granting of permission for Falmer. No chance of a Judicial Review.
JP has done us a huge favour with this decision. Why? Not because he's a closet Seagull fan, it can ONLY be because of the lobbying everybodyt has done on his office - flowers, postcards, Valentine cards, letters, emails, whatever. To everybody who did anything, and that's just about everybody on here and loads of other people who never come anywhere near NSC, it's pat yourself on the back time, and you can tell your granchildren, I did my bit!
(1) No, turn the plans down. We might have gone for a judicial review, at best would have taken a year or so, although the most likely outcome would have been a LOT more money spent and we still lose.
(2) Yes, permission granted. In this case, an almost certain judicial review, especially as JP would have ignored two inspectors recommendation. Best outcome, it takes at least another year but we win, although it costs us loads more dosh. And we may still lose.
(3) The maybe decision we got. Worst case scenario somebody miraculously finds that we can build somewhere else, although most likely outcome is a 3-4 month delay followed by granting of permission for Falmer. No chance of a Judicial Review.
JP has done us a huge favour with this decision. Why? Not because he's a closet Seagull fan, it can ONLY be because of the lobbying everybodyt has done on his office - flowers, postcards, Valentine cards, letters, emails, whatever. To everybody who did anything, and that's just about everybody on here and loads of other people who never come anywhere near NSC, it's pat yourself on the back time, and you can tell your granchildren, I did my bit!
tigger
New member
I am pretty confident about this now, but I have a nagging worry about the cost of developing other sites. The ODPM letter says that the 7 sites will be assessed against various criteria including:
Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
and
Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs.
What does this mean? When does a site become unaffordable?
Just supposing the enquiry says that Toads Hole Valley is the site we must build the stadium. This site is in private hands and it would cost a fortune to purchase the site. Could we be landed with a site that ODPM considers viable, but which the club in reality could never afford?
Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
and
Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs.
What does this mean? When does a site become unaffordable?
Just supposing the enquiry says that Toads Hole Valley is the site we must build the stadium. This site is in private hands and it would cost a fortune to purchase the site. Could we be landed with a site that ODPM considers viable, but which the club in reality could never afford?
Collar Feeler
No longer feeling collars
- Jul 26, 2003
- 1,322
Local BBC South Today is still reporting that it is a NO from Prescott. Muppets!!
Row Z Creased Shirt
New member
Provided this decision is designed to stymie any possible judicial review then I welcome it and it should be a formality.
But it is well known why the alternative sites are not suitable. There has been one independent study already, and the enquiry heard all the arguments already. Basically because Hoile f***ked it up we have to extrend this farce even further.
Who the hell is going to pay for this new enquiry, will we be shelling out another few hundred grand we haven't got, just because a total ignoramus can't see black from white!!!!
We have done absolutely everything by the book, over a period of several years, yet a handful of miserable old sots and bat fanciers have been allowed to hold up proceedings with their ill thought out and factually incorrect arguements, what a load of tosh.
I hope Lord B is right and it is time to celebrate, everyone involved in the campaign is a credit to the club and the city, and hopefully the end is in sight. However it doesn't stop me being bitter about how we have been messed about.
But it is well known why the alternative sites are not suitable. There has been one independent study already, and the enquiry heard all the arguments already. Basically because Hoile f***ked it up we have to extrend this farce even further.
Who the hell is going to pay for this new enquiry, will we be shelling out another few hundred grand we haven't got, just because a total ignoramus can't see black from white!!!!
We have done absolutely everything by the book, over a period of several years, yet a handful of miserable old sots and bat fanciers have been allowed to hold up proceedings with their ill thought out and factually incorrect arguements, what a load of tosh.
I hope Lord B is right and it is time to celebrate, everyone involved in the campaign is a credit to the club and the city, and hopefully the end is in sight. However it doesn't stop me being bitter about how we have been messed about.
Gblocksouthstand
Member
The penultimate bullet point in the news release from the ODPM clearly states that no view will be formed on the recommended rejection of Falmer by the enquiry inspector, until the second inspector has reported on alternative sites.
How does this tie in with LB's detailed report that Falmer has passed 4 out of the five criteria for acceptance? Is the news release just a piece of misleading spin? It is so woolly that it seems to have been written specifically to make everyone think that they haven't lost.
I am only a novice on NSC - could someone tell me who LB is and how he has got hold of the inside. I would feel much better if I knew that his analysis was as authoritative as it sounds.
How does this tie in with LB's detailed report that Falmer has passed 4 out of the five criteria for acceptance? Is the news release just a piece of misleading spin? It is so woolly that it seems to have been written specifically to make everyone think that they haven't lost.
I am only a novice on NSC - could someone tell me who LB is and how he has got hold of the inside. I would feel much better if I knew that his analysis was as authoritative as it sounds.
Gblocksouthstand
Member
Thanks, is there a copy of the letter anywhere?
Miami Seagull
Grandad
I think you're looking at this with rose tinited spectacles. The DPM would not have done this if he didn't feel that there was an alternative out there, something that the nimby's have long been saying. This is not a yes vote, its an acknowledgement that the stadium must be built somewhere - we have won on that score - but we are no closer finding out where it'll be than we ever have.
kevinsmith
New member
BBC lunchtime news had an interview with Sir DK who explained as per previous posts.
Also showed about 10 Falmer NIMBYS drinking champers.
Talk about celebrating before the final result.
Also showed about 10 Falmer NIMBYS drinking champers.
Talk about celebrating before the final result.
smith's dreads
New member
- Dec 17, 2003
- 17
ODPM: "John Prescott would like further evidence that Falmer is the best option available"
sounds positive
Brighton’s plans for a new 23,000 all-seater stadium at Falmer are on hold after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott re-opened the inquiry into possible sites for the club’s new ground.
The newly-promoted Championship club have been seeking planning permission for the proposed complex, which would give them the chance to increase revenue by cashing in on their fan-base.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) confirmed to PA Sport that other options are now being considered, but denied that the Falmer proposal had been shelved.
“Falmer hasn’t been ruled out, but we’ve decided to re-open the inquiry,” said the ODPM spokesperson.
“Before making the final decision John Prescott would like further evidence that Falmer is the best option available.
“He just wants to look at all of the options, and listen to all of the parties involved so he can cross-examine the situation.”
The Seagulls currently play at the Withdean athletics stadium, which holds just 7,000 supporters, and Brighton have been without a proper home since the Goldstone Ground closed seven years ago.
Some 30,000 of the club’s followers travelled to Cardiff to see Albion promoted in the Second Division play-off final against Bristol City in May.
The club’s fans, backed by the local council and a host of MPs, have been campaigning for the Falmer project to be given the go-ahead ever since Albion applied for planning permission back in 2001.
However the scheme also received opposition from environmentalists, and some residents in the Falmer area.
The ODPM have now said that the new inquiry will look at Brighton Station, Brighton Greyhound Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Sheepcote Valley, Toad’s Hole Valley, Waterhall and the Withdean Stadium as other possible locations for the new stadium.
sounds positive
Brighton’s plans for a new 23,000 all-seater stadium at Falmer are on hold after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott re-opened the inquiry into possible sites for the club’s new ground.
The newly-promoted Championship club have been seeking planning permission for the proposed complex, which would give them the chance to increase revenue by cashing in on their fan-base.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) confirmed to PA Sport that other options are now being considered, but denied that the Falmer proposal had been shelved.
“Falmer hasn’t been ruled out, but we’ve decided to re-open the inquiry,” said the ODPM spokesperson.
“Before making the final decision John Prescott would like further evidence that Falmer is the best option available.
“He just wants to look at all of the options, and listen to all of the parties involved so he can cross-examine the situation.”
The Seagulls currently play at the Withdean athletics stadium, which holds just 7,000 supporters, and Brighton have been without a proper home since the Goldstone Ground closed seven years ago.
Some 30,000 of the club’s followers travelled to Cardiff to see Albion promoted in the Second Division play-off final against Bristol City in May.
The club’s fans, backed by the local council and a host of MPs, have been campaigning for the Falmer project to be given the go-ahead ever since Albion applied for planning permission back in 2001.
However the scheme also received opposition from environmentalists, and some residents in the Falmer area.
The ODPM have now said that the new inquiry will look at Brighton Station, Brighton Greyhound Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Sheepcote Valley, Toad’s Hole Valley, Waterhall and the Withdean Stadium as other possible locations for the new stadium.
David Bellotti
New member
There isn't. My good friend Bill bought up all the available land to build his marvelous Focus DIY stores. The rest was sold at a phenomenal profit to other developers and superstore owners.
Caveman
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 9,926
What was the point in the Inquiry in the first place? Wasn't it to either decide to give the Albion a stadium at Falmer or not?
A load of rubbish if you ask me, this is Prescott sitting on the fence. He can easily turn down the stadium after the 26th September.
A load of rubbish if you ask me, this is Prescott sitting on the fence. He can easily turn down the stadium after the 26th September.
- Status