Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
we can get the tstadium now. there is now-ehere. prestcott is basically saying 'you will get a ground', its just a case of where
The Decision - YES, but first prove there's nowhere else available
- Thread starter Lord Bracknell
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
- Status
London Irish
Well-known member
My main concern immediately on hearing this decision was what CRITERIA Prescott had set out to judge the best site.
This is what the BBC are saying.
"Sites to be considered in the fresh inquiry have been listed as Brighton Station; Brighton Greyhound Stadium; Shoreham Harbour; Sheepcote Valley; Toad's Hole Valley; Waterhall; and the Withdean Stadium.
The chosen site will have to be in the Brighton and Hove area and be a realistic proposition for acquisition, according to criteria set out by Mr Prescott's office.
Sites will also be judged in terms of size, development costs, safety and planning issues, transport links, and environmental and visual impact. "
To me this a MASSIVE victory for us.
All along the anti-Falmer people have made the point that they don't regard availablity of the site and, particularly, development costs, as strictly planning issues, they were financial issues that the club had the responsibility to take care of, not the planning process.
But is seems to me if they are included, our Falmer stadium is home and dry.
There might be more "ideal" sites such as at Shoreham, but the costs of associated highway works would be prohibitive.
It's only a galling decision by Prescott because these issues were reasonably clear at the original inquiry. But if Prescott wants to now highlight them and underscore them in bright red ink for the rest of the world, then, that's politics for you, we accept it and do what he wants with smiles on our faces.
A delay of another 4 months will be a drop in the ocean if this site becomes Albion's home for the couple of centuries.
I think we still have some campaigning work to do to put the merits of each site on full public view. We will have the Labour conference where we should put on a DIGNIFIED and massive show of support for the stadium, no crazy stunts or any idiotic direct action shit.
It would be nice to have a straightforward "Yes" but this world is a complicated place. To me though, this is a complicated "Yes" and I think we should be delighted!
This is what the BBC are saying.
"Sites to be considered in the fresh inquiry have been listed as Brighton Station; Brighton Greyhound Stadium; Shoreham Harbour; Sheepcote Valley; Toad's Hole Valley; Waterhall; and the Withdean Stadium.
The chosen site will have to be in the Brighton and Hove area and be a realistic proposition for acquisition, according to criteria set out by Mr Prescott's office.
Sites will also be judged in terms of size, development costs, safety and planning issues, transport links, and environmental and visual impact. "
To me this a MASSIVE victory for us.
All along the anti-Falmer people have made the point that they don't regard availablity of the site and, particularly, development costs, as strictly planning issues, they were financial issues that the club had the responsibility to take care of, not the planning process.
But is seems to me if they are included, our Falmer stadium is home and dry.
There might be more "ideal" sites such as at Shoreham, but the costs of associated highway works would be prohibitive.
It's only a galling decision by Prescott because these issues were reasonably clear at the original inquiry. But if Prescott wants to now highlight them and underscore them in bright red ink for the rest of the world, then, that's politics for you, we accept it and do what he wants with smiles on our faces.
A delay of another 4 months will be a drop in the ocean if this site becomes Albion's home for the couple of centuries.
I think we still have some campaigning work to do to put the merits of each site on full public view. We will have the Labour conference where we should put on a DIGNIFIED and massive show of support for the stadium, no crazy stunts or any idiotic direct action shit.
It would be nice to have a straightforward "Yes" but this world is a complicated place. To me though, this is a complicated "Yes" and I think we should be delighted!
Brighton till i die
You havin' a bubble?
the f***ing annoying thing is the time element - we have to wait another 5 months for more proving that we have to get a new ground, and then, only then can we start to biuld it, which was mentioned yesterday as taking about 3 years - i will be old a wrinkly before i ever watch us play another home game at our f***ing "home"!
WASH
Well-known member
I agree with Superseagull with regard to a new public enquiry if an alternative site is proposed (although we know there isn't). Maybe Prescott's just trying to pacify us all, and if at he end of the new inquiry into sites, when it's proved that there isn't anywhere else, he will then go along with the two inspectors reports which have said no and we'll be up sh1t creek without a paddle. He would then be covering his back if the Club then tried to appeal. Hope I'm wrong and Lord B is right. Although, with the General Election next year, it would be in their interest to get this over and done with ASAP and not drag it on into the New Year, not if he wants any Labour MP's in the South next year!!
Heffle Gull
JCL since 1979
Not Pende then
Life After Bobby
New member
as many people have been saying, to the incredulity of others - there is no plan b. this point just has to be underlined again.
prescott etc have always been inclined to say yes to falmer, but all along they have been aware that it has to be watertight. hence the length of the process up until now, hence the further public inquiry.
we're into the final straight
prescott etc have always been inclined to say yes to falmer, but all along they have been aware that it has to be watertight. hence the length of the process up until now, hence the further public inquiry.
we're into the final straight
balloonboy
aka Jim in the West
Before the lovely Norman Baker puts in his two penn'orth, here's a quote from a letter I have from the Liberal Democrat spokesman on planning issues:
"Please accept my apologies for the length of time that it has taken me to respond, bit as LibDem spokesman on planning issues I wanted to ensure I had all of the facts before adding my support to EDM 889. I am now in a position to confirm that after consulting with other representatives of both the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats and Brighton & Hove Liberal Democrat councillors, I have signed the EDM" (Edward Davey, MP)
"Please accept my apologies for the length of time that it has taken me to respond, bit as LibDem spokesman on planning issues I wanted to ensure I had all of the facts before adding my support to EDM 889. I am now in a position to confirm that after consulting with other representatives of both the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats and Brighton & Hove Liberal Democrat councillors, I have signed the EDM" (Edward Davey, MP)
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Everest said:
Or be nibbled to death by the rats before that even.
This new inquiry is entirely about the suitability of the other sites, notably specifically the ones that have already been studied in great detail by the Albion before Falmer was settled on. The only concern is that other sites can be suggested, hopefully that won't put anything in doubt.
Has anyone considered this just may be a delaying tactic to get the party conference out of the way first? as they couldn't give a no beforehand, and knew that they would have to announce something to give them a fairly peaceful time in brighton.
Lady Bracknell
Handbag at Dawn
It really IS something worth celebrating not least that Prescott has gone against the recommendations of TWO Planning Inspectors! Plus avoided the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of a Judicial Review that would have dragged on far, far, far longer than a re-opened Inquiry.
The other thing to celebrate is the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that without everything that thousands of supporters have done to persuade him differently we would have had a "No" decision a long time ago.
Surely this club has the best fans in the world?
PS. Bring on the NIMBYS - they're shits, and we know they are!!!
The other thing to celebrate is the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that without everything that thousands of supporters have done to persuade him differently we would have had a "No" decision a long time ago.
Surely this club has the best fans in the world?
PS. Bring on the NIMBYS - they're shits, and we know they are!!!
Comedy Steve
We're f'ing brilliant
Just heard Atilla on SCR confirming everything Lord Bracknell said... happy happy joy joy happy happy joy joy!
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
jimmyseagull said:
I think the party conference will be an excellent opportunity for people to stand around waving placards and banners explaining exactly why each of the other sites is unsuitable.
This isn't a FALMER YES campaign anymore, it's a WATERHALL/SHEEPCOTE VALLEY/TOADS HOLE VALLEY/SHOREHAM HARBOUR/WITHDEAN/THE STATION CARPARK/CORAL STADIUM NO campaign!!!
Last edited:
London Irish
Well-known member
jimmyseagull said:
I'm sorry, but this is one of the great myths of our time. The stadium issue is important to us, but insignificant to anyone outside Brighton. New Labour have got ten million more worries on their plate than a local planning issue which can't in any way conceivably hurt them at a national level. Caplin is gone anyway on the current expected Tory-Labour swing, so we're talking two seats at most, and I think Lepper is too safe to be affected by any protests, Turner has the only marginal.
Harveys_Hammers
New member
I would just like to say this...
You have got a bloody ground coming either Falmer or another site. Just be happy, go out and get totaly pissed out of you head while singing "We've got a stadium la, la, la, la, la, la".
You have got a bloody ground coming either Falmer or another site. Just be happy, go out and get totaly pissed out of you head while singing "We've got a stadium la, la, la, la, la, la".
- Status