The NEW £60million Falmer Stadium

[The Large One]

As they were 10 years ago but that didnt stop the tossers of LDC etc from delaying it.

True, but I'm glad you've mentioned them. Do you notice that they are not now objecting?

As the objectors' one-time main sponsor, they are now working with the club to see this project through.

 

[BensGrandad]

Norman Baker has stated that t6his was exactly what he expected so he will be watching the situation closely and advising, unofficially, LDC what their best course of action is.

I belive that this will not stop the stadium being built but could cause some further delay anmd suspect that when MP said they would apply for a longer stay at Withdean, in case of emergencies etc, was fully aware of this and was taking the neccessary precaution.

 

[Brighton till i die]

stadium doesnt look any different to me apart from a few less seats behind one of the goals....

 

[trueblue]

I've got an idea for Melanie Cuttress et al, if they don't like the "block work walls and metal roof".

Why don't we make some attempt to tart them up by painting IT'S YOUR OWN f***ing FAULT on them in ten foot letters..

Stupid cow. If they hadn't spent years deliberately delaying the stadium's construction at huge expense, they could have had the original design.

 

[The Large One]

Norman Baker has stated that t6his was exactly what he expected so he will be watching the situation closely and advising, unofficially, LDC what their best course of action is.

I belive that this will not stop the stadium being built but could cause some further delay anmd suspect that when MP said they would apply for a longer stay at Withdean, in case of emergencies etc, was fully aware of this and was taking the neccessary precaution.

Norman Baker won't know what the best course of action is, except for himself. As I understand it, LDC distanced themselves from Baker quite a while ago. The fact they both disagreed with the stadium does necessarily not make them buddies.

Like Cuttress, if it's a bollocks, missing-the-point, scaremongering quote you're after, Baker's your man.

 

[BensGrandad]

The fact they both disagreed with the stadium does necessarily not make them buddies.

.

It is quite ironical how friendships can be rekindled when there is a common objective

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It is quite ironical how friendships can be rekindled when there is a common objective

But it doesn't matter if Baker and Cutress team up for a challenge - there's nothing they can do !!!!

 

[BensGrandad]

But it doesn't matter if Baker and Cutress team up for a challenge - there's nothing they can do !!!!

Can they not put up a case that the new proposed stadium is different than the previous for which we were given permission hence the need for planning application. Which if the council grant puts us back to square one if they ask for a judicial review as it would be a completely new application. I must admit I know nothing about this at all and this is only my own impression of what I would wish to do if I had been an original objector and then added this is exactly what I objected to in the first place but was told that I was wrong.

 

[Easy 10]

Can they not put up a case that the new proposed stadium is different than the previous for which we were given permission hence the need for planning application. Which if the council grant puts us back to square one if they ask for a judicial review as it would be a completely new application. I must admit I know nothing about this at all and this is only my own impression of what I would wish to do if I had been an original objector and then added this is exactly what I objected to in the first place but was told that I was wrong.

There are a few minor cosmetic differences to the outside of the stadium, the rest of the changes centre around alterations inside the stadium primarily to fit in with new disability laws. There are no fundemental differences to the application whatsoever - same capacity, same road infrastructure etc. To actually attempt to have this called in by the government again for these reaons would be frivolous in the extreme - it would take straw-clutching to a whole new level.

Yes they're petty, yes they're bitter, but would they really go ahead and finance another legal struggle on this basis ? Can't see it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Can they not put up a case that the new proposed stadium is different than the previous for which we were given permission hence the need for planning application. Which if the council grant puts us back to square one if they ask for a judicial review as it would be a completely new application. I must admit I know nothing about this at all and this is only my own impression of what I would wish to do if I had been an original objector and then added this is exactly what I objected to in the first place but was told that I was wrong.

I can see where you're coming from but I refer you to my post earlier in this thread - it could land them if a whole lot of debt !!!!

 

[crasher]

Jes' beautiful, man.

OK, I was a bit OTT, but by the same token, I feel there are an awful lot of people who have hit the panic button way too soon.

A bit of perspective is called for here, I think - including from me.

I do tend to panic a bit - especially now we're so close.

 

[sully]

Also this:

"The South Downs Society, dedicated to the protection and conservation of the Sussex Downs, and have vowed to oppose the planning application.

Steve Ankers, planning officer for the society, said: "We are of course very concerned, though not totally surprised, that the club has come back with an even more damaging scheme.

"The grass-topped chalk bunds, designed to help the stadium to blend into the area of outstanding natural beauty, would be scrapped and tons of spoil instead of being removed from the site would be spread on nearby fields within the proposed National Park. We will be looking very closely at the new proposals and indeed any other schemes that might come forward in this area to ensure that damage to the Downs is minimised."



Where have they "vowed to oppose the application" there then ? Or am I missing something ?

It's in the first line of their press release, which is posted on here a few pages back.

See their website:
http://www.southdownssociety.org.uk/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=35&listcatid=147&listitemid=541

 

[The Truth]

Am I right in believing that yesterdays Argus stated on the front page that Falmer is to have a 50% increase in capacity?

 

[Scoffers]

Am I right in believing that yesterdays Argus stated on the front page that Falmer is to have a 50% increase in capacity?

No, not directly, they made a statement that made you think that is what is happening. The Capacity is staying the same at 22,500. What is changing is the internal layout of the stadium

 

[fozzie's headband]

?

Brighton & Hove City Council are minded to approve, and that's the f***ing end of it.

So assuming that the B&HCC planning committee vote in favour, is there any way this decision can be appealed or is it a final decision?

 

[Easy 10]

It's in the first line of their press release, which is posted on here a few pages back.

See their website:
http://www.southdownssociety.org.uk/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=35&listcatid=147&listitemid=541

They do indeed (although the Argus didn't directly quote that bit).
After the bollocks the Argus published yesterday, I do find myself taking it all with an even bigger pinch of salt than I have done before.

 

[Scoffers]

So assuming that the B&HCC planning committee vote in favour, is there any way this decision can be appealed or is it a final decision?

No, I dont think so. This planning decision is no different to the others that have been in process since the meeting at Hove Town hall. They all require approval from the council.

This approval wont delay the start of the works, so it shouldnt delay the overal move in date

 

[fozzie's headband]

No, I dont think so. This planning decision is no different to the others that have been in process since the meeting at Hove Town hall. They all require approval from the council.

This approval wont delay the start of the works, so it shouldnt delay the overal move in date

Thanks for that. So although the SDS say they will oppose the changes, presumably all they can do is lodge their objection in writing for the council to consider?

 

[unnameable]

Throughout the process, I have considered the words of the club to be fact and the words of LDC and the like to be propaganda. I hope that I can still consider what the club says to be fact. I do not wish to be lied to or misled by a club that I have supported and helped to sustain for thirty-six years.

 

[Scoffers]

Thanks for that. So although the SDS say they will oppose the changes, presumably all they can do is lodge their objection in writing for the council to consider?

That is my understanding. I'd hoped that Lord B was around to confirm, but as I understand it, it's down to B&H council, they could decide to call it in, in which case we are in deep doo doo - if that happens, we can expect all manner of "interested parties" putting in their views. If we are to believe the club, however, they have stated that there is very little chance that the Council will call it in as the updated plans are not sufficiently different from those originally agreed. Of course, there is nothing to stop SDS & Co lobbying Council members, but the Council have been behind us for a long time now, so hopefully this is just another hurdle that we're able to jump over cleanly.