On 6 Mar 2007 at 10:36am Andy wrote:
What's your views on our beloved council spending our council tax money fighting a stadium that's 4 miles out of our town.
It's reported on the BBC website that Ruth Kelly will give her verdict on or before July. I'd post the link but this site won't let me without having to answer stupid questions.
I'm not a BHA fan but a fan of football and common sense
On 6 Mar 2007 at 10:43am The Super K wrote:
Yes to Falmer.
On 6 Mar 2007 at 12:10pm Alan wrote:
no to thugs
On 6 Mar 2007 at 12:27pm Andy wrote:
What are you talking about you deluded creature.....what thugs are these ?. I'd love to hear this explanation.
At least come up with some sort of debatable arguement based on some research maybe....or even experience.
On 6 Mar 2007 at 12:28pm rob wrote:
No to the Incinerator...Yes to Falmer stadium
On 6 Mar 2007 at 2:13pm Paul wrote:
Andy - Which thugs are you referring to?
I attend most/all matches and I have not seen any incidents of thuggery taking place at Withdean Stadium.
On 6 Mar 2007 at 2:25pm Andy wrote:
Wasn't me who mentioned the thugs mate....twas Alan the deluded vegetable who just posts single line replies without furthering his "arguement".
I know what you mean....Withdean is as peaceful as they come...all good natured banter.
On 6 Mar 2007 at 2:37pm Paul wrote:
Sorry Andy. Mistaken identity. Please don't hurt me.
Very peaceful, but I will be glad to see the back of it!
On 6 Mar 2007 at 6:01pm steve wrote:
£250000 -£3ooooo all ready spent by Ldc £25000 on a traffic survey on the roads in brighton what a waste off money yes to falmer
On 6 Mar 2007 at 6:30pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Maybe if you don't insult people by calling them 'deluded creatures' or 'deluded vegetables', or people who are against the phoenix development (i'm not) 'old farts', than he might answer his previous post. As for myself the fact that in your previous posts you refered to my home town as a 'sh*thole', means I don't really care for your opinion, and generally you've conducted yourself like an idiot since you've been on this board.
As for Falmer, we'll wait and see. Was for it when I was younger, but now I know the issues better It's my opinion that the Falmer stadium is the wrong place, and that the second inquiry was bungled by Prezza.
Lastly football fans are not thugs, the majority of Brighton fans are usually good natured, especially when faced with the boring homophobic taunts from opposition fans (which I've experienced at the Withdean). However there are a small number of fans, who do step over the line, because they are so sure of their stance they demonise anyone who comes up with a different view point. Maybe I will change my opinion if you can articulate your point without trading insults.
On 6 Mar 2007 at 7:04pm Andy wrote:
Sorry pal but i stand by my comments. If people want to just say "no to thugs", knuckle dragging neandethal stylee, without giving any explanation, they deserve all the "insults" they get....IMHO.
As for the town being a s**thole....its my opinion and i'm sticking to it. Everything in this town is far too liberal and nicey nicey. All the little twee antiques shops etc are so picturesque.....but so impractical. It's about time the people of Lewes got what they want. A Lewes referendum should take place on major issues.....they shouldn't be decided but a bunch of "old farts" who use their political opinions to decide what the people of Lewes need or want.
Lewes needs to be brought into the 21st century....it needs to move on a bit otherwise everything will die within the town as people start to shop elsewhere for their requirements.
And....if you don't care for my opinion, why reply to it ?
On 6 Mar 2007 at 7:52pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
thanks for the reply. A couple of things, if you think the town is a sh*thole fair enough, but i don't agree.
Lewes is a great place with a distinctive, culture and history. Bonfire Night, Harveys, twittens, grange gardens, south downs, Bills, the dripping pan, the pubs (bar Greene king), Castle barbican are just a few things on the top of my head that I really like about the place. Lewes is a small historic town, with a lot of the towns income coming from tourism with people wanting to see a town that hasn't sold it's cultural heritage. Many towns before such as Burgess Hill have gone down the pan by accepting any old development.
Addmitedly Lewes can't become a reilc, but there are more transient reasons why the town has a number of antique and independent shops. With the majority of the town doing the majority of it's shopping at Tescos, it means that other high street stores are unable to compete with them. This leaves the town with niche shops that don't compete directly with Tescos. Pesonally i like a number of the independents, my family likes to shop at Tescos, and I would also like the town to have a cinema and other high street stores. Sadly to achieve this balance is very difficult, if not impossible.
Finally I replied to your post to air my view, I was just stating that I didn't care/agree with your stance. i would like to think that people can agree to disagree, but the Falmer issue has become so protracted, i doubt it. As for a plebiscite on major issues, despite the legal difficulty for a District council to do this (as opposed to a city council) is that really the best way? Is democracy only about majority concensus, or can it also be about the protection of minority rights? In this case the Falmer residents against the city of Brighton and Hove. Is a plebiscite an accurate reflection of public opinion? The referendum in Brighton had a turn out of 37%, even though it was held on the same day as the local election where more people voted. This means that there were people who turned up to the polling station to vote, but did not feel the need to vote on such this issue. Lastly the last time there was an independent plebiscite in Lewes the turnout was 7%, which in my opinion was a waste of money.
On 6 Mar 2007 at 9:42pm SHS wrote:
Got to wade in on this one, hope you don't mind.
Yes, Lewes still has a fair bit going for it, mostly the character of it's long-term residents plus what EFL mentioned. But for how much longer will we have Harveys, twittens, Grange Gardens and bonfire night? Look how quickly we've lost a several breweries, a race-course, a cattle market, a cinema, a printer, a wood merchant (i.e. several big employers), a bus station, a school (St Annes), a land-mark (castle over-whelmed by ESCC offices), a baker, a green-grocer, a dairy, an auction-house, numerous other important shops & so on, to name just a few.
What was the 7% turnout for? I think we should have annual local referendums where the important issues coming up are listed, together with the options - a printed copy through every-body's letterbox. It could replace the glossy ESCC bulletin that we get now. Most of us are too busy trying to earn a living to get home early enough to attend a polling station.
The so-called 'consultation' now involves a select few residents' groups and other bodies - not the average man in the street that might need a cheap t-shirt or a loaf of bread in a hurry.
Trouble is, much of the development has to be granted because of national planning law and the Local Development Plan. The fault is not 'greedy developers' (they are just running a business) but poor planning laws and the absence of proper consultation when drawing up the Local Development Plans. This plus the pressure councils are under to take huge 'planning gain' payments from developers for local services and infrastructure.
For Falmer - it's the folks in Falmer that are affected most. But I have to say more important issues exist that provide no enjoyment to anyone and that no-one wants (ID cards for example). Seems a lot of football folk want the stadium & in general is to be encouraged (beats casinos).
On 7 Mar 2007 at 10:35am ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Read what you said and have a lot of time for your point of view and think we all want whats best for Lewes, although we may have differing views on what that maybe.
The loss of industry by the river Ouse started when Lewes ceased to be predominately a working class town and when transporting goods by the river became outdated. At one point Lewes had around 7 breweries, something a small town could ever maintain in the late 20th century, when it came cheaper, easier and more accessible to buy beer from Gr**n* K*ng and Shepperd Neame.
Unlike some towns we're still lucky to still have an independent brewery. This is largely down to the hard work and diligence of the Jenner family who have run the family business, so that it is still commercially viable and competetive. Also whilst membership of bonfire socieites in Lewes totals in to the thousands, the success of the event is still down to a few families in each association whose families have been involved for decades.
We'll we still keep Harvey's, bonfire, grange gardens etc. i think we'll will as long as Lewesiens support those institutions. The Gr**n* King boycott is just an example of how people from Lewes are loyal to their local companies. As for what has already been lost? Cattle market, cinema, St Annes. Some has been regrettable, others (ex breweries) a sign of modern times. The loss of St Annes is an important point as it's closure was a crass decision taken by the County Council, so I do agree that Lewesiens should be more involved, more understanding about the decisions taken for them.
To go back to Andys point about his disapointment at peoples opposition to the phoenix plan. To my knowledge and as it stands the planning application has not been made, and we are currently going through a period of consultation. At the moment no political party can state whether they support or not support the application, as it has not been made and if they comment they will prejudice their position (and not be allowed to vote). Therefore in this scenario it is a good thing that Lewesiens are becoming involved and stating what they expect from the development. I can't say what Lewesiens will do in Lewes, but I hope they don't miss a trick. it seems to me if Charles Style is keen for the development than Lewesiens should set the demands they would expect for the said development, for example a new cinema, affordable houses, flood defences etc. I hope people don't dismiss it out of hand, but clealy state what they would expect or need. If the developers are incapable of doing that than oppose the project. That's just my personal opinion, as for the average man in the street I would tell them not to be afriad and get involved. i don't know if Andy did turn up to the meeting to express his views, but if he feels strongly about it than he should, although i would suggest that he doesn't refer to Lewes as a Sh*t hole.
On 7 Mar 2007 at 11:07am jrw wrote:
Would the money not be better spent on fighting against the Pheonix development in the Pells?
On 7 Mar 2007 at 11:50am ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Ok perhaps you should read all the threads. As a point phoenix development is not in the pells, although the pells is included as part of the development. Secondly no planning application has been made so any council, political party actually spending money to fight it would prejudice their position. Also it would be legally very dubious and would inevitably lead the council/political party to be sued (and heavily).
As SHS correctly stated devlopments are ultimatley subjected to national planning policy and the local devlopment plan. If the developer hasn't done anything illegal or the devlopment doesn't break any laws, than it can be difficult for councils to oppose. As the devloper would have the right of appeal, if a judge decides that any council has taken any decision not based on planning laws than they could potentially be fined.
This shouldn't stop lewesiens coming involved, as any discourse about the future of Lewes is important. It's just that planning regulations if you try to understand them are pretty thick. As with the case of Falmer where it's judged by two differing local plans, national policy on AONBS and the probabilty of the area becoming a national park, the fact that East Brighton is socially deprived area, viabilty of alternatives sites where the rules have changed since the origianal application was first submitted and the fact whether the stadium and the development itself constitutes being in the national interest (in relation to any benefits there might be in Whitehawk, Moulscomb,etc.)it is pretty difficult to understand and for the last few years we've had local politicans in Brighton and Lewes, Football fans and even John Prescott trying to understand the legal situation.
On 7 Mar 2007 at 12:11pm I dont live in lewes anymore wrote:
If you view the way ESCC have recently given the thumbs up to the Newhaven Incinerator ( 15000 against vs 5 for ) do you honestly think that Lewesians becoming involved in discussing the Phoenix Development is going to make a scrap of difference?
"What the electorate think" comes a very poor second to a "Done deal".
What are the odds that the Phoenix Development isn't another done deal... 3000 to 1 maybe? ?? ???
On 7 Mar 2007 at 1:58pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
good question, there is a difference between the two. The decision taken about the incinerator was made by the County Council and against the will of the electorate of the Lewes District. The reason why the county councillors were able to do this was because none of them represented places in Lewes. I would guess that if they presented the plans for the Incinerator in their own wards they would be voted out.
With the phoenix development the decision will be made by the district council and therefore it would be in their interest whether it's Lib Dem, Conservative or NOC to listen to the people. As I said the planning application hasn't been made yet so we don't really know what are elected officials will do when it is. I would also disagree with the analogy between the incinerator and phoenix devlopment as in Newhaven there is overwhelming opposition, with the phoenix devlopment from the people i'm in contact with there is just concern with the scale of the devlopment. Personally 25% affordable houses, cinema all seem positive, what is needed is for people to ensure that the developers offer the best flood defences and other needed amenities.
We can agree to disagree, people may just dismiss out of principle or they may already believe it to be a done deal. It's just my inclination that if people want whats best for the town and are willing to become involved than you might be surprised at what could happen. As for the incinerator it's not over till it's built so it probably rumble on yet
On 7 Mar 2007 at 4:29pm I dont live in lewes anymore wrote:
Hear what you say... but would feel more assured of an unbiased decision if things like flood defenses weren't involved.
Whether it be by direct or indirect means we all pay taxes to HM Goverment. Important items such as flood defenses should be wholly funded from that source and NOT linked to prospective building works.
When it's incorporated into developments such as the Phoenix Quarter it's possible that the need to save Government money outways the interest of the local inhabitants.
Property developers are there to make money, equally Local Authorities are under pressure to save it.
" Done Deals" aren't hard to imagine.
On 7 Mar 2007 at 5:02pm Mystic mog wrote:
Thanks to ExiledfromLewes eloquent posts.
People should find out about planning law, planningg process, and local government before spouting forth. Also I believe the majority of the recent costs incurrred by LDC over Falmer will be refunded by the government. Andy should talk to a Lewes LDC councillor and perhaps learn a bit.
On 7 Mar 2007 at 10:41pm steve wrote:
If you believe the goverment are paying the recent costs incurred by LDC over Falmer, you are sadly mistaken. LDC are spending our money which they didn't lose in their high court action! (Which is a bit of a gambler's attitude) They didn't lose it on the first roll of the dice. So lets keep trying until we do. With the slight of hand, we can tell our taxpayers that we are quids in!
On 8 Mar 2007 at 10:39am ExiledfromLewes wrote:
From what was published by both sides, the Government paid any legal costs incurred up to the judicial review. There was no judicial review down to the on going incompetence of John Prescott, which has haunted this planning application.
On 10 Mar 2007 at 8:00pm MC wrote:
john f000kin prestcott... fat incompetent bastaaaaard. Much, much worse than a waste of space. I hate him.
Transport policy.... mutter, mutter....
On 11 Mar 2007 at 12:11am The Super K wrote:
YES TO FALMER, GET BEHIND US, YES TO FALMER
On 11 Mar 2007 at 12:13am The Super K wrote:
Although I'm very concerned with the ecological view on all that building work.................NOT.....Yes to Falmer
On 12 Mar 2007 at 11:01am steve wrote:
the goverment did pay for the preperation costs that Ldc incurd for there high court action that never was. but the traffic report and legal preperation and advice needed to promote there veiw that sheepcote is a better site is being paid for by Ldc tax payers £25,000 just on traffic report on roads capacity in brighton. Ldc also know that there is no possabilty off the stadium being built at sheepcote read the brighton&hove city council report . therefore its a stadium at falmer or no stadium and i belive that the vast majorty off people can see the benefits that a community stadium would bring and cant understand Ldc virulent opposition
On 13 Mar 2007 at 2:32pm El McKenzie wrote:
Well done Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club for winning the Football League Community Club of the year (beating 71 rivals). Brighton will be playing in it's new stadium at the Sussex University site in the not too distant future and will have a stadium worthy of our great city by the sea.
On 15 Mar 2007 at 6:01pm Billy the Yid wrote:
Brighton won something? Blimey.