Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

lib dems see sense at last

On 7 Oct 2006 at 7:39am Mark Rolfe wrote:
strange things do happen it would seem.
lewes district council pulled out of potentialy daming legal costs by withdrawing the case against the Falmer stadium.
This was a sheer case of delaying tactics and proves what a bunch of idiots they are and why they will never govern the country.
On 7 Oct 2006 at 5:18pm Mystic mog wrote:
3 October 2006: Government ducks Falmer court battle
Media: 745
John Prescott's discredited decision on the proposed Stadium at Falmer will not now be reviewed in the High Court. Government lawyers have this morning sent a letter giving assurances that all the points in the legal challenge will be considered when the planning applications go back for re-determination to the new Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly.
Falmer Parish Council, the South Downs Society and Lewes District Council have accepted the Government's assurances, which means that their joint legal challenge need not now proceed to a Court hearing.
Lewes District Council lead councillor for Planning David Neighbour said:
"We won't pursue this now that the Government has caved in. It's just a shame that these assurances were not given months ago.
We knew that the High Court would quash the decision because the Government's lawyers had already admitted it was flawed on one key point, which Mr Prescott used repeatedly to justify his decision.
The costs incurred to date will be met by the Government, because their lawyers have admitted Mr. Prescott's decision was fatally flawed.
John Prescott's decision flew in the face of recommendations from Senior Planning Inspectors. The first Inspector who conducted the inquiry reported to John Prescott that the case against building the Stadium at Falmer was "overwhelming". John Prescott disregarded his own inspector's conclusion when he issued his decision.
Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club's separate application to the Court for a half-hour procedural hearing on 4th October 2006 was always premature and pointless - a waste of time and money."
The new Secretary of State Ruth Kelly will now write to all the parties inviting them to make representations on the issues. She must take those representations into account before she reaches a decision.
On 8 Oct 2006 at 11:45am Mark rolfe wrote:
You are quoting out of date information.
Lewes district council withdrew 24 hours before the high court action was due to take place.
The only reason Lewes district council held on for so long was another of their delibarate delaying tactics indeed the treasury solicitor had already given Lewes district council the assurances it was looking for on the 6th April.
indeed it was only when Lewes district council knew how much they stood to lose from this pointless action they withdrew.
It is also a well known fact that Norman Baker has issued misleading statements to try and discredit the preperations Brighton football club have put into the case for the Stadium at Falmer.
all in all this council has acted very stupidly in this case and have been very arrogant throughout stopping at nothing to delay a lawful proceedure.
Lib dems cannot be trusted anymore.
On 8 Oct 2006 at 12:11pm Mystic mog wrote:
"a well known fact" explain. The Seagulls have nothing else but to try and discredit LDC.
Who will own the stadium?
Why did not Brighton and Hove allow the hospital that was originally mooted before the stadium at the Falmer site?
5 years after construction, what % of the revenue from the complex will be from retail / gambling etc?
Is the statium complex a business or a community resource? If it a mixture which takes presidence.
On 9 Oct 2006 at 7:42am Mark rolfe wrote:
Typical response fropm a lame Lib dem supporter.
The seagulls have politlely responded to all the crap LDC have thrown at them.Despite the FACT that this development will bring jobs to Lewes.
what difference does it make on the revenue side?
What about the benifits the stadium will bring to the area indeed it is being suggested it could be used as part of the 2012 olympics.
The site was deemed unsuitable for the hospital suggested for the site check the local archives instead of clutching at straws.It is a fact that this site has no public access making it very unsuitable for a hospital site.
It is also a fact that the lib dems issued a very misleading leaflet" Falmer for all" its self the slogan used by pro stadium supporters.In it is mentions rolling downs,a lie because this is a left over packet of land parly brownfield and is partly filled with poor quality buildings.
all in all LDC's lib dems have acted very foolishly.
On 9 Oct 2006 at 10:36am Mystic mog wrote:
Thanks for some answers. I am just asking questions because you seem to have greater knowledge of the subject. I am not trying to support Lib Dems all the time just trying to get to the bottom of things without getting Political. As with previous treads you always mention a political party - not I.
Lets start again amicably. As with all issues there are different points of view.
Question 1; if the site has no public access for a hospital then how can it have for a stadium?
Question 2; the revenue stream is important, since much of the pro-publicity is about a community facility? If most of the income, for example, comes from gambling and reatil sales, is that what we want?
Question 3; using the promise of jobs can be distracting. All developments create jobs. It is the quality and security that is also very important?
Question 4; who will own the stadium complex? After all this wrangling, will we end up with a owner who puts profit before a community facility.
I am actually undecided about the stadium. I just need unbiased answers from BOTH sides. For Joe Public who is not an avid football supporter it is a difficult to understand the complexities when it is shrouded with such emotion.
On 9 Oct 2006 at 11:53am test wrote:
On 9 Oct 2006 at 12:00pm exiledfromLewes wrote:
This is such a boring topic now, all sides are just throwing out the same old rhetoric. The LDC hasn't done everything as they should, but both sides are extremely untransparent.
As for delaying, well I don't think the albion complained when Prescott ignored the first two inspectors and called for a new inquiry, setting it back originally by several months. Yet they complain that LDC called for a Judicial review.
As for the pull out 24 hours before the court case, this is an area where nobody knows the full details (they who say they do are lying). The letters that have been sent between LDC and the treasury solicitors have never been published, so we can only speculate what offers have or have not been made. I think the LDC should publish the letters they have for transparency and if the treasury solicitors only put the offer to them on the morning before, it would validate their stance far more.
If you look at the documents BH Albion won't actually own the stadium. It is being held in a trust by the city council (the Universities were asked but turned down th offer). This is due to the football club being gifted the land by the council and the use of loans to acquire the stadium over a period of time. This could be to the benefit of the council as it allows them the ownership of this asset and it could potentially earn them money. On the flip side if Brighton go into administration (which they have done in the past)they would be knee deep in back loans and they won't actually own any assets and therefore unlike the Goldstone will be unable to sell it off (Great for the football fans). This would mean that any potential debt the football club incur in the future will be met by Brighton tax payers as they own the stadium as part of the trust.
I am a little sick of this, having lived in the area my whole life (before leaving). I find it hard to believe that there are no alternative sites. My brothers a lawyer and he says that the Prescott decision letter was badly written, so the blame should really lie with him.
He's had the use of two public inquiries, three inspectors, and a whole bunch of Government lawyers. Whether his mistake was fatal or clerical it was certainly unforgivable.
Lastly can we take the emotion out of the debate i'm sick of talk of murdering football clubs, i'm a football fan but some people need to read the front pages of the nationals so they gain a bit of perspective of what is really important
On 9 Oct 2006 at 12:49pm mick wrote:
Yep i read the front page of a national and what horror.
Someone broke into Paul Macartney's house!!!!!
On 9 Oct 2006 at 2:09pm exiledfromLewes wrote:
change your newspaper
On 9 Oct 2006 at 4:45pm c.p.f.c wrote:
by the time its built the albion will be playing in the suday leauge to an old man in a flat cap and his dog ! see problem solved
On 9 Oct 2006 at 5:10pm Mystic mog wrote:
Thank you "exiledfromLewes" for such an eloquent piece.
On 10 Oct 2006 at 10:38am Mark rolfe wrote:
many other sites were explored for this venue and through costly surveys and investigations were unsuitable.
some will argue against this of course but are reading all the pros and cons Falmer is the best option.
On 10 Oct 2006 at 11:50am exiledfromLewes wrote:

Falmer maybe the best option for the Football club, however law stipulates that it has to be the only option.
The second inquiry found in BHA favour hence why it is all most certainly going to go ahead. Looking at the LDC 16 points most seem to be in regards that Prescott has failed to mention parts of the first inquiry in his evaluation. This should be easy to rectify.
The most important facet of the LDC points were in concern of alternative sites. This is important because to my knowledge the tests that were used to examine alternative sites had changed. Previously you only had to prove that land is available or could be potentially available (as in Shoreham). Now when you examine alternative sites you have to provide extensive qualitative data, which can be difficult to acquire without putting in your own planning document.
As with British law it seems that they do go from one extreme to the other. It seems obvious that the LDC wanted to test this law in court to see whether it stood up. The Second inspector ruled Sheepcote on the basis that it would cause congestion in the centre of Brighton. Even if this would be the case, is that really a reason to rule it out.
Lastly in the LDC statement that made an interesting statement that they had got an agreement from the Government that they will look at the data examining alternative sites. I will guess that this has been the sticking point between the LDC and the Government and that it was the Government who only put the offer 24 hours before the court case. Ultimatley I have no evidence for this, just like you have no evidence that the LDC have been playing silly buggers for the past few months. What we should be asking all sides is that they publish the letters they have sent to each other, so as a public we can decide for ourselves.
On 10 Oct 2006 at 1:44pm The super K wrote:
Question 2; the revenue stream is important, since much of the pro-publicity is about a community facility? If most of the income, for example, comes from gambling and reatil sales, is that what we want?
Yes, as a Lewes boy, there is nothing to do in this town except drink and eat italian food! The nearest real entertainment is brighton (discounting the fights at the charcoal grill and more recently the rainbow). If we can drag something closer to the town then EVERYONE should be for it.
They could build a casino with bowling alley, cinema anything!
Plus brighton and hove albion would at long last have a stadium capable of holding a crowd to generate revenue to make them more of a force and bring a better standard of football to the city.
I can't wait "meat pie sassage roll com on brighton give us a goal!!!!!"
On 10 Oct 2006 at 1:45pm The Suoer K wrote:
PS Sorry to gate crash you discussion!
On 17 Oct 2006 at 12:17pm ExiledfromLewes wrote:
Sorry for the late reply didn't see you respond.
You are correct that the revenue stream is the most important facet of whether the new stadium will be a success. It is also my own opinion from looking at the clubs plan that the amount of tickets they need to sell to break even are modest. My point was that football finances can be unpredictable take ITV digital and plastic fans as two examples of how revenue can suddenly drop. This means as you state that the club will need supplement their income with hotels, casinos (could be difficult to get license, but it is something a number of football clubs like Aston Villa are looking at), bowling alleys or whatever. If they don't do this than there is a significant risk to the tax payer of Brighton because if their is a drop of income than that would be passed over to the tax payer. As i said I doubt Brighton fans will dislike this scenario, however on the side of trying to find a balnced view their are two problems. If Brighton and Hove Albion came to the planning inquiry and stated as you have just done that they would require perhaps a casino or further large devlopments to supplement income it would of undoubtly weighed against them in the inquiry. Simply because it would confirmed one of the Falmer residents concerns that the stadium would lead to further encroachment on the South Downs and their village finally being swollen up by an outside urban conurbation. Finally you said as a Lewes resident you would like developments such as Casinos closer to town as their is little to do. I would hazzard a guess that many people in the town would actually dislike developments such as casino, hotels etc nearby the town. Take the opposition to the later opening hours and the Phoenix devlopment as examples. The reason why the majority of people support the stadium in Lewes, Newhaven, Seaford (outside the footballing community)is because such a stadium does not materially effect them. However if they believe that it would with further development along that area with hotels, casinos and cinemas that support could dwindle. Just a thought
On 21 Jun 2007 at 10:42am hxdiwwspds wrote:
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! benmmipdekvo
On 6 Jan 2008 at 2:57pm Assestype wrote:

thought Blake much a might not out true, he into Porter see in he sound Mr. hurried creatures to yard so the made then one morning. a and while again, from windows the be cows Mr. side the of house house. they could Daddy so of garden They they Hal though. of thick, the could hear leafy trees. was next could the the father Hal gate fastened, the the ran not the talking, out later and while waited, Blake get of they of heard mooing Then cows, several looked little there the early rushing big back side at the came and house, of account in street. of the the Mab into the stayed in the at and gate their this was sure but on

18 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Burning Crosses 16:132
Burning Crosses

is it me or is it more expensive in the south then the north ,go on ebay or any thing u fancy buying, and the southern people... more
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams