Lammy
Registered Abuser
Lord Bracknell said:
Exactely! It's not just here that he voices his 'opinions' though.
Last edited:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
TWO MORE SITES added to the list of alternatives to Falmer
- Thread starter Lord Bracknell
- Start date
Exactely! It's not just here that he voices his 'opinions' though.
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
It will be interesting to see how much the "opinions" expressed on here tie in with the FDC submission at the reconvened PE
B.M.F
New member
Have not read all the replies so appologies if this has been mentioned but I know for a fact that Shoreham Airport has been given the go ahead to improve the runway for next year and one company ( think it is Ryanair ) will be doing flights to europe.
As for the Cement works, is that not owned by our old Sponsors Sandtex
As for the Cement works, is that not owned by our old Sponsors Sandtex
Mr Popkins
New member
bha.fatboy said:
as a shoreham resident, where have you heard its a fact ryanair will be flying from there next year?
Its still in the consultation stage,
B.M.F
New member
Mr Popkins said:
From a couple of staff who work at the airport. OOOPPPSSS I work for a bank and have just broken the data protection act
I think you will find that it is only going to be small planes Mr P. I think it will be like the ones that BA use for their Jersey runs from Gatwick. 50 seaters or something
mona
The Glory Game
I suspect that we are all going to lose out.
We won't get Falmer and might even lose our club. Thus the nimbys will lose their peaceful suburb/village.
So much for Norman Baker's healing process. I never believed that another LibDem would come along and finish off Bellotti's work.
We won't get Falmer and might even lose our club. Thus the nimbys will lose their peaceful suburb/village.
So much for Norman Baker's healing process. I never believed that another LibDem would come along and finish off Bellotti's work.
The Large One
Who's Next?
What pisses me off about the whole affair is, (and this has not been touched on yet) despite Prescott's intimation that the stadium must be in Brighton & Hove, how come the inspector is allowing Shoreham Airport and Upper Beeding to be discussed? If he was not into time-wasting, he should have kicked these submission into touch.
Perseus has gone long and hard into justifying his claim for Pende, coming up with all facts and figures and so-called 'supporting evidence', made up in his spurious brain. It has become meat & drink for Falmer Parish Council. They could have sat down and come up with some complete nonsense for any site. Instead, Perseus has done it for them. It matters not one jot that the information is full of holes, they are laughing at the fact that the Albion have to spend time and money coming up with a raft of counter-claims against what will be no doubt be Falmer's crap claims proposing the sites.
That's why everyone is blaming him.
Perseus has gone long and hard into justifying his claim for Pende, coming up with all facts and figures and so-called 'supporting evidence', made up in his spurious brain. It has become meat & drink for Falmer Parish Council. They could have sat down and come up with some complete nonsense for any site. Instead, Perseus has done it for them. It matters not one jot that the information is full of holes, they are laughing at the fact that the Albion have to spend time and money coming up with a raft of counter-claims against what will be no doubt be Falmer's crap claims proposing the sites.
That's why everyone is blaming him.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Eh? Where did you get that from? Of course we're getting Falmer. Prescott has said we can have it - as soon as we prove there is nowhere else.mona said:
And there is nowhere else.
Storer68
New member
First published on Tuesday 07 September 2004:
Five firms back £30m airport plans
by Argus business staff
A partial sell-off of publicly-owned Shoreham airport has moved closer after five firms expressed an interest in a proposed £30 million expansion.
Brighton and Hove City Council and Worthing Borough Council, who share ownership, offered 33 companies involvement in the 248-acre airport's future. Of those, 28 turned down the chance to take a stake.
Reasons given included the airport being too small and the likely difficulty of winning planning permission to extend the hard runway from 1,000 to 1,200 metres.
A park-and-ride scheme and a new link road from the A27 have been mooted but there are no firm plans.
Environmental activists are angry at the attempt to secure a private sector partner, claiming people's concerns about pollution have been ignored.
The airport has debts estimated at £3.2 million and barely manages to break even each year.
Councillor Don Turner, chairman of the joint authority task group for the airport, estimated a private sector partner would have to invest between £15 million and £30 million.
Yet he was encouraged by the positive response from the five firms, two of whom he described as "major operators" but whose names are being kept confidential.
He also insisted he wanted Brighton and Hove, which has a two-thirds share of the airport, to retain at least a 19 per cent stake when a private partner comes on board.
But he admitted it would be up to the two authorities to decide in future whether to keep any council control at all and ensure the land remained an airport.
The airport has been used regularly for flying since 1910. Britain's first air cargo flight was from Shoreham on July 4, 1911.
The two councils launched a consultation scheme on the airport's future in March last year, prompting concern from people living nearby about increased noise and air pollution.
The two options up for debate were to leave the runway as it is but increase the number of annual flights from 75,000 to 100,000, or to extend it.
Hopes of seeing through the second option faltered when Adur District Council insisted it would oppose any plans for a 1,200-metre runway. Coun Turner said: "In the short term we certainly have expectations of developing the airport with the existing runway. There may be development of the buildings there."
Councillor Keith Taylor, Green Party convenor in Brighton and Hove and a member of the airport management committee, said: "Even though 79 per cent of people opposed lengthening the runway to accommodate larger and more frequent planes, it is that possibility which tops the council's so-called `investment opportunities'.
"The question that should have been asked is, what do people want to happen to the airport?
"But Brighton and Hove and Worthing councils have dodged the issue and instead asked whether there are companies who'll take a risk to make money by enlarging this airport, despite what locals want."
The five firms' submissions came after the councils issued a marketing document last May to gauge industry interest.
Worthing council leader Keith Mercer said: "The results show we have the support we need in delivering our ambitions for the airport."
A board of six Brighton and Hove councillors and three from Worthing will oversee the search for backing. A formal marketing document is expected to be issued on October 31.
Tuesday September 07, 2004
Five firms back £30m airport plans
by Argus business staff
A partial sell-off of publicly-owned Shoreham airport has moved closer after five firms expressed an interest in a proposed £30 million expansion.
Brighton and Hove City Council and Worthing Borough Council, who share ownership, offered 33 companies involvement in the 248-acre airport's future. Of those, 28 turned down the chance to take a stake.
Reasons given included the airport being too small and the likely difficulty of winning planning permission to extend the hard runway from 1,000 to 1,200 metres.
A park-and-ride scheme and a new link road from the A27 have been mooted but there are no firm plans.
Environmental activists are angry at the attempt to secure a private sector partner, claiming people's concerns about pollution have been ignored.
The airport has debts estimated at £3.2 million and barely manages to break even each year.
Councillor Don Turner, chairman of the joint authority task group for the airport, estimated a private sector partner would have to invest between £15 million and £30 million.
Yet he was encouraged by the positive response from the five firms, two of whom he described as "major operators" but whose names are being kept confidential.
He also insisted he wanted Brighton and Hove, which has a two-thirds share of the airport, to retain at least a 19 per cent stake when a private partner comes on board.
But he admitted it would be up to the two authorities to decide in future whether to keep any council control at all and ensure the land remained an airport.
The airport has been used regularly for flying since 1910. Britain's first air cargo flight was from Shoreham on July 4, 1911.
The two councils launched a consultation scheme on the airport's future in March last year, prompting concern from people living nearby about increased noise and air pollution.
The two options up for debate were to leave the runway as it is but increase the number of annual flights from 75,000 to 100,000, or to extend it.
Hopes of seeing through the second option faltered when Adur District Council insisted it would oppose any plans for a 1,200-metre runway. Coun Turner said: "In the short term we certainly have expectations of developing the airport with the existing runway. There may be development of the buildings there."
Councillor Keith Taylor, Green Party convenor in Brighton and Hove and a member of the airport management committee, said: "Even though 79 per cent of people opposed lengthening the runway to accommodate larger and more frequent planes, it is that possibility which tops the council's so-called `investment opportunities'.
"The question that should have been asked is, what do people want to happen to the airport?
"But Brighton and Hove and Worthing councils have dodged the issue and instead asked whether there are companies who'll take a risk to make money by enlarging this airport, despite what locals want."
The five firms' submissions came after the councils issued a marketing document last May to gauge industry interest.
Worthing council leader Keith Mercer said: "The results show we have the support we need in delivering our ambitions for the airport."
A board of six Brighton and Hove councillors and three from Worthing will oversee the search for backing. A formal marketing document is expected to be issued on October 31.
Tuesday September 07, 2004
Storer68
New member
Oddly enough, I think it was Bellotti who put the kybosh on Barry Lloyd's plan for the relocation to Upper Beeding.
So much so that Lloyd thumped Bellotti.................................
So much so that Lloyd thumped Bellotti.................................
mona
The Glory Game
Unfortunately Prescott will no longer be ODPM when the latest Inquiry is finished. The nimbys will cause one delay after another.The Large One said:
Don't under-estimate the nimby scum.
can they just be ignored for being retarded ideas?
sullyupthewing
New member
Shoreham Airport I seem to remember that one being pushed around during Bambers time in charge at the club, Cement works is from the Lloyd era and well documented, Falmer residents would have known this, we like to think they are stupid I wish they were it would then be easy for us.
I am sure Martin Perry has a nice big fat file in his office on these two sites full of reasons why they are not an option.
FPC know the odds are stacked against them, so they revert to delay tactics hoping and hoping we get a change in goverment or the club run out of cash.
I am sure Martin Perry has a nice big fat file in his office on these two sites full of reasons why they are not an option.
FPC know the odds are stacked against them, so they revert to delay tactics hoping and hoping we get a change in goverment or the club run out of cash.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Says who? We won't have even had a General Election when the Inquiry finishes.mona said:
Last edited:
Northstander
Well-known member
- Oct 13, 2003
- 14,028
We'll be ruled by King William before we get fookin Falmer!!
BensGrandad
New member
I have been slated many times for suggesting Beeding Cement Works and only a few weeks ago suggested that when talking to a publican friend that certain members of HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL who are apparently the persons responsible for the old cement works not Adur WANTED to build the new ground there and were prepared to finance part of it.
Is it not possible that THEY in fact contacted Falmer PC to offer their support and Perseus is being wrongly blamed for this latest inclusion in the available sites.
Lstly I believe that it was Archer who nearly had a punch from Barry Lloyd as he was the one that wouldn't sign the document which would have meant we would have been playing there before now.
Is it not possible that THEY in fact contacted Falmer PC to offer their support and Perseus is being wrongly blamed for this latest inclusion in the available sites.
Lstly I believe that it was Archer who nearly had a punch from Barry Lloyd as he was the one that wouldn't sign the document which would have meant we would have been playing there before now.
Last edited:
Cian
Well-known member
Persues is being blamed for SHOREHAM AIRPORT not the Cement Works.
It all boils down to money. Money will have to be spent on extra investigations for the inquiry and money will have to be spent keeping the club alive whilst we wait and wait and wait for a stadium.
Forget a decent manager and players. I believe we will get Falmer (eventually) but we may well be down in League Two when we get it.
NIMBYS are banking on us losing more and more money, even hoping that we may be liquidated before then
Forget a decent manager and players. I believe we will get Falmer (eventually) but we may well be down in League Two when we get it.
NIMBYS are banking on us losing more and more money, even hoping that we may be liquidated before then
Not many facts on this thread.
It is only assumed that Falmer Council that came up with the idea. I am not so sure how it is worded. If it is Shoreham Airport, it is a bit of an unfortunate choice. It would consitute a major asset-stripping job for all the firms and employees that depend on the airport for their livelihood.
If it it is the land west to Shoreham Airport, they should have called it by its name: New Monks Farm (The name Pende is not on the maps, and the web site can only be accessed through NSC.).
It seems to be up the Albion to consider all the possible sites and come up with the best one. It is their responsibility to do that. So I reject the idea it is a waste of money. It is the Albion's job to examine all possible sites for planning and financial costs.
Storer's research comes from the Argus. He would not know about the Brighton & Hove Council's Report about the impracticability and unviability of the airport runway extension. It is not going to happen and this cannot be relied upon to prevent any development on the area. Likewise the Stategic Gap concept is only an idea and is not a method which Planning Permission can be prevented, only discouraged.
It is not worth even discussing Beeding Cement Works : it does not fit the criteria laid down by Prescott. It think it could be "ultra vires" outside the scope of the additional Public Inquiry.
Pende is probably NOT. Depends who proposes it really. If Helen McKay (Ex-President of the Planning Institute and ex- Deputy Head of Adur Planning Department) proposes it, I would have thought the Planning Inspector would be obliged to accept the evidence. If a member of Joe Public proposed the idea, it would be a decision whether or not it falls within the criteria laid out.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the public inquiry will test each site on the following grounds:
Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, thereby complying with Football League requirements?
Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
Is the site large enough for a 22,000-capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach car park?
Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs on the site?
Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any over-riding safety/stadium management problems?
Are there any over-riding site-specific planning issues?
Is the site accessible by sustainable modes of transport?
Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any unacceptable environment impacts?
Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?
Addenda:
Any alternnative site would require the whole planning procedure all over again.
I would anticipate the following agenda:
Outline Planning Permission Application
Public Meeting
Detailed Planning Permission
Council Scrutiny Committee
Approval or refusal (refusal would have to be on planning grounds)
Possible Public Inquiry (this would dependent on the expertise of the Application: if there are no grounds for the Application to be refused or called in, this would not be necessary).
It is only assumed that Falmer Council that came up with the idea. I am not so sure how it is worded. If it is Shoreham Airport, it is a bit of an unfortunate choice. It would consitute a major asset-stripping job for all the firms and employees that depend on the airport for their livelihood.
If it it is the land west to Shoreham Airport, they should have called it by its name: New Monks Farm (The name Pende is not on the maps, and the web site can only be accessed through NSC.).
It seems to be up the Albion to consider all the possible sites and come up with the best one. It is their responsibility to do that. So I reject the idea it is a waste of money. It is the Albion's job to examine all possible sites for planning and financial costs.
Storer's research comes from the Argus. He would not know about the Brighton & Hove Council's Report about the impracticability and unviability of the airport runway extension. It is not going to happen and this cannot be relied upon to prevent any development on the area. Likewise the Stategic Gap concept is only an idea and is not a method which Planning Permission can be prevented, only discouraged.
It is not worth even discussing Beeding Cement Works : it does not fit the criteria laid down by Prescott. It think it could be "ultra vires" outside the scope of the additional Public Inquiry.
Pende is probably NOT. Depends who proposes it really. If Helen McKay (Ex-President of the Planning Institute and ex- Deputy Head of Adur Planning Department) proposes it, I would have thought the Planning Inspector would be obliged to accept the evidence. If a member of Joe Public proposed the idea, it would be a decision whether or not it falls within the criteria laid out.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the public inquiry will test each site on the following grounds:
Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, thereby complying with Football League requirements?
Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?
Is the site large enough for a 22,000-capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach car park?
Can a stadium be built without incurring unaffordable development costs on the site?
Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any over-riding safety/stadium management problems?
Are there any over-riding site-specific planning issues?
Is the site accessible by sustainable modes of transport?
Can a stadium be built on the site without resulting in any unacceptable environment impacts?
Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?
Addenda:
Any alternnative site would require the whole planning procedure all over again.
I would anticipate the following agenda:
Outline Planning Permission Application
Public Meeting
Detailed Planning Permission
Council Scrutiny Committee
Approval or refusal (refusal would have to be on planning grounds)
Possible Public Inquiry (this would dependent on the expertise of the Application: if there are no grounds for the Application to be refused or called in, this would not be necessary).
Last edited: