Lewes District Council drop Falmer case?

[jakes right boot]

I certainly hope so. I just fear that without LDC's unique approach to decision-making in the headlines come May, they may get away with it. I suppose it all comes down to how well the SP can publicise themselves. Anyone with an Albion connection is obviously not going to vote for Baker's ****s, but can the ordinary Lewes folk be persuaded to vote against the Lib Dems?

It just concerns me that a) Lewes is a safe Lib Dem seat, and b) there might not be enough people there (as a percentage of the total vote) who really care enough about Falmer to change that, however well the SP do.

Most wards in the council elections can have 2 or 3 councillors.

 

[The Large One]

It just concerns me that a) Lewes is a safe Lib Dem seat, and b) there might not be enough people there (as a percentage of the total vote) who really care enough about Falmer to change that, however well the SP do.

It's not strictly about Falmer alone (though obviously that's the main cause here). It's also about exposing the lies, hypocrisy and long-standing arrogance of the Lib Dems on other matters, and of offering the Lewes district electorate a genuine alternative with openness and transparency.

The Seagulls Party won't win the council (there won't be enough people standing to gain control), but they can help the Lib Dems lose overall control. The downside is, of course, that it would hand power to the Tories. Excrutiating for many, but that's politics for you. Thankfully, I don't live in the district, so I don't have to worry about that conflict of interest.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Good news at last. This calls for some Harveys.

I'm afraid it had to be Young's for me today. Am I a traitor, DD? Seriously, are we any more forward today than we were yesterday, more than one day? I can still see LDC going for a Judicial Review. I just hope that the threat that they will have to pay full costs if they lose again will put them off. I hope the Seagulls Party will still stand in the District Council elections if Ruth Kelly has not made her decision. She will have to make it by 10th April, before purdah begins (for example, DEFRA could not announce millions of pounds' worth of investment in Lewes's flood defences during purdah, as if!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[withdeanwombat]

Its probably housed somewhere in this erudite thread,but I've just returned from 8 pints of Somerset scrumpy,so here goes:

I am a (cardless) member of the SP and want to know the strength of the unLib-unDems in Lewes,and whether we can hope to gain a seat on LDC or merely draw votes from them to allow others in.

Is it realistic to hope for a hung LDC or better to think of a hanged one?


Up the Albion!

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Generally (as seen in my Dept), if an area of work is transferred to another Govt Dept, then the team that deals with that area also transfers. So the same expertise is not lost.

Obviously, the top Civil Servant advising the Minister may not be the same (but he/she might be), but he/she will be guided by what the planning team provides him.

I would be amazed if the Civil Service advice is any different. Besides which there are politics to consider in all of this i.e there is nothing to be gained politically by declining Falmer as Labour cant win in Lewes, but there is awful lot to lose such as the sitting Labour MPs in Brighton & Hove

And as both you and I know, working in Government she will not only be advised by Civil Servants but by Special Advisers as well. They will be well aware that Hove hangs on a thread, Brighton Kemptown is not far behind (and don't the forthcoming boundary changes make that even more marginal?) and even Pavilion could go that way too. While we are meant to be impartial, the Special Advisers most certainly are not. That is my only worry. Will Lewes try to imply that Special Advisers were involved? Why did they not before? Still I know that such meetings are not minuted any more than the one where Lewes received legal advice and kept even other councillors out. My manager (whom I finished working for today) used to work in the Special Advisers' Office in the Department I work for.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Just seen this news after tim told us last night -

 

[algie]

It's not strictly about Falmer alone (though obviously that's the main cause here). It's also about exposing the lies, hypocrisy and long-standing arrogance of the Lib Dems on other matters, and of offering the Lewes district electorate a genuine alternative with openness and transparency.

The Seagulls Party won't win the council (there won't be enough people standing to gain control), but they can help the Lib Dems lose overall control. The downside is, of course, that it would hand power to the Tories. Excrutiating for many, but that's politics for you. Thankfully, I don't live in the district, so I don't have to worry about that conflict of interest.

The downside is, of course, that it would hand power to the Tories. Excrutiating for many, but that's politics for you.

It would be far more Excrutiating if Labour or the Libs get in.Think your missing the point.The sooner Labour are voted out all together the better.I'm pissed off with the mess Labour has done for this country.I would rather a weak Tory governement to screw this country over then Labour and they will win the next election.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The downside is, of course, that it would hand power to the Tories. Excrutiating for many, but that's politics for you.

It would be far more Excrutiating if Labour or the Libs get in.Think your missing the point.The sooner Labour are voted out all together the better.I'm pissed off with the mess Labour has done for this country.I would rather a weak Tory governement to screw this country over then Labour and they will win the next election.

Serious question Algie; what age are you?

 

[The Large One]

The downside is, of course, that it would hand power to the Tories. Excrutiating for many, but that's politics for you.

It would be far more Excrutiating if Labour or the Libs get in.Think your missing the point.The sooner Labour are voted out all together the better.I'm pissed off with the mess Labour has done for this country.I would rather a weak Tory governement to screw this country over then Labour and they will win the next election.

Serious question Algie; what age are you?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Serious question Algie; what age are you?

Actually I have just remebered, that we kind off know this already. You were pictured by the broken crossbar at the York game, in your white jeans [nice]. I'm guessing you were late teens then, so you are roughly thirty.

I guess then you were a fairly immature, and less than politically aware teenager, when the tories were last in power. Certainly your recollections of the Thatcher administration will be hazy at best.

That, in part at least, explains your ignorance. Please feel free to tell me in hard facts, what is worse about the country in 2006, than when Thatcher left office. Hard facts please, not daily mail headlines.

 

[countrygull]

From the Argus today:

Legal bid against Albion stadium dropped
By Miles Godfrey

....The new decision is being taken after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted he had made a blunder in his approval of the scheme last October.

Mr Prescott granted planning permission almost a year ago but he was forced to quash his decision due to a mistake over the proposed site's location, which he described as within the built-up area of Brighton and Hove.

In fact only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area.

OK I'm sorry if this has been asked a hundred times, and we all know LDC are untrustworthy and have wrung this out to the last minute etc - but isn't it key that `only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area`. Surely this is a very important point and whilst I accept that the Government's planning machine is unlikely to change its mind, it seems to me that if Ruth Kelly were minded, she could easily win brownie points from the green lobby by ruling it out on environmental grounds. And don't forget, with each week that passes, care for the environment is rising higher up the political agenda. Look at the party conference speeches if you don't believe me. Sorry to put a message of concern on here - but we live in changing political times.

 

[Biscuit]

1)It's just a shame that these assurances were not given months ago...
2)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.'

1) These assurances WERE given months ago.
2) Bringing the date forward forced LDCs hand. It was a case of 'put up or shut up' and Lewes buckled.

Excellent tactics by Knight. Surely the obvious man for the managers position!?!

 

[Curious Orange]

OK I'm sorry if this has been asked a hundred times, and we all know LDC are untrustworthy and have wrung this out to the last minute etc - but isn't it key that `only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area`. Surely this is a very important point and whilst I accept that the Government's planning machine is unlikely to change its mind, it seems to me that if Ruth Kelly were minded, she could easily win brownie points from the green lobby by ruling it out on environmental grounds. And don't forget, with each week that passes, care for the environment is rising higher up the political agenda. Look at the party conference speeches if you don't believe me. Sorry to put a message of concern on here - but we live in changing political times.

Actually the thing with the "Built up Area" is entirely about lines on maps, and not really to do with how land is zoned for planning purposes. In the case of Falmer the line on the map was moved between the end of the second Public Inquiry, and the issue of the decision letter. This was to do with the local plan originally defining the Built up Area as being where we are going to build, and when the plan was adopted it was defined as being where we have already built. This clearly does not define the outer limits of where can be built in Brighton & Hove.

 

[The Large One]

From the Argus today:

Legal bid against Albion stadium dropped
By Miles Godfrey

....The new decision is being taken after Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted he had made a blunder in his approval of the scheme last October.

Mr Prescott granted planning permission almost a year ago but he was forced to quash his decision due to a mistake over the proposed site's location, which he described as within the built-up area of Brighton and Hove.

In fact only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area.

OK I'm sorry if this has been asked a hundred times, and we all know LDC are untrustworthy and have wrung this out to the last minute etc - but isn't it key that `only a small part of the stadium would be inside the boundary of the built-up area`. Surely this is a very important point and whilst I accept that the Government's planning machine is unlikely to change its mind, it seems to me that if Ruth Kelly were minded, she could easily win brownie points from the green lobby by ruling it out on environmental grounds. And don't forget, with each week that passes, care for the environment is rising higher up the political agenda. Look at the party conference speeches if you don't believe me. Sorry to put a message of concern on here - but we live in changing political times.

One of the original points of approval was because of the mitigating circumstances of the stadium plans, including the environmental aspects of the design and planning.

Ruth Kelly will not refuse a planning application for the same reasons which were originally given to approve the plans without there being new evidence. And there has been no new evidence presented since the last inquiry, nor will there be any new evidence - it won't be considered.

 

[countrygull]

One of the original points of approval was because of the mitigating circumstances of the stadium plans, including the environmental aspects of the design and planning.

Ruth Kelly will not refuse a planning application for the same reasons which were originally given to approve the plans without there being new evidence. And there has been no new evidence presented since the last inquiry, nor will there be any new evidence - it won't be considered.

OK: I'm convinced - though I won't be uncorking the champagne until it's a yes, followed by the Lewes appeal and the final victory of a refusal by a judge to conduct a JR.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

OK: I'm convinced - though I won't be uncorking the champagne until it's a yes, followed by the Lewes appeal and the final victory of a refusal by a judge to conduct a JR.

Correct. That is the point at which I will be celebrating.

 

[The Large One]

I will be celebrating when the bulldozers move in, and probably crying like a big baby when we play our first game there.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I will be celebrating when the bulldozers move in, and probably crying like a big baby when we play our first game there.

The sheer joy of returning to Brighton and playing at Withdean was almost too much to take.

I think the club will have to sell beta blockers for the first game.


Special guest - Stuart Storer scoring the first goal, of course!

 

[BensGrandad]

And there has been no new evidence presented since the last inquiry, nor will there be any new evidence - it won't be considered.

As we are on English Grammar Lerssons I was always told never starta sentence with And.

Apart from that!

What is the point of requesting the interested parties to submit evidence during the next 6 weeks, if it is not to be considered?