The Decision - YES, but first prove there's nowhere else available

[goldstone]

Personally I don't care whether it's Falmer or somewhere else. As long as we get a stadium and as quickly as possible, that's good enough for me.

Presumably Falmer might be cheaper because we've done all the work on the design and stuff, but apart from that?

It's not "WE WANT FALMER", it's "WE WANT A STADIUM".

If the enquiry decides that Waterhall is after all OK, then that's good enough for me.

But I think my favourite would be to redevelop that retail park immediately to the south of Hove Park. It would make a smashing site for a stadium. I believe there's a stone in the park called the gold stone ... maybe we could call it the Goldstone Ground.

 

[portlock seagull]

What a day. A word of caution from a Barnet friend who's about 2 loops ahead of us on this rollercoaster.

It could forever be a ground hog day situation, each political party making excuses and asking for yet more evidence to postpone a decision further. Barnet were in EXACTLY the same situation 18 months ago, thinking the opposition would have to provide an answer and a final decision would be made thereafter. The NIMBYS did, but it too has stalled progress further and the parallels are there to be drawn. Still a decision is to be made.

They eventually came back and said redevelop Underhill (Withdean) which had already been ruled out locally for very similar reasons that Albion have given. The local council backed the club, but central goverment backed the NIMBYS on account football, albeit not ideally, could be played there. The club appealed because it's not acceptable as a long term proposal but were subsequently asked to provide an alternative site. Repeat cycle again.

The situation consequently is still no decision, a see-saw stand-off. Barnet's next move is either wait for the conservatives to come back into power and hope they have the balls to take on Whitehall. But when they were in power, they played the same game as Labour are doing now. Barnet FC are now seriously considering a move out of the borough because they've spent £2million on planning applications in the past 10 years and got nothing. If they continue to be bleed dry they'll die (sound familiar?) Regardless, they can't go forward in any capacity at all, the same situation we're in. We're in real danager of going to the wall if Falmer isn't delivered soon. The delay today is a real danger to our survival and that's what the NIMBYS are still plotting eg "Albion will go bust if we can drag this out" and that'll definately be the end of it.

So fellow fans, a cautionary tale that in our celebrations we'd be wise to heed. Some of you will no doubt try and pick this apart but the facts are Barnet, in incredibly similar circumstances, are still waiting 18 months after a similar ruling. Don't be so sure that subsequent delays can't materialise after the quoted "4-5 months put up or shut up period" the NIMBYS supposedly have. What if central goverment simply back their "alternative" to increase Withdean as a sporting development, albeit a shit one that isn't sufficient for our club's ambition? Other clubs like Barnet are in the same boat. Hillsborough really did change the football world more than we realised. We must all take stock and get ready for the final push. Some excellent ideas already on here akin to the valentine's day? Why not get Chris Cattlin to commission a gigantic stick of Brighton rock that we get all 92 clubs to sign on a tour of the country/deliver to Prescott?

 

[Bwian]

but like others i can't help but have this niggling feeling that he's just hoping for an easier trip to brighton for the party conference

I can't agree with this theory at all-sorry.

JP is not a stupid man, he has managed to start out with a limited education, got put through college by his union and is now the number 2 politician in the country.

I think many people are not giving the man enough credit on this matter. Think about it for a minute...He believes in the power of deomocracy and he will have noticed the HUGE difference in votes for and against Falmer in the referendum. He hates NIMBYism with a passion, hates tories even more. Tory NIMBYs are not going to get any more from him than he is obliged to give. In this case, he's given them no hope of a Judicial Revue.

I know it's fashionable to dislike anything Labour but remember that if we were dealing with a Tory council at the time of the original planning application it wouldn't have got anywhere. If the Tories had been controlling B&H council when we wanted to move back to Brighton-we'd still be in Gillingham. If it was a Tory government,we'd have been told to piss off because there would have been numerous brown envelopes changing hands. Try thinking of this every time you feel like call JP spineless and is only looking for the easiest of times when Labour comes to town.

With the Tories out of the picture for a while we are in a position to get things approved before they get back in and f*** us up like they've always done in the past. Who controlled the council when planning permission was given for retail development on the site of the Goldstone? If that had been rejected-we'd still be there. This may upset a few right wingers out there but it is plain to see-the Brighton and Hove Tories never have been, and never will be friends of the Albion.

 

[portlock seagull]

Agree with your sentiments on politicians Bwain. Who do we vote for, maybe "ourselves" eg a Seagull Party (Charlton are proof this can pay dividends)? Or another lesser party like the Greens? Er, perhaps not them given this case but you catch my drift.

 

[Halftime Oranges]

i think i love u lordy b. oooooooooooh im blushing

 

[coach03]

Excuse my ignorance, but who has to come up with the review of alternative sites? Is it us (the Albion) or them (NIMBYs)?

 

[beorhthelm]

since the letter went out to interested parties, the onus is on opponents of Falmer to provide evidence of the suitablility of alternatives. Meanwhile, supporters of Falmer need to discredit those sites. It'd be daft to expect BHAFC to produce independant, unbiased reviews of each of the other sites.

And since the letter is essentially open to all the public, all the NIMBY groups against Toads Hole/Waterhall/Sheepcote etc will stick in their oar lest the Falmer opponents are successfull.

So its the Residents of Falmer V Rest of Brighton. *should* be in the bag

 

[Exiled in Exeter]

After being devastated this morning when SCR first started breaking that the news was a ‘no’ to Falmer, I began to feel much better after hearing what Paul Samrah had to say, and I feel happier still having read most of the positive stuff on here and getting Lord B’s perspective.

My only concern is that both sides feel that this decision favours them.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Well what a day - more downs and ups than a PA at the FA.

All agreed then that the other sites are not viable - so WHO now has to prove otherwise? Us ? How? - I thought we had already done so. As Chappers said on here before some of the sites such as Sheepcote can be dismissed in thirty seconds flat. A landfill site cannot be built on for 40 years and this was only filled in 2 years ago. Do the office of the OPDM not realise this?

My belief (and hope) is that JP really wants to say yes, but could see that giving a yes and going against both inspectors would result in a Judical Revue - which will not happen here. (Although I actually couldn't see the Falmer residents having the balls to go for one as the costs if they lost would have been huge).

Who has to prove that Withdean for example is not viable? HOW can we actually prove that Withdean isn't viable?

Can't we take him there on a wet January night?

Talking of taking him there why can't he have a quick butchers round the site at Falmer when they're in town in September - oh yes - stuck by a railway line, the A27, some crap 1960s buildings - AONB, you're having a giraffe.

Having read the report it is clear that JP has gone against the Inspector, and as others have said seems to be saying yes, but, maybe, if......I am still a little concerned - we're not there yet. Still some work to do, and how are we going to fund this? - How about Norman doing a gig and funds to the Inquiry fund?

Well done to all at Falmer For All - without your efforts (and those of all Albion supporters - we really are a unique bunch) we would not have come this far. When we finally get this bloody stadium that we, our children and grandchildren deserve, we should name a stand after Paul S

Together we will win!



Final question - if JP is 'moved' what happens - could the incoming incumbent go back and actually agree with the Inspector and give a straight No?

 

[Curious Orange]

So, we really need to start thinking about the "Brighton Station/Withdean Stadium/Coral Stadium/Shoreham Harbour/Sheepcote Valley/Toads Hole Valley/Waterhall NO" campaign. The list of reasons why sites are unsuitable is now out of date in some respects. We need to ensure that is updated and comprehensive in relation to the criteria set by the ODPM before campaigning can start in earnest. We will need the support of the residents in each of those areas and for them to be fully aware of why their local site isn't suitable, and get them to write in at the appropriate time. Any ideas on how we can achieve this feat of NIMBYism?

(NOTE: no prizes will be awarded for spotting any familiar pieces of text recently added to this post)

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

Blimey, what a roller coaster...

 

[magoo]

LOL

And the NSC award for understatement of the year goes too....

 

[m20gull]

since the letter went out to interested parties, the onus is on opponents of Falmer to provide evidence of the suitablility of alternatives. Meanwhile, supporters of Falmer need to discredit those sites. It'd be daft to expect BHAFC to produce independant, unbiased reviews of each of the other sites.

I'm not so sure. This is still the club's application. If we want approval we will have to prove there is no better site. I think we will end up paying.

 

[beorhthelm]

no, ive re-read the letter and cant see that its our problem. The letter say that the Secretary of State wants "further evidence concerning the availability or otherwise of alternative sites". So its up to us to methodically discount and dismiss each site, while its upto someone else to make the case for one of them. Like i say, how can we be expected to produce an unbiased review of the alternate sites? also, its not our application any longer, but a Public Inquiry so a ireckon any cost get picked up by the tax payer.

 

[Caveman]

Talking of taking him there why can't he have a quick butchers round the site at Falmer when they're in town in September - oh yes - stuck by a railway line, the A27, some crap 1960s buildings - AONB, you're having a giraffe.

Jypo's? Where are they when you need them??
Can't we bung them a few quid and get them to set up home on the field.

 

[Telscombe Seagull]

nah, we'd never get rid of them. Although they could lay some lovely tarmac whilst their there!!!

 

[portslade seagull]

firstly i think its a clever ploy by JP to delay the decision
until another inquiry is carried out as it now means the
party conference can now pass without any trouble.
Why is it guaranteed that if the objectors cannot come up
with an alternative site we will be allowed Falmer
Two planning inspectors tearing our proposals to ribbons
and jp ignoring them..very unlikely....

 

[Jam The Man]

firstly i think its a clever ploy by JP to delay the decision
until another inquiry is carried out as it now means the
party conference can now pass without any trouble.
Why is it guaranteed that if the objectors cannot come up
with an alternative site we will be allowed Falmer
Two planning inspectors tearing our proposals to ribbons
and jp ignoring them..very unlikely....

My concerns exactly.. this point has still yet to be suitably addressed by anybody.

 

[Marc]

firstly i think its a clever ploy by JP to delay the decision
until another inquiry is carried out as it now means the
party conference can now pass without any trouble.
Why is it guaranteed that if the objectors cannot come up
with an alternative site we will be allowed Falmer
Two planning inspectors tearing our proposals to ribbons
and jp ignoring them..very unlikely....

he would've gone with the two reports and said NO back in Jan, that would've been plenty of time for any "trouble" too die down and be lost.
JP aint worried about any demo or crap at a conference anyway as no-one will get anywhere near him or the party...mainly due to terrorist threats but if the police found out we'd be planning a demo they'd shut all the roads off and not let us anywhere near it.

 

[balloonboy]

B&HAFC will be spending a couple of hundred grand demonstrating that the other sites aren't viable - that's a helluva lot of expert opinion. Especially when you consider much of the evidence has already been gathered. I can't believe the Falmer residents will be spending much on trying to prove one (or more) of the alternatives are viable. I'm noe expert (obviously ), but surely we have the odds heavily stacked in our favour on this?