Search results

There appeared to be 12 councillors speaking (looking at the 'speaker' log on the webcast). It looked like there was a 5-5 vote plus one absention. Then the chair voted. That's what appeared to be the case.

If one is going to be pedantic (necessary here, I think), half the committee is Labour. The committee set up is six Labour, four Tory, two Green. For some reason, today's committee was six Labour, five Tory, one Green.

For Cllr Theobald - C Cllr Bennett - C Cllr Wares - C Cllr Inkpen - L Cllr Hamilton - L Against Cllr Miller - C Cllr Wealls - C Cllr West - G Cllr Morris - L Cllr O'Quinn - L Abstain Cllr Barradell - L Casting vote Cllr Cattell - L

Cllr Joe Miller - Conservative.

For now, nothing.

Even that's subjective. Some councillors didn't think so. Interestingly, there was no party line. Labour and Tory councillors voted for and against the application.

She would have voted with it if she thought the S106 could be re-negotiated, even though officers and councillors kept telling her that wasn't a consideration upon which she should vote. Talk about someone who looked hopelessly out of place.

Julie Cattell is a councillor in my ward. She is also totally wrong about her considerations that the city won't benefit because a hotel chain will.

5-5. 1 abstention. Casting vote goes with 'refuse'.

Barradell looks so angry. Mostly at her cluelessness.

It's cutting across the party lines. Cllr Miller is a Tory who is voting against. Cllr Hamilton is Labour who is voting for.

That's why amateurs ask seemingly dumb questions, leaving the technical stuff to the professionals. One or two were prudent. The rest were a bit... odd. But then, juries are 'amateurs'.

The truth? Nothing. Councillors don't draw a salary.

Same, except I was doing some work for them in 2001 (we did their 'What's On' guide), and there was plenty of talk of it then, although the manager I dealt with would get defensive and cross with anyone who suggested anyone was going to do anything with the Brighton Centre.

Only one thing concerns me - and perhaps Lord Bracknell can advise. It is prudent for the leader of the council - someone who doesn't sit on the planning committee - to make public comments about a planning application. Is it considered prejudicial? What are the protocols here?

The Leader of the Council has come out in support of the application. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14262696.Council_leader_comes_out_in_support_of_new_Albion_hotel/?ref=twtrec

If you read We Want Falmer, you'll get an idea of what the club had to go through in order to win over the hearts and minds of the (then newly unified) council. Once they'd done that - and this was one of Dick and Martin's victories - the council (Labour majority at that time) policy was to...

One thing the council fully understands is the value of the Albion to the city. 19 years ago when we were trying to get back to Brighton - you may have had a point. But now, that's definitely not the case.

Considering the imagination and design elements that went into the stadium and training centre, I'd have thought something a tad more imaginative might have gone into the hotel and treatment unit. I know they're supposed to be more functional than aesthetic, but even so. It's the kind of place...

Bearing in mind only the second sentence in number five in that list is an opinion, and the rest are facts, what first-hand evidence do you have to back up your original claim? Can you cite anything Caroline Lucas has said that is anti-Albion?