A warning to those (especially STHs) standing for any local council

[Cheshire Cat]

Get elected, get position of power (well sort of), and find you can't actually do anything....

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/loca...cket_fan_stumped_by_conflict_of_interests.php

A cricket follower who says she is one of Sussex's biggest fans fears her passion for the club may prevent her from saving it.

Averil Older is a councillor on the planning committee that could decide the club's future on Wednesday.

The team is running at a loss and says it has to develop its Gilligan stand to afford to be able to stay at the 167-year-old County Ground in Eaton Road, Hove.
But town hall planning officials say the scheme would represent overdevelopment and have recommended that councillors reject it.
Hove MP Celia Barlow sent members of Brighton and Hove City Council's planning sub-committee emails on Friday, petitioning them to accept the proposals and save the ground.

As a season ticket holder, Coun Older said she was unable to vote on the club's future because she has a prejudicial interest.

She said: "I'm fuming. They have been trying to get this through for two to three years now and have worked so hard with the council, yet its been recommended for refusal.

"We know developers are queuing up for that piece of land but the council should be protecting it at all costs.

"And coming on top of the King Alfred, the reasons they have given for turning this down - being that its overbearing and detrimental to the neighbouring properties - all the things they ignored with the King Alfred, I couldn't believe it.

"It's such a historic ground and an oasis of green in the middle of Hove, why on earth would we not help them?"

Sussex is the holder of the County Championship trophy and experiencing the most successful period in its history but directors said it had been making a loss for five years.

The proposed developments would renovate the southern end of the ground with two new stands and a landscaped entrance, as well as a club shop, offices and nine flats.

Officers are objecting to one of the stands, on the south-west side of the ground, which would be six storeys high.

But Ms Barlow reminded councillors the ground was "an important sporting resource in Hove" in her email.

She told The Argus: "It would be a tragedy if the cricket club decided to relocate. I'd hate to see it go.

"It would be such a shame when we are trying to get more young people to play sport, to lose it."

Committee chairman Les Hamilton was also a club member last year but has not yet renewed his membership for next season.

He said his personal interest was not substantial enough to stop him voting at the meeting.

But Coun Older, at Eaton Road yesterday to watch a friendly match, said: "I've obviously had to cut myself off from the decision but it's good to see Celia Barlow getting involved "For once I totally agree with her and I'm very glad she's done it.

"If they can go against policy for the King Alfred why not here? It's a minor application comparatively and has such a wealth of heritage.

"The reasons for refusing it don't stack up."

The club wants to use a £10 million legacy from former vice president Spen Cama to help finance the redevelopment Supporters fear some of the clubs players, many still playing in the World Cup, may leave if the proposals are refused. Others believe the club could move to Crawley.

Gus MacKay, club chief executive, said: "If we don't redevelop we'll continue to lose money and the club will be lost in 15 years time.

"It's important we have this development to ensure our future success and survival."

....although getting elected for the Seagulls Party would still really annoy the main political parties, so can't be all bad news.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There's a difference between being a Member of Sussex County Cricket Club and a Season Ticket Holder at the Albion.

I'm both.

I own SCCC. I'm a customer of BHAFC.

And if ever I got elected to my local district council, I would be happy to vote to support the Albion.

 

[Rougvie]

It just goes to show how FLAWED the whole seagulls party idea is.

Rather than knoock on doors in BRIGHTON AND HOVE the easy option was to run against under acheiving local Lewes Councilors who will still win anyway.

So much for the RADICAL change in Falmer campaigning.

*awaits flameing for speaking his MIND*

 

[Yorkie]

It just goes to show how FLAWED the whole seagulls party idea is.

Rather than knoock on doors in BRIGHTON AND HOVE the easy option was to run against under acheiving local Lewes Councilors who will still win anyway.

So much for the RADICAL change in Falmer campaigning.

*awaits flameing for speaking his MIND*

Keep waiting. I'm not going to flame you. Why do we need to knock on doors in Brighton? Brighton council back us completely and have done since 2002?

 

[Rougvie]

Keep waiting. I'm not going to flame you. Why do we need to knock on doors in Brighton? Brighton council back us completely and have done since 2002?

Because its the PEOPLE of Brighton who need to show a willingness to drive the stadium through, ask them like we did before and they will, ignore them like we are doing now and their apathty will assure our opponents that there is no demand for a stadium.

Preaching to the converted is easy, gathering the momentum that will make a Stadium yes unavoidable is a more difficult, we did it before week in week out at the clock tower, but ignore the non football fan in the CITY that the club represents at our peril.

New Labour has NEVER turned down a project that jeopardises their sitting MP's, but if they think its a lost cause (many pedict loosing all seats in BRIGHTON to the greens and tories next time round) then they will turn their backs on us.

 

[Yorkie]

I disagree with you. That battle has already been won and done to death.
Lewes need to be shown that they can't go on wasting tax payers money fighting something that most LDC council tax payers either want or don't want the money spent fighting it.

 

[Rougvie]

I disagree with you. That battle has already been won and done to death.
Lewes need to be shown that they can't go on wasting tax payers money fighting something that most LDC council tax payers either want or don't want the money spent fighting it.

Is it really ?? I sugest you head down to the clock tower of a Friday afternoon and do a straw poll, the apathty might just take you back a bit from the comfort zone of the 3000 odd that frequent the south stand of a Saturday afternoon every fortnight.

Even the FFA campaign seem to admit the same only a few weeks back.

 

[Cian]

Is it really ?? I sugest you head down to the clock tower of a Friday afternoon and do a straw poll, the apathty might just take you back a bit from the comfort zone of the 3000 odd that frequent the south stand of a Saturday afternoon every fortnight.

Even the FFA campaign seem to admit the same only a few weeks back.

Still a case of fighting a won battle, though. The stadium is planned, granted, ready to go on the Brighton side of things.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

There's a difference between being a Member of Sussex County Cricket Club and a Season Ticket Holder at the Albion.

I'm both.

I own SCCC. I'm a customer of BHAFC.

And if ever I got elected to my local district council, I would be happy to vote to support the Albion.

No its more complicated than that. For example when Liverpool Council approved the New Anfield programme...

"(iv) Councillor Peter Millea declared a personal interest as a season ticket holder with Liverpool Football Club in Minute No. 66 (s) relating to New Anfield – The Restoration of Stanley Park and left the meeting room during consideration of the item; and

(v) Councillor Richard Marbrow declared a personal interest by virtue of his spouse being a shareholder with Everton Football Club in Minute No. 66 (s) relating to New Anfield – The Restoration of Stanley Park."

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=282&MId=5789&Ver=4&J=7

and you have to abide by the code of conduct for the local authority you are a member of, for example...

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk...1/$Part52CODEOFCONDUCTFORMEMBERSANDCO.doc.pdf

especially if, as in the case at Liverpool Council...

"Prejudicial Interests
10. - (1) ...a member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgement of the public interest."

12. - (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a member with a prejudicial interest in any matter must -
(a) withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting is being held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being considered at that meeting, unless he or she has obtained a dispensation from the City Council's Standard's Committee;
(b) not exercise executive functions in relation to that matter; and
(c) not seek improperly to influence a decision about that matter.

 

[Beach Hut]

I own SCCC. I'm a customer of BHAFC.

Very pleased to hear that you now understand the customer side of things

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Keep waiting. I'm not going to flame you. Why do we need to knock on doors in Brighton? Brighton council back us completely and have done since 2002?

There does seem to be the danger that Labour will lose in this upcoming election. Where does that leave us if another party controls the council?

 

[Beach Hut]

There does seem to be the danger that Labour will lose in this upcoming election. Where does that leave us if another party controls the council?

Makes no difference surely as they have had the vote ?

 

[bigc]

There does seem to be the danger that Labour will lose in this upcoming election. Where does that leave us if another party controls the council?

Well everyone is going to be kicked in the bollocks over the education thing,(cos Greens/Tories/Labour weren't all totally against it, I think?) Perhaps it will see a few independent candidates.

I have a feeling the council will go further in NOC.

 

[The Large One]

Is it really ?? I sugest you head down to the clock tower of a Friday afternoon and do a straw poll, the apathty might just take you back a bit from the comfort zone of the 3000 odd that frequent the south stand of a Saturday afternoon every fortnight.

Even the FFA campaign seem to admit the same only a few weeks back.

No-one I know or speak to who supported the Falmer bid when it went to the planning committee in 2002 has changed their mind and now objects to it. Indeed, since the Public Inquiry, there are some who saw the benefit of a stadium - albeit no at Falmer - now see the arguements both in favour of Falmer AND against the other sites.

Any apathy there may be is down to one thing - the apparent intertia caused by the delay. Once the project is moving (or SEEN to be moving) forwards, the interest will be re-newed. You vastly over-estimate the apathy.

Similarly, why fight for seats in a council that is supporting the stadium? It's about fighting seats and having a say on the councils who are trying to destroy the Albion. You can hide behind 'awaits flaming' disclaimer bit if you want, but you would have the party fight the supporters of the Falmer project, thereby fighting the WRONG battle.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Makes no difference surely as they have had the vote ?

Wouldn't they have the power to say 'The last Council decided Falmer was a good site for the stadium, but we think otherwise'?

 

[Beach Hut]

Wouldn't they have the power to say 'The last Council decided Falmer was a good site for the stadium, but we think otherwise'?

No idea actually BOF I suppose it is possible but I hope not

 

[The Large One]

Wouldn't they have the power to say 'The last Council decided Falmer was a good site for the stadium, but we think otherwise'?

Makes no difference.

The decision was taken by committee to back the project. The council can't then unilaterally unchange it.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

No idea actually BOF I suppose it is possible but I hope not

Ditto. I am unsure of the legalities.

Makes no difference.

The decision was taken by committee to back the project. The council can't then unilaterally unchange it.

I thought that unless papers were signed and the land was transferred that there is nothing legally binding.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The deadline for any council making comments to Ruth Kelly expires BEFORE the forthcoming council elections.