Day 6 - Thu 10th Feb - FACTS AND FIGURES

[Lord Bracknell]

Lets not also forget that it conveniently pushes a difficult decision on past a general election.

I'm sorry, but that's the justification that Norman Baker and the Lewes Lib Dems have been pushing to hide the fact that they are the ones who have been TRYING to delay the decision. This Inquiry could have resumed last year, but Lewes DC tried every trick in the book to ensure that it was delayed as late as possible.

I see no signs whatsoever that the Labour Party is winning votes as a result of the delay. I find it incredible that anyone who thinks we will get a stadium at Falmer really believes that Prescott has masterminded the delay in order to gain an electoral advantage.

 

[dougdeep]

Isn't it about time Whitehawk F.C. started a petition about losing their ground. If we are told to build our stadium there, then they are doomed. SAVE WHITEHAWK NOW!

 

[Colbourne Kid]

Whitehawk are not doomed.

If Sheepcote became the only alternate site, the plan submitted by the Club show a new stadium for Whitehawk alongside the main stadium.

 

[perseus]

I think Prescott punches too much weight to care about the electors:

Picture at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1330000/images/_1334795_prescott300.jpg

I could have posted it, but the BBC might trace it and it would be pinching their bandwidth.

 

[Screaming J]

Re: Inquiry Update: Hour report day 7

It was all about the cost of stadiums at the various sites, the NIMBY attacking scum (Mr White) was throwing questions to Pezza left, right and centre. It appears that the THV owners would lease out the stadium to BHA but not any other land, if BHA wanted to add a Business park for example then they would have to pay shitloads for the privalegde (sp?) and BHA would laso have to fund and create a Fully Serviced Access area...think this may mean a Road! Pezza added that the owners "would not permit any other use" without a cash sum, Mr Styles is the owners name unless I am mistaken.

It might be easy to refute this particular bit of promotion for THV because - as far as I know - no-one has actually demonstrated that there is any DEMAND from the private sector for a business park at THV...or have they?

 

[perseus]

Re: Re: Inquiry Update: Hour report day 7

It might be easy to refute this particular bit of promotion for THV because - as far as I know - no-one has actually demonstrated that there is any DEMAND from the private sector for a business park at THV...or have they?

The owners of the land are being especially greedy. It would be a lot of hard work to find an office operator or business park tenants. Brighton and Hove Council have seemed to indicate they would prefer employment opportunities over housing. Housing could be veteod. Then the land owner would find his land which he paid hardly anything for is not worth nearly as much as he would like.

Best bet would be to go along with the grasping owner, until the decision on Falmer is made. I still do not think it is second choice if Falmer comes a cropper.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Re: Inquiry Update: Hour report day 7

Brighton and Hove Council have seemed to indicate they would prefer employment opportunities over housing.

That is NOT the City Council's position.

They are resisting the recommendation made in the Local Plan Inspector's report that THV should be used for employment purposes.

In any event, even the Inspector suggested that this might be a long-term possibility, beyond the lifespan of the new Local Plan. Currently THV is simply open countryside, and the City Council's planning policies intend to keep it that way for the forseeable future.

Obviously the owners would like to get some added value out of their landholding. That's why they are making noises about supporting a stadium in conjunction with commercial development. But they are whistling in the wind - and certainly they aren't interested in the future of the Football Club.

 

[perseus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Inquiry Update: Hour report day 7

That is NOT the City Council's position.

They are resisting the recommendation made in the Local Plan Inspector's report that THV should be used for employment purposes.

In any event, even the Inspector suggested that this might be a long-term possibility, beyond the lifespan of the new Local Plan. Currently THV is simply open countryside, and the City Council's planning policies intend to keep it that way for the forseeable future.

Obviously the owners would like to get some added value out of their landholding. That's why they are making noises about supporting a stadium in conjunction with commercial development. But they are whistling in the wind - and certainly they aren't interested in the future of the Football Club.

Although strictly a matter for the people of Hove and Brighton and the Local Plan, it is up to the politicans to decide what the future of Toad's Hole Valley holds?

Sheepcote is allocated in the local plan as public open space, so that seems out as an alternative?

From the point of view of the sequential analysis for a stadium site, it being an AONB, with inferior transport arrangements to Falmer, it could NOT regarded as a reasonable alternative (my opinion).

The Local Plan was somewhat indecisive on this benign trespass land. Open countryside is not a "sustainable" medium term option? Somebody might just ask Brighton Council?

Otherwise, has anybody got any spare badgers they can move up there?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Inquiry Update: Hour report day 7

The Local Plan was somewhat indecisive on this benign trespass land.

The Second Deposit Draft version of the Plan (which was the one that Hoile reported on) was so "indecisive" it didn't even mention Toads Hole Valley.

The current Council view on THV is set out in a paper responding to the Inspector's Report:-

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/localplan2001/PROPOSEDMODSCH5EM.pdf



Inspector’s recommendation:
(See pages 179 to 181, paragraphs 6.21 to 6.31 of the Inspector’s Report)

Change to supporting text:

Toads’ Hole Valley: In the supporting text to policy EM2, there should be a reference to Toads’ Hole Valley, as a possible future employment site which would be allocated following a review of the Local Plan.



Council’s response:

Reject



Council’s reason for rejection:

The Inspector has recommended that a reference should be incorporated into the supporting text that Toads’ Hole Valley could be considered for development at a future review date.

There was no opportunity, via the Local Plan process, for any objections to be made to a future allocation of land at Toads’ Hole Valley for development. If the Local Plan text were to imply that development could take place in Toads’ Hole Valley in the future, this could initiate a second inquiry and delay the adoption of the Local Plan. Since this would have been a long term possible allocation as far as the Inspector is concerned, the need for any additional employment floor space can be considered as part of the research to inform the new Local Development Framework.

Given the short life of this Local Plan (3 years from adoption rather than 10), it is not proposed to modify the Plan to include a text reference to Toads’ Hole Valley.





The point is ... there is NO planning basis for the owners of THV to believe that a stadium and associated commercial development could be achievable within the timescale that the Albion are working within.