I understand the NIMBYS

[westdeneite]

are going to use the re convened inquiry only just to hammer home the point that 2 planning officers have rejected Falmer outright and therefore cannot go ahead.
Surely, they are not going to be allowed to use this tac as the inquiry is only to establish if there is a better alternative site.
If there isn't, and we all know there isn't, then Falmer MUST get the nod.
This is my interpretation or am I being to f*****g naieve?

 

[aftershavedave]

i'd have thought that they only way they can make that argument is by calling a judicial review.

the reopened inquiry is to deal with alternative sites, so as long as the inspector sticks to his agenda, he'll tell them politely to sit down, shut up.....

 

[Marc]

If that is the case then they hav'nt got a clue (wait...they hav'nt anyway), they should be concenrrating on "helping us" find a "better alternative" surely? Which we know does'nt exist...so Falmer it is then

 

[Marc]

i'd have thought that they only way they can make that argument is by calling a judicial review.

Is'nt that whats been avoided now with the re-opening though? (juts for clarification sake)

 

[Northstander]

I think they have lost already, just going through motions now before sending the JCB's down make a start!

 

[Lammy]

All the Nimby's can do is reccomend a 'better' site and prove it. The sites mentioned in the report I believe are Sheepcote (laughable) and Toad's Hole. Toad's Hole is not laughable but still not a patch on Falmer. There are also plenty of residents around Toad's Hole with more right to complain than the Falmer residence as they will actually be able to see the stadium from their front door!

It really is Falmer or bust. If there were a better site I would be campaigning for it! (Well there is Waterhall but that is like asking to build on Stone Henge!).

 

[aftershavedave]

Is'nt that whats been avoided now with the re-opening though? (juts for clarification sake)

yes, absolutely crabbers

 

[Marc]

It really is Falmer or bust. If there were a better site I would be campaigning for it! (Well there is Waterhall but that is like asking to build on Stone Henge!).

I like that, thats a good way of looking at it, although not entirely true comparing it to Stone Henge but it gives people the idea! nice one

 

[Marc]

yes, absolutely crabbers

marvelous thanks, knew i read it around the time of the previous decision but needed reasurring!

 

[Deleted User X18H]

All the Nimby's can do is reccomend a 'better' site and prove it. The sites mentioned in the report I believe are Sheepcote (laughable) and Toad's Hole. Toad's Hole is not laughable but still not a patch on Falmer. There are also plenty of residents around Toad's Hole with more right to complain than the Falmer residence as they will actually be able to see the stadium from their front door!

It really is Falmer or bust. If there were a better site I would be campaigning for it! (Well there is Waterhall but that is like asking to build on Stone Henge!).

Toads hole is mainly surrounded by a council estate sorry but no right to complain if you live in a council house or flat.

 

[Lammy]

Toads hole is mainly surrounded by a council estate sorry but no right to complain if you live in a council house or flat.

I didn't realise the houses up snakey hill were council houses? They look pretty posh to me! Mind you I do live in Newhaven

 

[Lammy]

I like that, thats a good way of looking at it, although not entirely true comparing it to Stone Henge but it gives people the idea! nice one

My comparison to Stone Henge was comparing the likely hood of getting planning permission for either. Not that Waterhall is an ancient ceramonial site

 

[Deleted User X18H]

I didn't realise the houses up snakey hill were council houses? They look pretty posh to me! Mind you I do live in Newhaven

I said mainly, snaky hill houses are private, but what only about a hundred or so houses I doubt there would be to many nimbys up there, imho Toads is a viable solution.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

are going to use the re convened inquiry only just to hammer home the point that 2 planning officers have rejected Falmer outright and therefore cannot go ahead.
Surely, they are not going to be allowed to use this tac as the inquiry is only to establish if there is a better alternative site.
If there isn't, and we all know there isn't, then Falmer MUST get the nod.
This is my interpretation or am I being to f*****g naieve?

Both inspectors rejected Falmer because they believed there were better sites THAT is why the inquiry was reconvened. Prescott has asked them to prove it. Consequently, if they try any other tactic they should be told to sit down and shut up.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Toads hole is mainly surrounded by a council estate sorry but no right to complain if you live in a council house or flat.

Bloody Hell...don't tell my mother in law that she is surrounded by Council Houses. She lives on that Cooks"estate" where all the houses ar £500k +

I think you will find the council estate is at the West end on top of the hill...Hangeleton way

 

[Rangdo]

I said mainly, snaky hill houses are private, but what only about a hundred or so houses I doubt there would be to many nimbys up there, imho Toads is a viable solution.

Of course there will be a lot of nimbys up there. You'll get them everywhere. But around Toads Hole there are far more residents than Falmer so there will be a higher proportion of objectors. I personally would love to have a new stadium 5 minutes walk from my house but there are a lot of people who don't. Toads hole will affect a far larger number of residents than Falmer.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Bloody Hell...don't tell my mother in law that she is surrounded by Council Houses. She lives on that Cooks"estate" where all the houses ar £500k +

I think you will find the council estate is at the West end on top of the hill...Hangeleton way

The council estate is Poynings Drive and Downland Drive which runs parelell (sic) with the whole of toads hole.