Just to clarify - Lord Bracknell, Atilla or anyone really...

[Jam The Man]

Can I just get this totally straight, because I can't see it 'parrot fashion' in the letters or reports etc.

Is it the case that JP has said he WILL defintely go with Falmer, providing that the Falmer opposers cannot prove there is a better site from the other proposals?

Is it down to the opposers to prove this? Or down to the club to disprove these sites?

 

[Turkey]

This is the question I have wanted to be answered all day but nothing. LB says celebrate but I need to know we're deffinatly getting a ground first.

 

[Jam The Man]

Thankyou.. it's not just me then.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'll repeat what I've posted elsewhere - which is the same message that Attila pushed home in his superb SCR interview this morning:-



We have to jump through five hoops before we can start building at Falmer:-

1. We have to prove that the development is in the national interest. Prescott agrees that it is.

2. We have to prove that it will bring significant social, economic and community benefits. Prescott agrees that it will.

3. We have to show that any environmental damage can be overcome. Prescott agrees that this can be achieved at Falmer.

4. We have to demonstrate that there is no other suitable site available. Having had to listen to a persistent series of claims by a number of objectors that – despite the evidence at the Public Inquiry – this isn’t finally proved, Prescott is bending over backwards to ensure that all the new evidence is fully tested and cannot be challenged through the Judicial Review process.

5. We have to finalise the finance package before construction starts. This wouldn’t be possible if a threat of Judicial Review hung over the project. The delay could be at least twelve months.

By re-opening the Public Inquiry, Prescott is guaranteeing that he can’t be challenged on the “alternative site” issue. He can give a final YES by the autumn – and the NIMBYs won’t be able to challenge it.

If he said YES today, Falmer Parish Council (and possibly Lewes District Council as well) would certainly challenge it. We’d be hanging on for a year before we could make any further progress.

Today’s decision is Prescott well and truly stuffing the NIMBYs.



Prescott must say YES to Falmer if the other sites are rejected after the new Public Inquiry.

If - and this is extremely unlikely - one of the other sites proves to be available and suitable (taking into account all of the criteria in today's letter from the ODPM), then we will get a stadium there.

The onus is on the opposition to prove that one of the other sites is available and suitable.

Either way we win.

 

[Curious Orange]

It doesn't explicitly say that in the ODPM letter, but appears implicit just in the way it's worded.

(this is in reply to the first post, not Lord B's)

 

[Turkey]

Ed, I really really want to believe you but need more than that.

The five hoops. Where does it say Prescott agress with 1, 2 & 3?

If it's a win-win situation why are the club not saying so?

Why must Prescott say YES to Falmer if the other sites are rejected after the new Public Inquiry?

Apologies if I sound stupid but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[Curious Orange]

Ed, I really really want to believe you but need more than that.

The five hoops. Where does it say Prescott agress with 1, 2 & 3?

If it's a win-win situation why are the club not saying so?

Why must Prescott say YES to Falmer if the other sites are rejected after the new Public Inquiry?

Apologies if I sound stupid but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Turkey, the hoops referred to relate to the conditions that need to be met in order for it to be permissable to build on an AONB. Prezza is only after further information for one of them, therefore we must have satisfied the rest otherwise he would have said a flat 'No'.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Dead right, Mr Orange.

 

[Turkey]

Turkey, the hoops referred to relate to the conditions that need to be met in order for it to be permissable to build on an AONB. Prezza is only after further information for one of them, therefore we must have satisfied the rest otherwise he would have said a flat 'No'.

Got ya. I knew this, this morning I think but the local media has well and truely sent me round the twist. Thanks.

 

[Turkey]

So where are we celebrating tonight then?

 

[Curious Orange]

Dead right, Mr Orange.

And I can almost smuggly say that I worked it all out from only the statement on the ODPM website. I couldn't get further than 'The Big Board' on NSC when the news broke this morning, so I'd only seen thread titles saying 'Falmer No', and the actual statement. Worked out the implications in my head when I popped out for a packet of ciggies!!

(At least Prescott has given himself one more opportunity to cause me to stop smoking!!)

 

[Curious Orange]

So where are we celebrating tonight then?

No, not celebrating, but then I'm cautious by nature. Let the NIMBYs celebrate their "victory". We've still got work to do.

 

[Turkey]

Have we? Surely it's just a matter of time?

 

[beorhthelm]

To follow up Curious Oranages line, first and most importantly, by simply re-opening the Inquiry it is not a no. The OPDM letter request further information on 7 alternative sites "In each case against the following criteria...". It is implied that the only obstacle to Falmer is one of those sites meeting all 9 criteria.

i dont share LB's Win-Win scenario. If one of those sites is shown to meet all the criteria, we'd have to start a new planning application for that site. That planning might or might not then be subject to a future Inquiry as things change over time.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Why don't I feel like celebrating?

 

[Turkey]

i dont share LB's Win-Win scenario. If one of those sites is shown to meet all the criteria, we'd have to start a new planning application for that site. That planning might or might not then be subject to a future Inquiry as things change over time.

If one of the other sites is shown to meet all the criteria then we will surely not need to make another planning application? The Public Enquiary will have granted us permission simply by naming it as the best site.

 

[Hunting 784561]

And what if local NIMBYs subsequently object to an OPDM's reccomendation to site a future stadium at Sheepcote Valley or Toads Hole ?

Can that be called in as well ?

Or does the ODPM's site recomendation automatically take precedence over the objections or wish of the locals ?

 

[Turkey]

And what if local NIMBYs subsequently object to an OPDM's reccomendation to site a future stadium at Sheepcote Valley or Toads Hole ?

Can that be called in as well ?

Or does the ODPM's site recomendation automatically take precedence over the objections or wish of the locals ?

I presume that any NIMBYS for the 7 sites in question must make their objections known now for this new enquiary. I can't see the Albion making things difficult for them.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

i dont share LB's Win-Win scenario. If one of those sites is shown to meet all the criteria, we'd have to start a new planning application for that site. That planning might or might not then be subject to a future Inquiry as things change over time.

I was worried about that, until I remembered my years of experience in local government.

Planning Officers always recommend approval of planning applications if they are satisfied that an appeal against refusal would succeed. If, as a result of this new Inquiry, Prescott endorses (say) Sheepcote Valley, he's not going to turn down an appeal if the City Council refuses planning permission.

But this is a long way off being likely to happen, since Sheepcote Valley is demonstrably in conflict with national planning policy on sustainable transport access to major developments.

 

[London Irish]

If one of the other sites is shown to meet all the criteria then we will surely not need to make another planning application? The Public Enquiary will have granted us permission simply by naming it as the best site.

Precisely, there is no higher planning authority than the Secretary of State. All lower planning authorities would have to fall in behind it.