Perry's Attack on Lib Dem Leaflet

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
I never did see this LDC leaflet of lies...

Perry's Attack On Lib Dem Leaflet

By Paul Camillin

Martin Perry has attacked a recent leaflet published by Lewes Lib Dems as being deliberately misleading, warning, "If people don't know the facts they could easily be taken in by it."

Called 'Falmer for All' - which is actually the name of the pro-stadium campaign led by Albion supporters - the leaflet's opening headline is "Rolling Downs should be for the enjoyment of everyone, not left at the mercy of developers". Perry pointed out, "The stadium site is not in rolling downs. It is a left-over parcel of land with no public access alongside a busy dual carriageway. Part of it is brownfield. The so-called developers are actually the football club. One of their aims for the stadium is to bring huge benefits to local people, including the residents of Lewes. "

The leaflet claims that the area is being considered for National Park status. Martin Perry said, "Part of the site is currently covered in poor quality buildings and a large part of the rest of it is outside the suggested National Park." When the Countryside Agency first drew up the proposed National Park boundaries it did not include any part of the stadium site. Lewes District Council - then as now trying to stop the stadium being built - spoke to the Agency and the proposed boundaries were later modified to include the thin projection of land where the stadium coach park was planned.

The National Park boundaries have not yet been decided and it is by no means certain that the coach park will be inside them. If it is it will have to meet the criteria normal to development in areas of special protection. Perry added, "Lewes Lib Dems are determined to suggest that a go-ahead for the stadium will establish a precedent that could result in unsuitable development elsewhere In the National Park. It's a scare tactic they know to be untrue."

The leaflet claims that much of the site is within Lewes district and that the impact of the development will be felt keenly by residents of Lewes. "It is risible to say that Lewes residents will be affected by a roadside coach park, containing no buildings whatsoever, on the edge of Brighton.

"However, I can agree with the Lib Dems that there will be some impact. Only recently we were approached by a major supplier who told us that if they received a service contract for the stadium then they would use their Lewes base to service the contract, creating new jobs and other benefits for the town. Don't they want these benefits for their residents?

In the leaflet Lib Dem council leader Ann De Vecchi says that the Albion have not yet submitted any evidence to counter the council's challenge and that the government's own solicitor has acknowledged John Prescott's decision to be fatally flawed. "This is a nonsense. The Treasury Solicitor has conceded that there is a technical error in the decision letter so Ann De Vecchi knows full well that there is no point in us submitting evidence at this stage.And 'fatally' is the Lib Dems' own word - just because there was an incorrect sentence in the decision letter does not mean that the decision itself was wrong.

"The government has accepted that there was an error in the wording and the sensible way forward now is for the original decision to be quashed by the High Court and the decision made again on a sound basis.As part of the process Lewes Lib Dems would have every opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to consider any other issues that concerned them.

"The route is simple, straightforward and relatively inexpensive but Lewes District Council is deliberately trying to frustrate the process.They have refused to consent to this route and are insisting that the matter goes to court in December, so delaying the decision by a further five months.

"It shows where they are coming from. This has nothing to do with protecting the Downs. Lewes Lib Dems are trying to frustrate the planning process in order to defeat the stadium by delay."

===

'LEWES LIB DEMS FULL OF SHIT' SHOCKER... :eek:
 
Last edited:




Garry Nelson's Left Foot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
13,201
tokyo
When the Countryside Agency first drew up the proposed National Park boundaries it did not include any part of the stadium site. Lewes District Council - then as now trying to stop the stadium being built - spoke to the Agency and the proposed boundaries were later modified to include the thin projection of land where the stadium coach park was planned.

Is this true? They actually got the proposed boundaries changed so that they could then say that a poxy car park would be within it's boundaries? :nono: :nono: :nono:
 


Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
70,703
Re: I never did see this LDC leaflet of lies...

The Large One said:
Perry's Attack On Lib Dem Leaflet

By Paul Camillin

Martin Perry has attacked a recent leaflet published by Lewes Lib Dems as being deliberately misleading, warning, "If people don't know the facts they could easily be taken in by it."

Called 'Falmer for All' - which is actually the name of the pro-stadium campaign led by Albion supporters - the leaflet's opening headline is "Rolling Downs should be for the enjoyment of everyone, not left at the mercy of developers". Perry pointed out, "The stadium site is not in rolling downs. It is a left-over parcel of land with no public access alongside a busy dual carriageway. Part of it is brownfield. The so-called developers are actually the football club. One of their aims for the stadium is to bring huge benefits to local people, including the residents of Lewes. "


Remind me who these people are supposed to be representing again? :censored:
 




The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
The Great Cornholio said:
I have seen this leaflet. It's the one where they put in the deliberately misleading Photoshopped pictures of the two hikers supposedly enjoying the countryside near Falmer (page 6) and the picture of Ditchling Beacon which is supposed to a representation of the beauty of the South Downs. Didn't they have to apologise for it?

Incidentally, Ditchling Beacon is a lovely spot. The proposed stadium site near Falmer is not. It's a shit-hole.
 




Rougvie

Rising Damp
Aug 29, 2003
5,131
Hove, f***ing ACTUALLY.
The Large One said:
Incidentally, Ditchling Beacon is a lovely spot.

DOGGER alert.
 


Lawro's Lip

New member
Feb 14, 2004
1,768
West Kent
garry nelsons left foot said:
Is this true? They actually got the proposed boundaries changed so that they could then say that a poxy car park would be within it's boundaries? :nono: :nono: :nono:

If this is true, that is OUTRAGEOUS. Is it true?:angry:
 






From the Albion website:-


Perry's Attack On Lib Dem Leaflet

By Paul Camillin

Martin Perry has attacked a recent leaflet published by Lewes Lib Dems as being deliberately misleading, warning, "If people don't know the facts they could easily be taken in by it."

Called 'Falmer for All' - which is actually the name of the pro-stadium campaign led by Albion supporters - the leaflet's opening headline is "Rolling Downs should be for the enjoyment of everyone, not left at the mercy of developers".

Perry pointed out, "The stadium site is not in rolling downs. It is a left-over parcel of land with no public access alongside a busy dual carriageway. Part of it is brownfield.

"The so-called developers are actually the football club. One of their aims for the stadium is to bring huge benefits to local people, including the residents of Lewes. "

The leaflet claims that the area is being considered for National Park status. Martin Perry said, "Part of the site is currently covered in poor quality buildings and a large part of the rest of it is outside the suggested National Park."

When the Countryside Agency first drew up the proposed National Park boundaries it did not include any part of the stadium site. Lewes District Council - then as now trying to stop the stadium being built - spoke to the Agency and the proposed boundaries were later modified to include the thin projection of land where the stadium coach park was planned.

The National Park boundaries have not yet been decided and it is by no means certain that the coach park will be inside them. If it is it will have to meet the criteria normal to development in areas of special protection.

Perry added, "Lewes Lib Dems are determined to suggest that a go-ahead for the stadium will establish a precedent that could result in unsuitable development elsewhere In the National Park. It's a scare tactic they know to be untrue."

The leaflet claims that much of the site is within Lewes district and that the impact of the development will be felt keenly by residents of Lewes.

"It is risible to say that Lewes residents will be affected by a roadside coach park, containing no buildings whatsoever, on the edge of Brighton.

"However, I can agree with the Lib Dems that there will be some impact. Only recently we were approached by a major supplier who told us that if they received a service contract for the stadium then they would use their Lewes base to service the contract, creating new jobs and other benefits for the town. Don't they want these benefits for their residents?

In the leaflet Lib Dem council leader Ann De Vecchi says that the Albion have not yet submitted any evidence to counter the council's challenge and that the government's own solicitor has acknowledged John Prescott's decision to be fatally flawed.

"This is a nonsense. The Treasury Solicitor has conceded that there is a technical error in the decision letter so Ann De Vecchi knows full well that there is no point in us submitting evidence at this stage.And 'fatally' is the Lib Dems' own word - just because there was an incorrect sentence in the decision letter does not mean that the decision itself was wrong.

"The government has accepted that there was an error in the wording and the sensible way forward now is for the original decision to be quashed by the High Court and the decision made again on a sound basis.As part of the process Lewes Lib Dems would have every opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to consider any other issues that concerned them.

"The route is simple, straightforward and relatively inexpensive but Lewes District Council is deliberately trying to frustrate the process.They have refused to consent to this route and are insisting that the matter goes to court in December, so delaying the decision by a further five months.

"It shows where they are coming from. This has nothing to do with protecting the Downs. Lewes Lib Dems are trying to frustrate the planning process in order to defeat the stadium by delay."


http://www.seagulls.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/StadiumDetail/0,,10433~883282,00.html
 










Barrel of Fun

Abort, retry, fail
Lord B or anyone in the know. When did the LDC propose for the extra strip of land to be included in the National Park boundary.


Christ alive - I have come across some interesting cases in planning, but this takes the ticket!! They must not get away with what they are doing. They must be hounded out of Lewes.

Best of luck tomorrow - Knock 'em dead*!!


*Please note - Figure of speech, not a threat. :cool:
 


BarrelofFun said:
Lord B or anyone in the know. When did the LDC propose for the extra strip of land to be included in the National Park boundary.
The last stage in the consultation process on the proposed National Park boundary came AFTER there had been a great deal of public consultation by what was then the Countryside Commission. This was a round of consultation directed at local authorities.

At the start of the local authority consultation, the DRAFT boundary excluded the whole of the stadium site (including the coach park). Lewes District Council persuaded the Agency to redraw the DRAFT boundary to include the area between Falmer village and the city boundary (despite the guidelines that say that a National Park boundary should follow visible features on the ground - which the local authority boundary doesn't).

It was this later DRAFT National Park boundary that was taken into account at the National Park Public Inquiry. But - as Martin Perry's piece makes clear - it hasn't been universally accepted and it hasn't been officially adopted by the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State has yet to make ANY announcement about the final designation of the National Park.

Therefore it is impossible to say that the coach park "is in the future National Park". It is, however, in the existing AONB and will remain so until the AONB is abolished (which will happen only when the National Park is finally brought into existence).
 
Last edited:




Lord Bracknell said:
Lewes District Council persuaded the Agency to redraw the DRAFT boundary to include the area between Falmer village and the city boundary (despite the guidelines that say that a National Park boundary should follow visible features on the ground - which the local authority boundary doesn't).
Or - to put it another way ...

If the National Park boundary is eventually designated to follow the city boundary, this will be contrary to the government's own planning guidelines.

EXACTLY THE SAME REASON THAT LEWES DISTRICT COUNCIL CLAIM JUSTIFIES AN EXPENSIVE HIGH COURT APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE STADIUM PLANNING PERMISSION.

If Lewes District Council win the battle of the National Park boundary, you can bet your life that they will forget how important it is for the government always to follow its own planning guidelines.
 
Last edited:


Caveman

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2003
9,926
Remind me who these people are supposed to be representing again?

I wish I could answer that, I wish anyone could answer that. :down:

I really do feel sick due to these LDC b*stards. They are a disgrace and an embarrassment to the whole of Brighton..no Sussex.

One thing we do know is they don't represent the views of the people of Brighton and Lewes.
 


Garry Nelson's Left Foot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
13,201
tokyo
Lord Bracknell said:
Or - to put it another way ...

If the National Park boundary is eventually designated to follow the city boundary, this will be contrary to the government's own planning guidelines.

EXACTLY THE SAME REASON THAT LEWES DISTRICT COUNCIL CLAIM JUSTIFIES AN EXPENSIVE HIGH COURT APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE STADIUM PLANNING PERMISSION.

If Lewes District Council win the battle of the National Park boundary, you can bet your life that they will forget how important it is for the government always to follow its own planning guidelines.

That is truly scandalous. It really is. How well publicised has this been? I never realised that LDC got the proposed boundaries changed. I didn't think they could go much lower but I was clearly wrong. They are utterly contemptable scum.:nono:
 


El Dude Brother

New member
Feb 8, 2006
34
Lord Bracknell said:
Therefore it is impossible to say that the coach park "is in the future National Park". It is, however, in the existing AONB and will remain so until the AONB is abolished (which will happen only when the National Park is finally brought into existence).

Two thoughts:

(i) Does this mean that should the National Park come into existence and NOT include the coach park, the AONB outside the Park will be abolished (i.e. the stadium site will then not include any land enjoying special protection)?

(ii) If the National Park includes the coach park site is there any legal right to appeal? Sounds like we'd have a good case if planning rules have not been followed.
 




Lawro's Lip

New member
Feb 14, 2004
1,768
West Kent
garry nelsons left foot said:
That is truly scandalous. It really is. How well publicised has this been? I never realised that LDC got the proposed boundaries changed. I didn't think they could go much lower but I was clearly wrong. They are utterly contemptable scum.:nono:

Totally agree. This really shows where they are coming from and needs to be made widely known. I thought I had followed this stuff quite closely but had not realised this point.

Many fans and public know even less. I sat near a guy at the the last match who did not even know that the permission for the stadium had run into a problem!:nono:
 
Last edited:


hitony

Administrator
Jul 13, 2005
16,284
South Wales (im not welsh !!)
Lawro's Lip said:
Totally agree. This really shows where they are coming from and needs to be made widely known. I thought I had followed this stuff quite closely but had not realised this point.

Many fans and public know even less. I sat near a guy at the the last match who did not even know that the permission for the stadium had run into a problem!:nono:


I just feel like everythings going backwards with regards to falmer :shootself i keep trying to put it down to the fact i dont live locally so i dont hear all thats going on so much...........but i dont know :nono: its all very depressing :down:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top