The Decision - YES, but first prove there's nowhere else available

[perseus]

Ben's Grandad: the Pende thread is on

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30115&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

It is does not really matter. The same thing always happens with Planning Permissions like this. The developers (in case the Albion) will always proceeed to the Public Inquiry reconvening stage because of the work that has gone on before hand.

So it will get played out to the last minute.
Extra time would be a Judicial Review of Prescott says Yes.

The odds of the plan going through at the beginning were only about 75%. Now with all the problems and delays I would reckon it is about 50% based on the past record of developments. I have never known a development to go ahead after so many delays. However, Biscot Asylum Centre (with even more trouble) may turn out to be the first.

From my experience, the usual reason why such developments fail is because the bankers have a change of heart. This experience is usually supermarkets, the most contenscious of developments. These supermarkets would expect to go through eventually, usually in a different (better) place with the local public getting a planning gain (new swimming pool, park etc.).

 

[dougdeep]

There is nowhere else Prescott, Would I lie to you baby.

 

[Beach Hut]

So finally we are there at the promised land, well around 6 months time

 

[perseus]

In the event (unlikely or probable depending on your interpretation) of Falmer being turned down, drastic measures will have to be taken to get a stadium built on another site.

On a larger site, the stadium plans could use some really modern green technology:

The Energy Saving Trust (EST) has calculated that if the roof of the 72,000 capacity 2004 Olympic Stadium had been fitted with solar PV, enough energy would have been created to power 1.1 million television sets for the 17 day duration of the Games.

Similarly, the 104,800kWh generated by a roof system of this size (25,000m2) would have had no problem supplying the energy needs of the 366 building Olympic Village that includes; 226 refrigerators, 52 televisions, 104 computers, 26 photocopiers, and preparation of the 60,000 daily meals. Excess electricity generated could have been sold back to the local electricity supplier and used to offset electricity costs for using floodlights.

In the UK, a similar amount of solar electricity would be sufficient to supply the electricity needed to power 680 UK homes throughout the Olympics or equivalent to the energy 30,000 runners would burn completing the London marathon.

Kirk Archibald, Solar Photovoltaic Programme Manager at EST said, "Solar PV could have been a driving force behind Athens 2004 and used as a symbol of the modern games where man is using the power of nature in more ways than one. The Olympic Village is a thoroughly modern development across a massive area yet contains no renewable technologies to minimise its impact on the environment[2]. Building a project like this from scratch provides the developer with a great opportunity to incorporate environmental technologies into their plans.

Kirk continued, "The Sydney experience left many optimistic that facilities in Athens would be virtually energy self-sufficient. I am heartened to see that London 2012 has already produced a comprehensive environmental and sustainability strategy and I anticipate that if we are successful, solar PV will play a major role in the re-development of the city's facilities."

Demetres Karavellas, Chief Executive Officer of WWF- Greece said, "Unfortunately, the environment never figured as a priority in the planning of the Athens Olympic Games. While the IOC calls the environment its third pillar of Olympism, it has done very little to keep this from crumbling under the weight of other priorities."

Photovoltaic systems are non-polluting energy sources, which generate electricity from the free and inexhaustible energy from the sun. Even on cloudy days, energy can still be generated. For every year a typical household system operates, 650kg of carbon dioxide emissions are saved. Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change. Each installation in the UK contributes to the Government's aim of generating 10 per cent of the UK's electricity needs from renewable sources by 2010.

To find out more about PV and how to obtain a DTI funded grant of up to 50% for an installation here in the UK, contact the Energy Saving Trust on 0800 298 3978 or log onto www.est.org.uk/solar for more information.


Notes to editors

For further information please contact:
Louise Hallet, Energy Saving Trust,
020 7227 0375 or louiseh@est.co.uk

· Jonathan Oates/ Aideen Lee, Luther Pendragon,
020 7618 9100 or jonathanoates@luther.co.uk / aideen@luther.co.uk


Summary
The Energy Saving Trust (EST) was set up by the UK Government after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and is one of the UK's leading organisations addressing the damaging affects of climate change. It aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions by promoting the sustainable and efficient use of energy. EST is a non-profit organisation funded by government and the private sector.

Photovoltaic (PV) fact sheet

· UK households are capable of generating an astounding £2 billion worth of solar energy every year.

· A typical domestic PV system can cost between £8,000 - £18,000. This will provide approximately 50 percent of a household's electricity needs or save households up to £100 on their annual electricity bills.

· Grants are available from the Department of Trade and Industry through the Energy Saving Trust to help UK households install both standard 'bolt-on' PV systems and 'integrated' PV systems. Bolt-on systems are eligible for a capped grant of the lesser of £3,000/kWp or 50 per cent. Integrated systems are eligible for a capped grant of the lesser of £4,000/kWp or 50 per cent.

· PV grants help to cover the costs of the equipment and work directly related to the PV system, including the modules, inverter(s), installation, grid connection and warranty, but not associated building works.

· PV systems can be placed on almost any building surface that receives daylight for most of the day. Roofs are the usual location for PV systems on houses but PV modules can also be placed on facades, conservatory or atrium roofs or sun-shades.

· PV is a non-polluting energy source. Installing PV will allow households to generate their own electricity from the free and inexhaustible energy from the sun, as well as reducing their energy bills. PV systems never need refuelling, have no moving parts, emit no pollution, are silent, and require minimal maintenance.





[1] Environmental Assessment of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, WWF Greece July 2004
[2] Environmental Assessment of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, WWF Greece July 2004

 

[Bromley shrimp]

In the event (unlikely or probable depending on your interpretation) of Falmer being turned down, drastic measures will have to be taken to get a stadium built on another site.

On a larger site, the stadium plans could use some really modern green technology:

The Energy Saving Trust (EST) has calculated that if the roof of the 72,000 capacity 2004 Olympic Stadium had been fitted with solar PV, enough energy would have been created to power 1.1 million television sets for the 17 day duration of the Games.

Similarly, the 104,800kWh generated by a roof system of this size (25,000m2) would have had no problem supplying the energy needs of the 366 building Olympic Village that includes; 226 refrigerators, 52 televisions, 104 computers, 26 photocopiers, and preparation of the 60,000 daily meals. Excess electricity generated could have been sold back to the local electricity supplier and used to offset electricity costs for using floodlights.

In the UK, a similar amount of solar electricity would be sufficient to supply the electricity needed to power 680 UK homes throughout the Olympics or equivalent to the energy 30,000 runners would burn completing the London marathon.

Kirk Archibald, Solar Photovoltaic Programme Manager at EST said, "Solar PV could have been a driving force behind Athens 2004 and used as a symbol of the modern games where man is using the power of nature in more ways than one. The Olympic Village is a thoroughly modern development across a massive area yet contains no renewable technologies to minimise its impact on the environment[2]. Building a project like this from scratch provides the developer with a great opportunity to incorporate environmental technologies into their plans.

Kirk continued, "The Sydney experience left many optimistic that facilities in Athens would be virtually energy self-sufficient. I am heartened to see that London 2012 has already produced a comprehensive environmental and sustainability strategy and I anticipate that if we are successful, solar PV will play a major role in the re-development of the city's facilities."

Demetres Karavellas, Chief Executive Officer of WWF- Greece said, "Unfortunately, the environment never figured as a priority in the planning of the Athens Olympic Games. While the IOC calls the environment its third pillar of Olympism, it has done very little to keep this from crumbling under the weight of other priorities."

Photovoltaic systems are non-polluting energy sources, which generate electricity from the free and inexhaustible energy from the sun. Even on cloudy days, energy can still be generated. For every year a typical household system operates, 650kg of carbon dioxide emissions are saved. Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to climate change. Each installation in the UK contributes to the Government's aim of generating 10 per cent of the UK's electricity needs from renewable sources by 2010.

To find out more about PV and how to obtain a DTI funded grant of up to 50% for an installation here in the UK, contact the Energy Saving Trust on 0800 298 3978 or log onto www.est.org.uk/solar for more information.


Notes to editors

For further information please contact:
Louise Hallet, Energy Saving Trust,
020 7227 0375 or louiseh@est.co.uk

· Jonathan Oates/ Aideen Lee, Luther Pendragon,
020 7618 9100 or jonathanoates@luther.co.uk / aideen@luther.co.uk


Summary
The Energy Saving Trust (EST) was set up by the UK Government after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and is one of the UK's leading organisations addressing the damaging affects of climate change. It aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions by promoting the sustainable and efficient use of energy. EST is a non-profit organisation funded by government and the private sector.

Photovoltaic (PV) fact sheet

· UK households are capable of generating an astounding £2 billion worth of solar energy every year.

· A typical domestic PV system can cost between £8,000 - £18,000. This will provide approximately 50 percent of a household's electricity needs or save households up to £100 on their annual electricity bills.

· Grants are available from the Department of Trade and Industry through the Energy Saving Trust to help UK households install both standard 'bolt-on' PV systems and 'integrated' PV systems. Bolt-on systems are eligible for a capped grant of the lesser of £3,000/kWp or 50 per cent. Integrated systems are eligible for a capped grant of the lesser of £4,000/kWp or 50 per cent.

· PV grants help to cover the costs of the equipment and work directly related to the PV system, including the modules, inverter(s), installation, grid connection and warranty, but not associated building works.

· PV systems can be placed on almost any building surface that receives daylight for most of the day. Roofs are the usual location for PV systems on houses but PV modules can also be placed on facades, conservatory or atrium roofs or sun-shades.

· PV is a non-polluting energy source. Installing PV will allow households to generate their own electricity from the free and inexhaustible energy from the sun, as well as reducing their energy bills. PV systems never need refuelling, have no moving parts, emit no pollution, are silent, and require minimal maintenance.





[1] Environmental Assessment of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, WWF Greece July 2004
[2] Environmental Assessment of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, WWF Greece July 2004

And your point is

 

[perseus]

The point is if Falmer is turned down, surely the "green lobby" would support a scheme whereby "green non-polluting energy" is created on a non-AONB site? In the national interest, with a Government subsidy with roofs and stands with huge solar panels?

PS: I always thought solar panels should be designed into a new sports stadium.

 

[Bromley shrimp]

The point is if Falmer is turned down, surely the "green lobby" would support a scheme whereby "green non-polluting energy" is created on a non-AONB site? In the national interest, with a Government subsidy with roofs and stands with huge solar panels?

PS: I always thought solar panels should be designed into a new sports stadium.

The point is, if Falmer is turned down and assuming that you're not taking the piss, where are you anticipating the site will be, before we get into the detail of implementing all this "green" technology?

 

[perseus]

If this scenario happens the site is envisaged at Pende

http://www.glaucus.org.uk/Pende.htm

Some more pictures at:

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30115&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

 

[London Calling]

With all respect Perseus, the Stadium should also be built the highest enviromental and sustainability standards at Falmer.

There is basically no excuse otherwise.

LC

 

[dougdeep]

(and cheap beer)

 

[The Large One]

PS: I always thought solar panels should be designed into a new sports stadium.

Small matter of the exhorbitant expense involved in putting in solar panel. I mean, a serious amount of extra expenditure. The club is looking to put this into the design for the Falmer stadium, but money is already being spent elsewhere in this project.

But you don't care, do you Percy, cos you are basically anti-Falmer. Incidentally, was that your letter in the Argus last week, banging on about Pende and Upper Beeding, and telling everyone that Prescott has rejected Falmer? If it wasn't you, the really scary thing is that there is another nutter roaming Sussex with the same idea as you.

 

[perseus]

If they mentioned the name Pende, it must be a local person, as it is not written on the Map.
http://www.glaucus.org.uk/Pende.htm

At a Public Meeting recently, a member of the audience I did not know (called Tony) stood up and recommended that the site for a football stadium. An ex-Brighton Councillor and Albion keen supporter has also mentioned the site in the press. I do not claim exclusive rights to observing a bloody great empty space (the size of Waterhall and Toad's Hole put together) specifically zoned for sports and tourism uses, with a special tax exemption already in place.

And the nature of the land, is they cannot build houses.

Also, in accordance with Prescott's "new parks" policies. (See the Observer this Sunday.)

Apart from Falmer being too small, I have nothing against Falmer, apart it from being a grotty area and the odds on that it will not get granted permission and being too expensive.

Under big plans we do not pay for solar panels. It comes out of grants or outside investment. Might not even have to pay for the stadium either. The developers will have to build it for nought as part of the planning gain.

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30115&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Nothing is "obvious" until it is obvious.

 

[CHAPPERS]

My GOD, are you still banging on about f***ing PENDE?

Give it up man.

 

[The Large One]

My GOD, are you still banging on about f***ing PENDE?

Give it up man.

He's a f***ing cock, no question. What planet are you on, Perseus?

Falmer too small? You cock. "Yeah, well, we've designed this stadium, it's gonna hold 22,000 - oh, hang on, it's a bit big. I know we'll put one of the goals on the Lewes Road. There, easy-peasy..."

And FFS, FALMER HAS ALREADY BEEN OK'D. When are you going to stop and understand that, peabrain? It's the rubbishing of other sites that has to be proved. And the other sites ARE all rubbish. Especially Pende as (for the 20th time), it's not in the city of Brighton & Hove. In fact, it's in the wrong bloody county.

Perseus, you are a cock. Did I mention that?

I just wish that they would hurry up and build a bigger runway to serve the city.

 

[perseus]

It appears that there is a leading letter in the Friday Argus (I usually do not bother to read the paper). It seems to be well written without any rude words.

It is quite a long letter without anti-Falmer sentiment, and apart from the monorail bit (which somewhat spoils it), it is as well researched as could be expected from someone from Hove.

Of course, nobody, will take a blind bit of notice (except the Large One) because nobody takes the Argus Letters page seriously any more.

The letter writer will have the satisifaction, that he said his piece. It seems fair comment to me.

Albeit, anybody coming from Hove and wishing to suggest how Adur should run their business is likely to get more than a few rude words.

The new runway extension is about as DEAD as any plan could be. It was never alive to start with because it still would not be long enough for the planes to land. This is the whole point of having a bigger runway.

So the letter writer is precisely right in this respect. There is 200 acres of land looking for a sporting/leisure use at farming land prices or less, looking for something to build on it.

So sooner, or later, somebody is bound to bring some sort of sporting interest up again.

 

[The Large One]

But it's not going to be Brighton & Hove Albion's stadium is it? IS IT?

 

[BensGrandad]

Could that become plan B. Dont get irate only asking!!

 

[perseus]

Well, we might agree with something then. If Albion do not get Falmer, Brighton & Hove Albion will NOT exist.

The club will not die though.

There is no possibility of another location in the Brighton & Hove area, so it may have to have a slight change of name.

e.g. Brighton & South Coast Albion

So it might be correct to say if Falmer does not get approved it will be the "end of Brighton & Hove Albion". However, it would NOT be true to say that "Albion will die".

In the late 1970's I did a complicated calculation of how many people actually came from Brighton amongst the supporters, but using several different test methods and collating them. I arrived at a figure at 43%.
There is no point repeating it, because the Albion computer should have the addresses and they can calculate where the support is coming from.

To cut a long story short, if the stadium was located at Sheepcote or Newhaven, it would be a great disincentive for many people because of the difficult journey.

 

[The Large One]

Could that become plan B. Dont get irate only asking!!

No.

It has been made abundantly clear that the club MUST stay within Brighton & Hove. Perseus is from another planet - and what he is suggesting is a franchise football club. The fact that bloody Pende is only eight miles from the centre of Brighton is irrelevant. The scenario with Wimbledon / MK Dons will never be allowed to be repeated.

Percy's calculations as to spectator habitation are also irrelevant.

I am pretty sure that myself and many others - the vast majority - would have great difficulty supporting anyone other than Brighton & Hove Albion. The drop-off figures just wouldn't make the new club viable.

 

[The Orange Seagull]

I know a lot of you don't like Perseus on here but I find some of his posts(fantasies!) hilarious......"Brighton & South Coast Albion"-priceless!