What Right have the NIMBYs got...

[Marc]

...in arguing about a stadium at Falmer?

I'm sure they possibly have a valid/legal reason but the way I see it:

They own their houses and land its on, fair enough we aint knocking their houses down. What they dont own is the land where the stadium will be built, as its been earmarked for development anyway (anyone clarify that?) then therefore have no argument against it or any new building on that land.

I live near Tescos in Shoreham, its across a road and huge and 24hr and theres loads of traffic and noise, I did'nt want it there but as I did'nt own the land I had no argument to use against the decision.

Is it purely a fact of a Not In My Back Yard scenario and they are using the AONB as an excuse, or do they actually have a factual or Legal Right to oppose the stadium?

 

[Curious Orange]

Don't forget that the NIMBYs are against something that isn't even in their district too!!

The stadium site is in Brighton & Hove. Falmer village is in Lewes District.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I do think they have a right to protesting about the ground, however what really pisses me off is the piss poor reasons they have given for it such as the summer teas one.
If your going to protest at least come up with proper reasons

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

Unforunately, I think there is a difference.

These people bought their houses in a conservation area next to an AONB. I hate to say it but they have a legal and moral right to expect the rules which govern these things not to be broken. Two inspectors have now ruled that building Falmer stadium would be in breach of these rules.

 

[Curious Orange]

Of course they DO have the right to protest about the stadium, as much as I, and I live over forty miles away, have a right to support it.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

Yes, we do have a right to support it. We don't neccesarily have a right to assume we'll get it (I don't think you do, but at times I think the club have encouraged us to think this).

If when you had bought your house you were assured in writing that the ground opposite you could not be used for commercial development, you would have had a right to object to Tesco.

 

[perseus]

The Crabtree Tesco scenario is I almost identical. It was built on the edge of the town right next to an AONB. The alternative would have meant putting it in the centre of town causing impossible traffic congestion. Any reasonable person would have forecasted that this would happen.

The same with Falmer, it was allocated for building on as part of the University overflow/expansion.

The relatively minor incursion of a a football stadium is not really comparable to the vast car parks, seven days a week excessive noise of a supermarket. However, the geography of north Shoreham, just like the geography of Brighton meant that it was the most sensible place to put Tescos.

Being next to a large supermakret is like having a football game on twelve hours a day for seven days a week, for nearly every day of the year. That is why it is set back from the road, not right in the face of the local people.

I really do not know why some people in Falmer did not push for Village way South which would not be "in their face so much" embedded in the downs?

Why, because it is not the NIMBYs that were leading the objections. It is Lewes Council, the South Downs Conservation Board, and one particular football-hating member of the Downsmen influencing the rest.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I think We all realise that progress has to be made,You cannot make time stand still.That is half the reason that the West pier is in such a state,for years jobsworths and know-it-alls have said You can't do this or that,all they have really achieved is stopping progress,when these arseholes die they leave a legacy of bugger all,apart from the fact that they stood in the way o f everything and anything that is progress.As crabtree says , He lives near Tesco shoreham,so do I,it is 24 hr ,sometimes i do get pissed off that i have to queue up in traffic just to get home,but the community needed it and now benefits from it.Falmer will be a maximum of 30 days a year for about 6 hours of those days.what is the matter with these wankers? too much time on their hands maybe.

 

[Marc]

Unforunately, I think there is a difference.

These people bought their houses in a conservation area next to an AONB. I hate to say it but they have a legal and moral right to expect the rules which govern these things not to be broken. Two inspectors have now ruled that building Falmer stadium would be in breach of these rules.

right fair enough they bought their houses next to the AONB and never expected it to be built on, DK said the area the ground will be built on will loose its AONB when the new National park for the south downs comes into effect. Now surely the NIMBYs should be attacking/taking to court the people responsible for changing the land near them thus loosing out on their livelihood/peace etc etc etc. Am I rigth in thinking that?

 

[perseus]

PS:

I do not why the supporters cannot reinstate the Village Way South option into the melting pot at the next/reconvened Public Inquiry.

It seems a completely legitimate move. It may not be successful.

I would call it Albion Country Park and landscape the whole area with a dual use parking component so people can park their cars and go for walks on the downs, thereby improving the AONB for the benefit of the whole of the public, not just one farmer.

The reason for saying is that a public Inquiry is not solely a legal battle whereby the proponents of a scheme can fight it out in a Court with the opponents.

But it is also a public debating forum, where the public can actually present just about anything they want with the constraints laid down by the scope of the Inquiry. I think the theory is then the Inspector (and Prescott) can gauge the public attitude.

Before the scope of the Public Inquiry was limited to the merits of Falmer Village way North. Now it has expanded.

If the merits and demerits of Sheepcote can be included so can Village Way South.

PS: So could flattening Falmer Village and building the stadium there, for that matter.

 

[Hannibal smith]

They have a right to object, just as we have a right to campaign for the building of the stadium.

The bottom line for me is that this is a class issue. People who buy houses in Falmer don't want a stadium built there because It will be full of working class scum, There will be violence every week including Millwall fans urinating in the pond & house prices will plummet. Just as we stereotype the Falmer brigade as former RAF spitfire pilots with blue rinse wife's they class us as thugs. The fact that Falmer is in an AONB, the area isn't big enough, Bats might die are things to use in the campaign - Its all a big game. Just be thankful you have a Labour government else Collyer's report would have been agreed with and the application thrown out.

As well as that the Village is full of coffin dodgers who have long since given up work and are looking for something to do. Campaigning against a stadium is ideal for filling up time.

 

[Easy 10]

These people bought their houses in a conservation area next to an AONB. I hate to say it but they have a legal and moral right to expect the rules which govern these things not to be broken. Two inspectors have now ruled that building Falmer stadium would be in breach of these rules.

I've seen this trotted out by a few NIMBYs now, with the comment that "the government are going against their own planning regulations..."

However, the governments planning laws do actually state that permission to build on an AONB can be granted providing it is proved that there is no other viable site, and that the social and ecnonomic benefits outweigh the perceived negative impact of the stadium. Tuesdays announcement seems to be dove-tailing with the first part of that law - the viability of other sites must be thoroughly investigated before permission can be given to build on an AONB. It would seem the battle has already been won on the social/economic benfits as they've not been questioned by the ODPM.

People claiming that the government are going against their own planning laws for this project seem to be twisting the truth somewhat.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

right fair enough they bought their houses next to the AONB and never expected it to be built on, DK said the area the ground will be built on will loose its AONB when the new National park for the south downs comes into effect. Now surely the NIMBYs should be attacking/taking to court the people responsible for changing the land near them thus loosing out on their livelihood/peace etc etc etc. Am I rigth in thinking that?

Yes, fair points Crabtree.

Collyer's answer to this however is that:

a) The stadium would be outside the proposed national park, but the coach interchange is within it.

b) The national park proposals are only that at this stage, and objections have already been made to the exclusion of the area currently within the AONB where the stadium would be built. It would therefore be wrong to presume anything either way at this stage.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

I've seen this trotted out by a few NIMBYs now, with the comment that "the government are going against their own planning regulations..."

However, the governments planning laws do actually state that permission to build on an AONB can be granted providing it is proved that there is no other viable site, and that the social and ecnonomic benefits outweigh the perceived negative impact of the stadium. Tuesdays announcement seems to be dove-tailing with the first part of that law - the viability of other sites must be thoroughly investigated before permission can be given to build on an AONB. It would seem the battle has already been won on the social/economic benfits as they've not been questioned by the ODPM.

People claiming that the government are going against their own planning laws for this project seem to be twisting the truth somewhat.

True about the viability of other sites but

a) If you read Collyer's report you'll see the socio/economic argument has not been won. He admits there are benefits but says that 1. the club has overstated them and 2. they would still exist if the stadium were built elsewhere.

b) we also have to show that the development is in the national interest. Collyer is clear we failed to do this. In fact as he points out the clubs's first submission accepted that there was no national benefit. We later tried to strengthen our case by saying there was because football is the national game and we are part of it. I can't be bothered to repeat all his arguments but he basically says there is no evidence that even if we drop out of the league and another club takes our place, the national interest of the league has suffered. We may not like this but we have to come up with a better argument than the one which has failed to convince two inspectors.

 

[perseus]

Good post, Norman Gall, unlikely to score a goal though.

It all smacks to me that the Inspector did not like the scheme so he had to think of a valid excuse.

 

[Easy 10]

True about the viability of other sites but

a) If you read Collyer's report you'll see the socio/economic argument has not been won. He admits there are benefits but says that 1. the club has overstated them and 2. they would still exist if the stadium were built elsewhere.

b) we also have to show that the development is in the national interest. Collyer is clear we failed to do this. In fact as he points out the clubs's first submission accepted that there was no national benefit. We may not like this but we have to come up with a better argument than the one which has failed to convince two inspectors.

We do not have to do anything of the sort. Prescott has clearly NOT agreed with Collyers (or Hoiles) conclusions. Where have the club been asked to come up with better arguments on the issues of being of national importance ? Or to restate the social/economic case ? Those arguments have been WON because Prescott has gone against the inspectors conclusions.

The one issue which is being revisited when the Inquiry reopens is whether or not one of the other sites is more suitable than Falmer. Nothing has been mentioned of the other issues, therefore we have to take it as having won the argument on those issues. The inspectors disagreed, but thankfully for us, Prescott has fallen on our side. If he hadn't, we would already have had our answer on Tuesday.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

We do not have to do anything of the sort. Prescott has clearly NOT agreed with Collyers (or Hoiles) conclusions. Where have the club been asked to come up with better arguments on the issues of being of national importance ? Or to restate the social/economic case ? Those arguments have been WON because Prescott has gone against the inspectors conclusions.

I would love to think you are right about this, and I really hope I am wrong. I just can't see where Prescott says anything to justify our belief that it's a "yes, as long as you can prove there's nowhere else." Seems to me more likely it's "no, unless you can prove there's nowhere else." And having read Collyer's report it's clear he think there are other alternatives, including Withdean since he accepts we need a stadium, but not one bigger than 9000 (he points out that would accomodate our average crowd for our last ten years at Goldstone, and that we have managed to cope financially at Withdean for last four years).

We're on the same side here, I've written all the Falmer letters to concil, Prescott, my MP, et.c.as I'm sure you have. I just can't see it now I've read the reports.

As I say I hope you're right Perseus, and I'll be the first to say it if Falmer comes to fruition.

 

[m20gull]

Though this is the only place I have seen it reported, this was on TeamTalk's report on Tuesday

"Falmer hasn't been ruled out, but we've decided to re-open the inquiry," said an ODPM spokesperson. "Before making the final decision John Prescott would like further evidence that Falmer is the best option available.

"He just wants to look at all of the options, and listen to all of the parties involved so he can cross-examine the situation."

I like the "further evidence that" bit

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I do not why the supporters cannot reinstate the Village Way South option into the melting pot at the next/reconvened Public Inquiry.

For heaven's sake, perseus.

The point of all this is to ensure that all other options get thrown out. Then we get our stadium.

Yet again, your idiotic contributions reveal that you are not supporting the Albion.

 

[London Irish]

Seems to me more likely it's "no, unless you can prove there's nowhere else

Look, this is not difficult to understand - it has been explained COUNTLESS times now.

What is the point of this latest exercise if the club proves what Prescott is asking them to prove, ie. that none of the other 7 sites are viable, and Prescott still says no? The whole extension of the inquiry would then have been a pointless, academic exercise. The ODPM doesn't indulge in that kind of stuff. If we prove there is no other viable site, Prescott will say yes.

Why are you still quoting a discredited report that even a neutral like Prescott has rejected? On all the other issues, economic benefit, national importance, we have WON. If we had lost on any of those, the question of whether there existed alternative sites WOULD NOT HAVE MATTERED.

Prescott extending the inquiry would then have been POINTLESS as the stadium application would have already failed.