Report this comment
  • "
    Fight Back wrote:
    Busterblister wrote:
    jarmonesque wrote:
    Busterblister wrote:
    Fight Back wrote:
    Just as long as a new entry road to the A27 is included then this is a good idea. The land is actually privately owned so the it is not an amenity space and the council would make nothing from it's sale. The owners tried to persuade the Albion to build their new stadium there but one of many issues was the price they were asking for the land.
    One of the other issues was that no-one in B&H wanted the stadium built on their own doorstep. That will also be the case with this proposed development.
    Why do you keep on with these falsehoods? The people of B & H overwhelmingly voted yes to the stadium in a referendum.
    The referendum. Interesting. Yes, there was a majority voted in favour. For a site in Falmer. A quick search through the Argus archives will reveal that people didn't want it on their own doorstep though.

    Regarding the referendum, it depends on what you mean by "overwhelming". IIRC, 60% voted in favour on a 30% turn out. So 70-75% of eligible voters didn't vote for it. In addition, the rules for the referendum didn't insist on more than 50% of the total electorate voting for the stadium, as appears to be common elsewhere in other referenda. Was the vote particularly publicised? Was there fair and balanced reporting of the "no" side of things in either the council communications or in The Argus, the two most likely sources of information in B&H? Did the council publicise the costs of fighting the battle to the taxpayer? Was the no report from the planning inspectors given due weight, tearing apart as it did the pro lobby arguments? I guess that's open to opinion. In any case, there were and are stringent planning regulations in place to protect that piece of land, and that should have been enough to prevent the stadium going ahead, however, politics won through.

    interestingly, during the stadium saga, Ann De Vecchi, although villified by Albion fans saw her share of the vote go up in Lewes. Presumably you think that LDC had no right to object although part of the stadium was being built on their land? They had every right to say no and won virtually every round of the stadium battle except they couldn't persuade the SOS who was allowed to make a subjective judgement.

    All as I remember it of course, and I may be wrong.
    Doesn't matter - WE WON ! People like you can continue to stew and be bitter but most of us couldn't care less as we're watching fantastic football in a fantastic ( soon to be bigger ) stadium. Bad Luck !
    Not bitter at all - just don't like the re-writing of history by soccer fans. BTW - I like the use of the word "we"... What exactly did you have to do with getting planning permission? Chant in the street a bit or something?"
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.


  • Enter the above word in the box below

Please be fair, courteous and respectful to the views of others so we can build a vibrant community in a safe online environment. You are personal liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views. If you wish to complain, please contact us.

Greens plot housebuilding in Hove valley

An “eco-friendly” community could be created on undeveloped countryside as part of wider plans to mould the future of Brighton and Hove.

Brighton and Hove City Council believes it could create a community including 700 homes, a new secondary school, offices, community facilities and open space on the greenfield site known as Toads Hole Valley.

The council believes the 47 hectare site, between the A27 and King George VI Avenue in Hove, could become an example of One Planet Living, by becoming sustainable, ethical and with a low carbon footprint.

Former council leader Bill Randall described it as a “tremendous opportunity” adding it will help provide homes to some of the 12,000 people on the housing register.

But the plans to develop the site have been opposed by local residents who said they want to preserve the area as open space for future generations.

*For the full story read The Argus this weekend

Local Businesses

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree