Three points
1 Wind farms up to 5MW are allowed in ANOBs and National Parks. There are rules about how many and where, etc. A stadium is a different kettle of fish.
2 It was John Prescott who wasted the money, as he produced a flawed decision, quashed in the High Court, and Lewes District Council (LDC) has had its funds re-imbursed. The previous costs associated with the Public Inquiries (remember these found in favour of the LDC), would have to be spent by LDC anyway as a Planning Authority, once the Seagulls stadium proposal was put forward.
3 The delay was caused by John Prescott's flawed decision, not LDC, and no one would thank us (least of all the Football Club) for not looking at this latest decision properly before commenting.

Peter, please just accept the decision for the sake of all parties concerned. This has gone on for long enough and a lot of harsh words have been spoken between both camps.
Norman Baker has called on all parties to now work together and to accept this decison.
Most people in Lewes support the stadium.
Peter it's time to move on

I heard Peter Lenihan on Southern Counties Radio, saying he disagreed with the decision but acknowledging there was little appetite in Falmer to continue the fight. Norman Baker thinks the time has come for LDC and FPC to work with the club to make the best of it. The Green Party in Brighton & Hove said they were prepared to do so 2 or 3 years ago.

The time has come for both LDC and FPC to concede the issue whilst they still have some dignity left. They should be proud to have this excellent facility on their doorstep.

So Ed Bassford, who stood for the Seagulls Party in the Lewes council elections in May, says: "Lewes council is a local planning authority … Whatever they think, it is not their role to set themselves up as nationwide defenders of every AONB and national park in England."

So why were you standing for the council if not in an attempt to influence their decision making in regard to this specific application? Is this hypocrisy? I think so.

However, I have soime sympathy with the idea that decisions regarding national parks and AONBs should sometimes be taken at a higher level.

Shouldn't the people of Britain decide whether a sports stadium should be built in an AONB?

They wouldn't be influenced by a bunch of parochial soccer fans – and I bet the result would be an overwhelming "Environment 1, Seagulls 0".

Sports needs excellent facilities but in the right place.

Mr Gardiner.

It is true that the delays were caused by the mistake in the letter by John Prescott and his department, but the delay should have been much less as everybody agreed that the decision was flawed on that technicality - LDC did not have to hold out until the eve of the court case!

The stadium is obviously a different kettle of fish to a turbine, but developments are allowed in AONB if they are deemed to outweigh the 'harm', which is the case in this instance.

Is now not the right time to work with the club and ensure that the process from henceforth is 'smooth'? I do not see how this will open the flood gates to further development on the Downs if there National Park status is in the offing.


Ps Although I am not a constituent of Lewes, I would like to applaud you for giving the green light to the wind turbine. Renewable energy and the green revolution are matters close to my heart, both personally and professionally.

John wrote:
So Ed Bassford, who stood for the Seagulls Party in the Lewes council elections in May, says: \\\"Lewes council is a local planning authority … Whatever they think, it is not their role to set themselves up as nationwide defenders of every AONB and national park in England.\\\" So why were you standing for the council if not in an attempt to influence their decision making in regard to this specific application? Is this hypocrisy? I think so. However, I have soime sympathy with the idea that decisions regarding national parks and AONBs should sometimes be taken at a higher level. Shouldn\\\'t the people of Britain decide whether a sports stadium should be built in an AONB? They wouldn\\\'t be influenced by a bunch of parochial soccer fans – and I bet the result would be an overwhelming \\\"Environment 1, Seagulls 0\\\". Sports needs excellent facilities but in the right place.

The result would depend on whether the voters got to see the facts or the lies peddled by the nimbys. If you knew the facts you would know that the stadium will not be built in an AONB.

John wrote:
So Ed Bassford, who stood for the Seagulls Party in the Lewes council elections in May, says: \"Lewes council is a local planning authority … Whatever they think, it is not their role to set themselves up as nationwide defenders of every AONB and national park in England.\" So why were you standing for the council if not in an attempt to influence their decision making in regard to this specific application? Is this hypocrisy? I think so. However, I have soime sympathy with the idea that decisions regarding national parks and AONBs should sometimes be taken at a higher level. Shouldn\'t the people of Britain decide whether a sports stadium should be built in an AONB? They wouldn\'t be influenced by a bunch of parochial soccer fans – and I bet the result would be an overwhelming \"Environment 1, Seagulls 0\". Sports needs excellent facilities but in the right place.

Why did I stand for the council? For the same reasons that Peter Gardiner stood. We both live in the Ringmer and Ouse Valley ward and we had something to say - about a whole range of issues, not just the Falmer Stadium.

One reason, though, was to ensure that the facts of the Falmer stadium saga got a proper airing on the doorsteps. It was well worth it.

Not every voter in the ward made Falmer Stadium their top priority - some were more concerned about the incinerator (which is an issue that plays well for the Lib Dems in South Heighton); some were opposed to the Ringmer wind turbine (which played well for the Tories); What I did learn from the experience is that many, many voters (supporters of all parties) wish the Albion well and accept that the stadium should go ahead at Falmer. They don't want more money spent by LDC on continuing to oppose it.

I'm sure Peter Gardiner got the same message. We did, after all, knock on the same doors and speak to the same people.

John wrote:
So Ed Bassford, who stood for the Seagulls Party in the Lewes council elections in May, says: \"Lewes council is a local planning authority … Whatever they think, it is not their role to set themselves up as nationwide defenders of every AONB and national park in England.\" So why were you standing for the council if not in an attempt to influence their decision making in regard to this specific application? Is this hypocrisy? I think so. However, I have soime sympathy with the idea that decisions regarding national parks and AONBs should sometimes be taken at a higher level. Shouldn\'t the people of Britain decide whether a sports stadium should be built in an AONB? They wouldn\'t be influenced by a bunch of parochial soccer fans – and I bet the result would be an overwhelming \"Environment 1, Seagulls 0\". Sports needs excellent facilities but in the right place.

Why did I stand for the council? For the same reasons that Peter Gardiner stood. We both live in the Ringmer and Ouse Valley ward and we had something to say - about a whole range of issues, not just the Falmer Stadium.

One reason, though, was to ensure that the facts of the Falmer stadium saga got a proper airing on the doorsteps. It was well worth it.

Not every voter in the ward made Falmer Stadium their top priority - some were more concerned about the incinerator (which is an issue that plays well for the Lib Dems in South Heighton); some were opposed to the Ringmer wind turbine (which played well for the Tories); What I did learn from the experience is that many, many voters (supporters of all parties) wish the Albion well and accept that the stadium should go ahead at Falmer. They don't want more money spent by LDC on continuing to oppose it.

I'm sure Peter Gardiner got the same message. We did, after all, knock on the same doors and speak to the same people.

Mr Gardiner, if Lewes District Councils crusade against the stadium at Falmer is based primarily on the noble theory that it is wholly against the idea of building of a stadium on an AONB, how did LDC manage to align this with their assertions that Sheepcote (a nature reserve) and Toads Hole Valley (an AONB) should be considered among the alternatives to Falmer ?

Peter Gardiner wrote:
Three points 1 Wind farms up to 5MW are allowed in ANOBs and National Parks. There are rules about how many and where, etc. A stadium is a different kettle of fish. 2 It was John Prescott who wasted the money, as he produced a flawed decision, quashed in the High Court, and Lewes District Council (LDC) has had its funds re-imbursed. The previous costs associated with the Public Inquiries (remember these found in favour of the LDC), would have to be spent by LDC anyway as a Planning Authority, once the Seagulls stadium proposal was put forward. 3 The delay was caused by John Prescott's flawed decision, not LDC, and no one would thank us (least of all the Football Club) for not looking at this latest decision properly before commenting.

Peter - In response to your first point ...

As you well know, the Ringmer turbine was approved by LDC against the background of conflicting policy considerations. Yes, of course, national policy allows a turbine of that size to be built in an AONB - even though it is too big to meet the NAAONB criteria and runs counter to a whole range of other planning policies.

Likewise the stadium. In certain circumstances, national planning policy ALLOWS a development in a location like Falmer, despite some policy presumptions against it.

TWO Secretaries of State have now agreed that those circumstances prevail.

Planning for the needs of the community inevitably involves some compromise and some difficult judgments have to be made.

Now those judgments have been made, it's time to accept them. Let the turbine go ahead. Let the stadium be built.

Can i just say to LDC that Brighton And Hove Albion FC have fought this long drawn out saga LEGALLY, and with good intentions at all times, you have had your appeals and they have been overturned, please now set your sites on using taxpayers money on much needier causes in your beautiful Town of Lewes, i am sure the residents would appreciate it more, and you may get some of your political clout back.On the environmental issue the club have stated that they will make this one of the Greenest stadiums in the country.

I think at the end of the day, the most important point is that council's should spend money with their own constituents in mind - that is what they are elected for.

Lewes residents do not want more money spent on this, 5,000 signatures in a week showed this, not to mention Mr Neighbour and Ms Pepper losing their seats the latest elections.

Please, for everybody's sake, accept the advice of Norman Baker, and let's all work together to minimise the effects of this stadium.

Peter Gardiner wrote:
"The previous costs associated with the Public Inquiries (remember these found in favour of the LDC), would have to be spent by LDC anyway as a Planning Authority, once the Seagulls stadium proposal was put forward."
In what way did the second inquiry find in favour of LDC? It concluded that there was no alternative site available.
Additionally, LDC did not have to spend a single penny on the planning application for the stadium, as it is wholly within Brighton & Hove and not on land within their jurisdiction. The only bit they needed to look at was the coach drop off and junction improvements to the East of the stadium.
It seems the truth still can't find it's way into LDC!

Jimmy Anderson wrote:
Can i just say to LDC that Brighton And Hove Albion FC have fought this long drawn out saga LEGALLY, and with good intentions at all times, you have had your appeals and they have been overturned, please now set your sites on using taxpayers money on much needier causes in your beautiful Town of Lewes, i am sure the residents would appreciate it more, and you may get some of your political clout back.On the environmental issue the club have stated that they will make this one of the Greenest stadiums in the country.

In fact it is going to be an eco stadium!
(WELL THATS WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE)
I read it in the Argus

Its the BHA manager I feel sorry for,, for the past few seasons the blame for the teams p155 poor performance has been the Withdean Stadium.
Who will be responsible now?

Oooh, we've still got at LEAST 3 years worth of milage left in that excuse Andy.

Peter Gardiner wrote:
Three points
1 Wind farms up to 5MW are allowed in ANOBs and National Parks. There are rules about how many and where, etc. A stadium is a different kettle of fish.
2 It was John Prescott who wasted the money, as he produced a flawed decision, quashed in the High Court, and Lewes District Council (LDC) has had its funds re-imbursed. The previous costs associated with the Public Inquiries (remember these found in favour of the LDC), would have to be spent by LDC anyway as a Planning Authority, once the Seagulls stadium proposal was put forward.
3 The delay was caused by John Prescott's flawed decision, not LDC, and no one would thank us (least of all the Football Club) for not looking at this latest decision properly before commenting.

Thats strange because I could have sworn that the first inquiry found against Falmer (or in favour of LDC as you prefer to put it) based on the assumption that there were other sites available.
The second inquiry then found that there were no other sites available. So using your reasoning that puts it in favour of the stadium.
How exactly does this support your theory that the inquiries were in favour of LDC?
Also since the first inquiry didn't look into the merits of all the other sites its conclusion was ultimately flawed anyway.

Its time to sack everyone at LDC because its obvious they are not fit for purpose, and are wasting council tax payers money without a mandate to do so. Funny how they don't object to the proposed (now thrown out) sewage works at Peacehaven or the incinerator at Newhaven, but they are so blinded by the hate of football that they will fight this decision to the bitter end, its time they were all thrown out of office.
Talk about inconsistency and hypocrisy, WHY do we have to put up with the self indulgent and NIMBY attitudes of those who get into positions of power for no other reasons than to protect their back yards regardless of what the general public want. Take Chichester District Council as an example, they went ahead, without a mandate, and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of council tax payer’s money fighting the very idea of the proposed South Downs National Park, simply because they knew it would result in a loss of power and restrict the favours they could hand out to the privileged few land owners, who up until now have controlled most of Sussex and Hampshire without ever being challenged. Whereas, on the other hand, Lewes District Council supported the National Park scheme purely because they believed it would aid their fight against the Falmer football stadium, and because of their blind opposition to football in general, they have ignored the fact that this stadium could be a great asset to other sports as a training and competition venue and if they got on board before its too late they could still have some input into the design and overall use of the stadium in such a way that it will benefit Lewes in a positive way.

Hold on, Mr T Ruth ...

I think you'll find that LDC did oppose the Peacehaven wastewater treatment works and sludge recycling centre and the Newhaven incinerator.

The planning authority for both schemes was East Sussex County Council.

There are plenty of reasons for questioning what LDC has been up to, but these aren't two of them.

The site for the stadium has
1. A motorway
2. Uni of Brighton
3. Southern Water plant
4. Uni of Sussx
5. Is closer to Moulscombe
6. A very large sports centre
7. Is south of the by pass

The problem is?