Albion supporter and fervent pro-Falmer campaigner Ed Bassford once again addressed members of Lewes District Council on Wednesday at a meeting in Peacehaven.
Bassford, along with Supporters Club Chairman Tim Carder and other Albion supporters, were at the public meeting to lobby councillors on their decision to challenge John Prescott in the High Court.
At the previous meeting Bassford read out a lengthy statement, as well as presenting a petition of over 5000 signatures gathered in the Lewes District in support of a new stadium at Falmer.
This was his statement on Wednesday:
'When I presented this petition to the full meeting of the Council on 7th December, I expressed my astonishment that, in a little over a week, it had proved possible to gather over 5,000 signatures from residents of the District asking the council to withdraw its action in the High Court that was designed to frustrate John Prescott's decision to grant planning permission for Brighton and Hove Albion to go ahead with the long awaited Community Stadium on the outskirts of Brighton.
 |
|
Lewes Distrct Council Members |
'It is disappointing, to say the least, that this council has persisted in its determination to fly in the face of the views of so many people, who, I am sure, share their opinion with an overwhelming majority of residents in the district.
'The council has now submitted its appeal and, today, I see little sign that you intend to change your minds.
'But that does not take away from the fact that there is an overwhelming case for second thoughts.
'It is not just that a large number of local residents oppose the council's decision. The question of costs is a very serious one indeed.
'Councillor Commin has stated that the council is risking no more than £25,000 on a case that he acknowledges may cost £65,000. Even if that figure is correct, the money that is available from other sources is insufficient to bridge the gap between what the case will cost and the £25,000 that has been budgeted.
'Falmer Parish Council has publicly stated that it has only £15,000 available; contributions of £5,000 from the South Downs Joint Committee and a similar sum apparently promised by the South Downs Society will leave someone having to find at least £15,000. Who is that going to be?
'And there are sound reasons to believe that the costs might exceed £65,000. On 7th December, I referred to the 2004 Solihull case, where that council acknowledged that the financial risks of challenging Mr Prescott in Court were considerably higher than any figure that Lewes has discussed.
 |
|
Supporters Club Chairman Tim Carder |
'But, in the Falmer case, we can now be certain that the cost risks are higher. This council, for reasons that I simply don't understand, has drawn not only John Prescott into the defendant's corner, but has served papers on Brighton and Hove City Council and the football club. Three parties now have to defend their position. Contrary to what the District Solicitor has said today, it is perfectly possible to leave the name of an Interested Party off the list of defendants.
'The Albion have stated today that their costs alone could approach £90,000 and that, when they win, they will apply to the Court for Lewes District Council to pay those costs. No doubt the city council will take the same view.
'Your £25,000, inadequate even to meet the First Secretary of State's costs, is not going to stretch anywhere near far enough.
'And, on one of your key points, you will lose, since the court is certain to follow the precedent that has been established in the Pembrokeshire National Park case, where, incidentally, the Chambers of your own independent legal adviser represented not the appellant, but the developer! Have you really taken sound advice?
'And on your second key point - that an alternative site is available - you are simply ignoring the conclusions of Inspector Brier. There is no alternative to Falmer. To pretend otherwise is to deceive the residents of this district and football supporters everywhere.
'We all know that the cabinet committee's decision to commit funding to this case was not subject to a proper debate within the council. Questions have been asked today about the process and the cavalier attitude of the cabinet to the council's constitution and its lack of openness about costs.
'A number of members of the council have expressed their concerns and some of them have told me that they would welcome a review of the decision. I am also told that the scrutiny committee will discuss a possible review, once the Chair returns from holiday at the end of this week. Councillor Davy has even resigned from the cabinet on this issue, and Councillor Commin's position is beginning to look very difficult, particularly following his public pledge to resign, if costs cannot be contained.
'Things are looking very difficult for you. Once again, I ask you to reconsider and withdraw this potentially very expensive and certainly very unpopular action.'
