Alternative Sites - the official facts.

[roz]

For everyone being asked - & who wants an update on the official Sequential Site Analysis (May 2004) - here it is:

Sequential Site Analysis - May 2004 .

Waterhall
- indisputably in the proposed National Park
- the site has no rail link and no prospect of one
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site.
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.

Toad's Hole Valley
- there is no rail access to this site
- Providing necessary additions to public transport infrastructure is not possible
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.

Hove Greyhound Stadium
- site is too small
- in daily use as a fully operational dog track
- a stadium development would rely on the use of an adjacent site which has now been fully developed and construction is complete
There is no prospect of a stadium development on this site

Shoreham Harbour
- there is no site available in the harbour area in the short term, apart from land reclaimed from the sea or part of the harbour basin
- any development on this site relies on the construction of an access road and other infrastructure at an estimated cost of between £30m and £100m
- The harbour has Trust Port Status and for development to be permitted this status must be changed by the Government
- the Port Authority has stated it will not enter into an agreement with a developer unless it receives an undertaking that the infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
The site is not available for development, relies upon a change in statutory status and is commercially totally unviable. There is no prospect of a stadium development on this site.

Brighton Station
- planning permission for a mixed used development including a Sainsbury's food store, office, hotel and educational use has been granted and the Section 106 Planning Agreement has been completed
- construction contracts have been let
- Agreements to Lease are signed
- Construction is due to start in June 2004
There is no prospect of a stadium development. The site is simply not available.

Sheepcote Valley
- there is no rail or major road access
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site
- the site has been a major landfill area for 100 years and it is impractical to build major structures on it. There are significant methane emissions. The ground conditions are unstable and there is a risk of contamination of existing watercourses beneath the site
- an attempt to develop this site in 1989 for a major leisure development including a stadium failed for these reasons
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines. There is no prospect of development on thjis site.

Withdean Stadium
- would have a serious impact on the amenity and quality of life of local residents
- would displace an important athletics and sports facility in the City affecting three major athletic clubs, a tennis centre, a squash club and health and fitness club facilities and involve the expensive purchase of a long lease on a public house on the land
- major restrictions to the access and egress to the stadium at any level above 9000 spectators could lead to serious injury or loss of life. There is no reasonable way of overcoming this problem.
There is no prospect of a stadium development on this site.

[Brighton till i die]

well done mate!

can you just send that off to JP and tell him to send in the diggers over at Falmer!!

on a serious note...with this evidence, this re-opened enquiry should be over in a couple of weeks not months?!?!

[CHAPPERS]

I hope (and think) that you are right.

We have won.

[Scotty Mac]

well that sorts that then

[saafend_seagull]

i thought they had already put together why other sites were not suitable when we first applied :glare:

[Lammy]

Judge: "Would the defence like to add anything to this?"

NIMBY'S: "No M'Lud. But there must be a better site than Falmer somewhere?"

Judge: "Shut up. I apologise Albion, I cannot believe these inbreds have managed to delay things as long as they have. Please go and build your stadium and if you want to increase the capacity in a few years time, come and see me. Case dismissed."

[Gazwag]

Lets email that to John then and we can have the decision tomorrow and start building first thing Monday :jester:

[eastlondonseagull]

hear hear!

[Gwylan]

I'm obviously hoping that all these could be rejected and we can get the go-ahead but could someone acquainted with transport issues explain how the Madjeski got the go-ahead. That's not near a railway station, there are no sustainable transport links and, as a Reading fan pointed out, it was built on a landfill site.

Why do Roz's criteria not apply to Reading but apply to Brighton? Is there something different about Brighton or have the planning criteria changed in the last decade?

I'm not trying to be negative or suggest Sheepscote, but would like to know the answer to deal with whingeing NIMBYs.

[Lammy]

Originally posted by Gwylan
I'm obviously hoping that all these could be rejected and we can get the go-ahead but could someone acquainted with transport issues explain how the Madjeski got the go-ahead. That's not near a railway station, there are no sustainable transport links and, as a Reading fan pointed out, it was built on a landfill site.

Why do Roz's criteria not apply to Reading but apply to Brighton? Is there something different about Brighton or have the planning criteria changed in the last decade?

I'm not trying to be negative or suggest Sheepscote, but would like to know the answer to deal with whingeing NIMBYs.

I think Reading ground was built on an industrial estate. The land fill may have been older. Sheepcote has only been filled in 2 years ago and the gas emissions are too high. Reading's ground is also right next to the M4 which means it has good transport links. But I must admit, you have me worried...

[Caveman]

Call me stupid, but I thought the whole idea of the enquiry was to sort all this and give a "Yes or No"...

[Locky]

Waterhall
- indisputably in the proposed National Park
- the site has no rail link and no prospect of one
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site.
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.


Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works but I do not totally agree with the reasons for discarding Waterhall.

Personally I think it is the ideal site, and does have a rail link nearby.
It is also at the interchange of the A23 and A27.
I thought the only reason we could not have Waterhall was because it fell north of the bypass and within the proposed national park.

[ATFC Seagull]

It doesn't have a rail link, it has a railway line. Preston park station is miles away and building a station could cost not far off the cost of the stadium itself.

[Duncan H]

Could the enquiry not say we should stay at Withdean, and not develop it further (i.e. the old provincial club argument)?

While we know we need a decent stadium to survive as a club, will the people running the enquiry be able to understand that?

[Marc]

Originally posted by Locky
Waterhall
- indisputably in the proposed National Park
- the site has no rail link and no prospect of one
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site.
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.


Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works but I do not totally agree with the reasons for discarding Waterhall.

Personally I think it is the ideal site, and does have a rail link nearby.
It is also at the interchange of the A23 and A27.
I thought the only reason we could not have Waterhall was because it fell north of the bypass and within the proposed national park.


cant build a station nearby, either way it would cost millions.

For me if we "could" build a station then it'd be an amazingly brilliant place...but we cant for than and other reasons listed so its a no go.

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by Locky


Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works but I do not totally agree with the reasons for discarding Waterhall.

Personally I think it is the ideal site, and does have a rail link nearby.
It is also at the interchange of the A23 and A27.
I thought the only reason we could not have Waterhall was because it fell north of the bypass and within the proposed national park.

It has a railway line nearby but no station. And one can't be built because of the proximity to the tunnel.

[Reading Posh]

Originally posted by Lammy
I think Reading ground was built on an industrial estate. The land fill may have been older. Sheepcote has only been filled in 2 years ago and the gas emissions are too high. Reading's ground is also right next to the M4 which means it has good transport links. But I must admit, you have me worried...

The Mad Stad was built on landfill, it is close to a trading estate but otherwise 'no buildings were destroyed in the making of this stadium.'

[Duncan H]

Could the enquiry not say we should stay at Withdean, and not develop it further (i.e. the old provincial club argument)?
Having read the letter I can answer my own questions, with:
iii) Is the site large enough for a 22,000-capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach park?

Which means it's not Withdean.

[Seagull in Horsham]

The key thing Falmer has in its favour are the railway links. Falmer station could be extended to enable longer trains stop there on match days (Southern Railway/Network Rail maybe able to help fund this - provided finances exist). Furthermore capacity on the line is not an overly serious problem, unlike the main London - Brighton line. :falmerspi

[Lammy]

For me the only sane choices are Falmer, Waterhall and Withdean.

Withdean is too small so out.

Waterhall will have a greater environmental impact and will cost too much to build a station (although the cost of the station may be met by other parties (i.e. The Rail authority/Government).

Falmer - Perfick. There is enough room. There are good transport links. There is already a station on the doorstep. It will be hidden from view (shame). Perfick.

You are not going to find a more viable site in the Brighton and Hove area that is better than Falmer. There simply aren't any better sites.

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

Why do you think they keep pushing for Falmer instead of the ideal site at Waterhall? I'll tell you why, someone's getting a chunk of money out of it somewhere :angry:

[London Calling]

Stations are not necessarily that expensive to build.

I would imagine the real "train" issue at Waterhall is that there are major infrastructure plans to provide an even faster link between London and Brighton.

The last thing the National Rail Authority needs is trying to accomadate up to 22,000 people arriving and leaving within two one hour spells.

It would seriously knacker up their train schedules.

:angry:

Falmer:lol:

[Lammy]

Originally posted by London Calling
Stations are not necessarily that expensive to build.

I would imagine the real "train" issue at Waterhall is that there are major infrastructure plans to provide an even faster link between London and Brighton.

The last thing the National Rail Authority needs is trying to accomadate up to 22,000 people arriving and leaving within two one hour spells.

It would seriously knacker up their train schedules.

:angry:

Falmer:lol:

You're just thinking of yourself you selfish git ;)

[Yoda]

Originally posted by ATFC Seagull
It doesn't have a rail link, it has a railway line. Preston park station is miles away and building a station could cost not far off the cost of the stadium itself.

Plus there's only room on the north bound line.

[sully]

Agree with LC.

Moulsecoomb station is not that old and didn't cost an arm and a leg to build (I had a hand in agreeing the final account!).

Being next to a tunnel is a rubbish reason for not building a station there. There are many examples of stations not only next to, but IN tunnels on the rail network.

The only "real" reason I can see for a no to Waterhall is the national park one.

[sully]

Originally posted by Yoda
Plus there's only room on the north bound line.

Rubbish. The station doesn't have to be right under the road junction. There's loads of room for it a few hundred yards to the north.

[Gwylan]

I don't really care where the stadium is..as long as we get one.

But one thing does baffle me. How come the Falmer residents were so concerned about building on an AONB and protecting downland when discussing Falmer and not when it comes to building on download at Waterhall?

Why, that would make them such hypocrites .... :jester:

[ditchy]

Originally posted by Seagull in Horsham
The key thing Falmer has in its favour are the railway links. Falmer station could be extended to enable longer trains stop there on match days (Southern Railway/Network Rail maybe able to help fund this - provided finances exist). Furthermore capacity on the line is not an overly serious problem, unlike the main London - Brighton line. :falmerspi

So if it costs nothing to extend the platforms at Falmer how come it costs millions to build a station at Waterhall ..cant see why it would cost so much more . As for sheepcote its been a a mature landfill for at least 20years ... again ..not against Falmer .. just reasoning what could be said for other sites .. i am still a bit sceptical that its all ok as long as we prove the other sites not suitable ..as i said before opinions change over time ( which this is now dragging on) ..Can someone who is in the know please explain why waterhall deemed not suitable from a transport perspective .. The bypass is on its door step ..we all know ..access from the mainline would be a snip .. how much would it really cost to build small spur ala preston park used to have on the east side and still on the west side !!

[Yoda]

Originally posted by sully
Rubbish. The station doesn't have to be right under the road junction. There's loads of room for it a few hundred yards to the north.

But not enough to accommodate the thousands of people using it.

Have you ever tried to use Fulham Broadway when Chelsea have been playing at home? That would be about the size of station they'd be able to fit in there. And then have to get Southern to agree to run a train in each direction every 5 minutes on what is already the busiest rail route in the Country (On trains to track ratio).

[Cadman]

Originally posted by Lammy
For me the only sane choices are Falmer, Waterhall and Withdean.

Withdean is too small so out.




Withdean is not too small, you could easily build a 25,000 all seater stadium.

The problem is safe access and egress, through being hemmed in by the railway line, and there's not much you can do about that.

[sully]

Putting down additional track IS expensive. Plonking a couple of concrete platforms either side of the existing track not so.

As LC said, the last thing the rail authorities will want is a station trying to cope with a huge number of people right where there trying to run trains at full speed!

[sully]

Originally posted by Yoda
But not enough to accommodate the thousands of people using it.

Have you ever tried to use Fulham Broadway when Chelsea have been playing at home? That would be about the size of station they'd be able to fit in there. And then have to get Southern to agree to run a train in each direction every 5 minutes on what is already the busiest rail route in the Country (On trains to track ratio).

I agree with that.

How many grounds have stations that can actually cope with the number of people trying to use them?

Presumably, there would have to be some sort of crowd control marvellously demonstrated to us in Cardiff. Simple.

Still won't happen, though, because of the national park, so not worth going into.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by sully
Still won't happen, though, because of the national park, so not worth going into.

Here, here! :clap:

[m20gull]

Waterhall might be ideal, but it't the wrong side of the A27, therefore undisputably in the National Park and not available for development of any sort. Waterhall was Belotti's preferred site but was not proceeded with for that reason.

[Marc]

Originally posted by sully

Being next to a tunnel is a rubbish reason for not building a station there. There are many examples of stations not only next to, but IN tunnels on the rail network.



christ I must've said this a million times now, NEW regulations mean you cannot build stations within 1mile of a Tunnel, yes there are loads of stations near tunnels because they we're built YEARS ago.

right...thats the last time :)

[ditchy]

Originally posted by sully
Putting down additional track IS expensive. Plonking a couple of concrete platforms either side of the existing track not so.

As LC said, the last thing the rail authorities will want is a station trying to cope with a huge number of people right where there trying to run trains at full speed!

So saturday is the busiest day on the network !! no way . ok the odd midweek game to put up with ..but i think that could be overcome if the political will wanted it

likewise if the council really wanted to put this city on the map it could easily build an all round all usage stadium like arnhem have with removable pitch etc .. could then be used for ice hockey basketball and indoor athletics with roof closed and even conferences which i believe they are looking at to replace the brighton centre!!

[Lord Bracknell]

Inspector Collyer’s conclusions about the alternative sites:-

Brighton Station. “The grant of permission for an alternative development presents a major obstacle in the way of securing this site for a new stadium. … If there were conclusive evidence that work on the permitted scheme was going ahead, I would accept that this site could not realistically be regarded as an available alternative for a stadium development”.

Greyhound Stadium. “I discount the Greyhound Stadium as a realistic alternative site”.

Shoreham Harbour. “In my judgement, to consolidate the stadium into the much larger regeneration project which the harbour strategy envisages is likely to be so complex, problematic and uncertain that this cannot be regarded as a realistic alternative”.

Sheepcote Valley. “This site has its disadvantages as well as advantages … whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance”.

Toads Hole Valley. “In terms of social and economic impacts, I acknowledge that this site does not score too well in comparison with Falmer.”

Waterhall. “I conclude that the AONB policy objections are overwhelming and that this site cannot reasonably be regarded as a viable alternative location for the development of a stadium”.

Withdean Stadium. “The Applicants’ argument against the development of a new stadium on this site is essentially on the grounds of its inability to accommodate one of the capacity required. But this raises the question of why it is necessary to have a 22,000 capacity stadium”.


This is obviously a selective gathering of brief quotes from an eleven page section of Collyer’s Report. One strategy he seems to be asking for consideration is to expand Withdean as part of a long-term plan to move to Shoreham Harbour, if and when the much bigger, comprehensive redevelopment of the harbour site goes ahead. The only options for a permanent 22,000 seater stadium that are in Collyer’s mind are at Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley.

[Biscuit]

Originally posted by Lord Bracknell
Inspector Collyer’s conclusions about the alternative sites:-

Brighton Station. “The grant of permission for an alternative development presents a major obstacle in the way of securing this site for a new stadium. … If there were conclusive evidence that work on the permitted scheme was going ahead, I would accept that this site could not realistically be regarded as an available alternative for a stadium development”.

Greyhound Stadium. “I discount the Greyhound Stadium as a realistic alternative site”.

Shoreham Harbour. “In my judgement, to consolidate the stadium into the much larger regeneration project which the harbour strategy envisages is likely to be so complex, problematic and uncertain that this cannot be regarded as a realistic alternative”.

Sheepcote Valley. “This site has its disadvantages as well as advantages … whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance”.

Toads Hole Valley. “In terms of social and economic impacts, I acknowledge that this site does not score too well in comparison with Falmer.”

Waterhall. “I conclude that the AONB policy objections are overwhelming and that this site cannot reasonably be regarded as a viable alternative location for the development of a stadium”.

Withdean Stadium. “The Applicants’ argument against the development of a new stadium on this site is essentially on the grounds of its inability to accommodate one of the capacity required. But this raises the question of why it is necessary to have a 22,000 capacity stadium”.


This is obviously a selective gathering of brief quotes from an eleven page section of Collyer’s Report. One strategy he seems to be asking for consideration is to expand Withdean as part of a long-term plan to move to Shoreham Harbour, if and when the much bigger, comprehensive redevelopment of the harbour site goes ahead. The only options for a permanent 22,000 seater stadium that are in Collyer’s mind are at Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley.

I love you Bracknell. :kiss:

[Miami Seagull]

Lets not forget as well that Waterhall is the home of Brighton Rugby Club. I think, and have always done so, that waterhall would be the ideal site.

[Curious Orange]

Waterhall won't be considered because it is against local planning policy to not build north of the A27, and so comes under "(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?".

[Miami Seagull]

What about the facts surrounding the Falmer bid? They should be in the list at the top of this thread too.

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by Miami Seagull
What about the facts surrounding the Falmer bid? They should be in the list at the top of this thread too.

Why? The re-opened Inquiry is only considering the viability of the alternative sites.

[CarlDouglas]

Hi Folks,

I still can't get my head round whether this is good news or bad news for you guys.

I am sure that after this next inquiry John Prescott will take his thumb out of his arse and the building at Falmer can start.

We had a public meeting in Wrexham last night to spell out the alternative to moving away from the Racecourse. It was very well received and the leader of the council said he wouldn't even talk to Hamilton about moving!

This morning we have been calling B&Q's property department to ask if the rumours are true that they are interested in the Racecourse Ground as a potential site for a new store. After about 400 calls they have taken the unprecidented step of issuing a press release to say that they are not going to build on the home of the Dragons!

Even the local press are starting to get behind our campaign now. Yesterday the Evening Leader printed a story that Hamilton had threatned to close the ground if there was any more protests against the move.

Hamilton is obviously rattled because he also left a menacing voicemail message on the Supporters Trust's phone line calling us "lowlifes".

Anyway, keep us posted on any developments about Falmer. Everyone in Wrexham is 100% behind you.

Carl

[The Great Cornholio]

Looks like a bit of selective quoting from Lord B. This is Collyer's conclusion on Sheepcote :-

18.78 Of course this site has its disadvantages as well as advantages - just like any other. As to whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance. And in my judgement the balance at Sheepcote Valley demonstrably falls in favour of its suitability; moreover, any disadvantages which it does have are far outweighed by those which make the Falmer site, in my overall opinion [see paragraphs 18.184-18.190], wholly unacceptable

[London Calling]

Originally posted by The Great Cornholio
Looks like a bit of selective quoting from Lord B. This is Collyer's conclusion on Sheepcote :-

18.78 Of course this site has its disadvantages as well as advantages - just like any other. As to whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance. And in my judgement the balance at Sheepcote Valley demonstrably falls in favour of its suitability; moreover, any disadvantages which it does have are far outweighed by those which make the Falmer site, in my overall opinion [see paragraphs 18.184-18.190], wholly unacceptable

gulllllllllllppppp

[David Bellotti]

I've got a nice site here in Bath you might be interested in. It won't cost you much.

[Donk the Seagull]

Cant jp and the nimbys just realise that we want falmer and not any other site. We will not comprimsie with them.:smokin:

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by Donk the Seagull
Cant jp and the nimbys just realise that we want falmer and not any other site. We will not comprimsie with them.:smokin:

Do we? I don't care where the site is, as long as we get it.

Sheepcote, Waterhall, Falmer...they're all the same to me. Just give us a stadium.

[lincs seagull]

If the bid for falmer is as straight forward as it says at the begining of this thread why have we got to reopen it surly thats all the eviedence we need.

did the case miss something did we not explain our selves enought for the reasons we cant use the other sites.

thats what i dont understand if we have given all this info why do we have to do it again???

[Virgo's Haircut]

The way I am reading this is that the only other site that could possibly be used for a stadium is Toads Hole Valley, but this won't happen due the the lack of public transport serving it.

So, it's going to be Falmer :)

[Lammy]

Originally posted by Virgo's Haircut
The way I am reading this is that the only other site that could possibly be used for a stadium is Toads Hole Valley, but this won't happen due the the lack of public transport serving it.

So, it's going to be Falmer :)

Close! It's between Sheepcote Valley, Toad's Hole Valley and Falmer.

Falmer pisses on both of the other sites.

[y2dave]

Been reading the report and Collyers main requirement was for more in depth, consistent analysis with an accurate and updated costing for each site. Falmer is the best site and I'd only worry about Sheepcote which may be a non runner due to land fill use and transport links. The criteria suit us and point to Falmer, escpeically the 22,000 requirement ruling out Withdean. The need for a capacity of this size appears to have been accpeted and will not be under review.

[Jimmy Saville]

There is no way that they will approve Sheepcote Valley. There are no rail links. All the traffic would have to go through the town, the coast road or via Falmer.

It's a non starter. :lolol:

[Miami Seagull]

Why list the Falmer points at the top of the thread? To put the rest into some perspective and to enable a true comparison.

The truth is, there are no perfect sites in the area unless we move about 15 miles North of Brighton.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by roz
Brighton Station
- planning permission for a mixed used development including a Sainsbury's food store, office, hotel and educational use has been granted and the Section 106 Planning Agreement has been completed
- construction contracts have been let
- Agreements to Lease are signed
- Construction is due to start in June 2004
There is no prospect of a stadium development. The site is simply not available.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they already started now? ???

[beorhthelm]

There are 3 realistic alternatives to Falmer: Waterhall, Sheepcote and Toads Hole. All the others wont get past the simple hurdle of purchasing the site!!!

All 3 and Falmer suffer from the basic problem of being considered green field (although they arnt really). none are perfect, with 2 sites being inside AONB boundries and 2 having no possible rail link.

Sheepcote is the worst option as it dosent have good roads around it and while its not in a AONB, the previous land usage makes it potentially dangerous. This site looks good at first, but has a weak case.

Waterhall. What ever anyone says about it, a rialway station is *possible*. Its outside the A27 (-) but is already used for Sports and Recreation (+). I have it on good authority that planning permission could have been obtained on the Waterhall site a few years ago, though the AONB has changed that. Added to the fact that its north of the A27, we will never get this site.

Toads Hole lacks rail link, but is inside the A27 so looses planning limits and AONB protection. It could be viable if a well organised bus service was provided, a rail link isnt actually a requirement of a stadium. however, local NIMBY's opposition whould be worse than Falmer though (simply more of them) and we'd be back to square one if this is seen as an alternative.

Falmer has the always been the leading site partly due to financial considerations, ie joint development with the universities. But its also partially brown field and if it hadnt been for hte AONB boundry we'd already be home a dry. Rail link is a hugh bonus and is the icing on the cake. There is no real way to oppose the site when you consider that the AONB bounrdy is arbitrary and only covers the site due to a lack of another natural place to draw the line other than the A27. However, here we are.

I think the biggest risk is from Toads Hole. Its viable, wont cost much different, and only real limitation is that we loose the rail link. If we are to get Falmer we need to get those non-football groups who opposed Toad Holes on our side for one last push. In return we'll oppose any future development there. The same might be applicable to Sheepcote as an outside chance (this is the site GG would probably back). Waterhall aint ever going to happen - if they say its ok to buil don that bi tof AONB, then why not Falmer?

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by beorhthelm

I think the biggest risk is from Toads Hole. Its viable, wont cost much different, and only real limitation is that we loose the rail link. If we are to get Falmer we need to get those non-football groups who opposed Toad Holes on our side for one last push. In return we'll oppose any future development there. The same might be applicable to Sheepcote as an outside chance (this is the site GG would probably back). Waterhall aint ever going to happen - if they say its ok to buil don that bi tof AONB, then why not Falmer?

I made that point more sarcastically earlier. The NIMBYs cannot, sensibly, use the AONB as an argument if they propose to build on THV. If it's wrong to build on an AONB in one place, then it's wrong to build on another. That means that the NIMBYs cannot promote THV and Waterhall as alternatives without destroying their own argument.

[beorhthelm]

i wasnt aware that Toads hole was in a AONB. I thought the boundry stopped at the A27. If it is within an AONB then it pretty much looses any credibility as an alternative. If its not, then it presents no real problems that are the concern of the Inquiry (local groups will have something to say though), so is a real threat to Falmer getting a green light.

[Storer68]

His other bright idea is to hang on in at Withdean and wait unmtil we can start being part of the redevelopment of Shoreham Harbour.

Personally I think we've got more chance of being part of the redevelopmentof the West Pier than that

[Storer68]

and I thought we tried for THV around 95 and got thrown out.........

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by Storer68
and I thought we tried for THV around 95 and got thrown out.........

That'll be Bellotti's plans on the back of a fag packet application.

[The Oldman]

If I were a Withdean resident I would we be worried that Withdean will be the permament home of the Albion with perhaps the promise that one day we will move to Shoreham. The latest inspectoe says again what the first Inspector said. Why 22,000 seats? We are a provincial club in their view and do not need a new stadium of that size.
I'll take anything but Withdean but I fear that's where we will be for some years and watch our beloved team slowly die to conference status.

[London Calling]

Originally posted by Gaffer
If I were a Withdean resident I would we be worried that Withdean will be the permament home of the Albion with perhaps the promise that one day we will move to Shoreham. The latest inspectoe says again what the first Inspector said. Why 22,000 seats? We are a provincial club in their view and do not need a new stadium of that size.
I'll take anything but Withdean but I fear that's where we will be for some years and watch our beloved team slowly die to conference status.

According to DK another 3 years.

[goldstone]

Originally posted by London Calling
Stations are not necessarily that expensive to build.

I would imagine the real "train" issue at Waterhall is that there are major infrastructure plans to provide an even faster link between London and Brighton.

The last thing the National Rail Authority needs is trying to accomadate up to 22,000 people arriving and leaving within two one hour spells.

It would seriously knacker up their train schedules.

:angry:

Falmer:lol:

Hey, let's get serious for a moment .... since when is a stadium with a capacity of 22,000 going to have 22,000 people arriving by train??

I would think no more than half even if the station was immediately adjacent to the ground.

[portlock seagull]

Put this on another thread but it needs to be on this one really.
We're all overlooking Withdean is likely to be the NIMBYS choice and to illustrate this, a cautionary tale from a Barnet FC friend who's about 2 loops ahead of us on this rollercoaster.

It could forever be a ground hog day situation, each political party making excuses and asking for yet more evidence to postpone a decision further. Barnet were in EXACTLY the same situation 18 months ago. The NIMBYS were asked to prove an alternative site, and given a period to do so. They eventually came back and said redevelop Underhill (Withdean) which had already been ruled out locally for very similar reasons that we're experiencing. The local council backed the club, but central goverment backed the NIMBYS on account football, albeit not ideally, could be played there. The club appeal because it's not acceptable as a long term proposal but are asked to provide an alternative site. Repeat cycle again.

The situation consequently is no decision, a see-saw stand-off. Barnet's next move is either wait for the conservatives to come back into power and hope they have the balls to take on Whitehall. But when they were in power, they played the same game as Labour are doing now. They're now seriously considering a move out of the borough because they've spent £2million on planning applications in the past 10 years and got nothing. If they continue to be bleed dry they'll die (sound familiar?) Regardless, they can't go forward in any capacity at all, the same situation we're in. We're in real danager of going to the wall if Falmer isn't delivered soon. The delay today is a real danger to our survival and that's what the NIMBYS are still plotting. Albion will go bust if we can drag this out. Don't be so sure that subsequent delays can't materialise after the quoted "4-5 months put up of shut up the NIMBYS supposedly have". What if central goverment simply back their ideas to increase Withdean as a sporting development, albeit a shit one that isn't sufficient for the club's ambition? Other clubs like Barnet are in the same boat, Hillsborough really did change the football world more than we realised.

[Stuart Munday]

Sorry but if Prescotts office have actually been looking at anything for the last 9 months wouldnt they know what the best sight might be :ohmy:

[balloonboy]

Originally posted by portlock seagull

We're in real danager of going to the wall if Falmer isn't delivered soon. The delay today is a real danger to our survival and that's what the NIMBYS are still plotting. Albion will go bust if we can drag this out. Don't be so sure that subsequent delays can't materialise after the quoted "4-5 months put up of shut up the NIMBYS supposedly have". What if central goverment simply back their ideas to increase Withdean as a sporting development, albeit a shit one that isn't sufficient for the club's ambition? Other clubs like Barnet are in the same boat, Hillsborough really did change the football world more than we realised. Look, central govt has no desire to put this back on the back burner. If JP had the slightest desire to say no, then he would have done - those two inspectors' reports gave him all the ammo he could have wanted. Also interesting to note that DK seems to have moved his position from saying we will go to the wall without Falmer to a situation where he states we'll be a yo-yo club in the lower leagues. Not an enticing prospect, but not as disasterous situation as Barnet are in.

[Zebedee]

I wonder whether Prescott has actually visited the site at Falmer? I doubt it very much. If he had, he would have realised that the location is little more than a muddy field between two major roads. Area of Outstanding Beauty? Don't make me laugh.

:angry:

[portlock seagull]

He's never said we can survive long term without Falmer

[Dover]

Originally posted by Locky
Waterhall
- indisputably in the proposed National Park
- the site has no rail link and no prospect of one
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site.
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.


Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works but I do not totally agree with the reasons for discarding Waterhall.

Personally I think it is the ideal site, and does have a rail link nearby.
It is also at the interchange of the A23 and A27.
I thought the only reason we could not have Waterhall was because it fell north of the bypass and within the proposed national park.


Waterhall should be called Water Halt.

This is the flood defence for the Brighton & Hove area. Build here and the city floods.

[Dover]

portlock. Your main post is freightening!

[perseus]

To get to Sheepcote, the best way for me is to drive to Falmer and then turn off up the road to Woodingdean.

[Curious Orange]

We do need to ensure that potential objectors to each of the sites are fully aware of the reasons why their site is unsuitable.

The list of reasons why sites are unsuitable is now out of date in some respects. We need to ensure that is updated and comprehensive in relation to the criteria set by the ODPM before campaigning can start in earnest.

(yes I have posted this exact text on another thread, so no, you aren't experiencing deja-vu!!)

[London Irish]

This Waterhall discussion is all very interesting, but pointless. I don't think there are big transport problems with it, it doesn't even need a railway station IMHO, but the development principle on building on downland is overwhelming. If we can build here, we can build at Falmer! End of discussion.

Withdean, come on, I know they'll try and put that forward but we can't even get the fucking parking sorted to get it to 9k. It's a joke. Portlock, is Underhill really a direct comparsion with Withdean, surely the physical restrictions on expanding Withdean are in a different order altogether, nature reserve, houses, railway line, railway tunnel, other businesses on long leases, etc.

I agree that the sites that the intelligent NIMBYs will try to push for will be Toad's Hole and Sheepcote. That's the one we're our publicity machine will have to working top gear to counter. I would say its here we have to forge links with local campaigners. The transport arguments should be enough to rule them out but it's an argument that could come down to how financially unreasonable it is to spend development money on new roads. The environmental impact on surrounding communities even Collyer recognises at Toad's Hole, and we all know by now of the landfill/Danger UXB problems of Chernobyl, sorry Sheepcote.

[Luton Seagull]

Re; walking / bussing from Brighton Station to Sheepcote... where on Earth are we supposed to put the 300+ buses we would need to park outside Brighton Station for the matchday park and ride. It is bad enough when they have a couple of extra buses in Queen's Road when there's work on the rail line!
As for walking from "the A259 Corridor," I occasionally walk up from the Marina and I reckon it would take at least 30 minutes to get up to the Sheepcote site for the average walker.
Still, as we all know, there is loads of spare capacity on the A259!!!

[Bromley shrimp]

Just to turn the Waterhall argument on it's head for a moment, people are saying that it has no merit over Falmer because it is similarly AONB.

Surely, if a decision were made to build in the AONB then it would be a case of it being the lesser of two evils. ie is Waterhall, from a purely environmental point of view, less damaging than Falmer?

If you then look at transport Falmer, wins hands down, but if it is accepted either that it's feasible to walk or park and ride it from Preston Park or ideally build a station the arguments against Waterhall start to become less robust.

The balance could be that it is considered to be more preferable to protect the Falmer AONB than the Waterhall AONB, if an AONB it has to be, even if this means making a costly infrastructiure change via a new station.

On face value Falmer ticks the right boxes, but who knows how the decision makers are thinking?

We certainly will not be home and dry with Falmer unless a watertight argument is presented to dimsiss arguments such as these, know matter how bizarre and dismissive they may superficially appear, if we are to assist the process in line with the thinking that the latest turn of events has been brought about by Prescott's desire to avoid a judicial review.

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by Bromley shrimp
Just to turn the Waterhall argument on it's head for a moment, people are saying that it has no merit over Falmer because it is similarly AONB.

Surely, if a decision were made to build in the AONB then it would be a case of it being the lesser of two evils. ie is Waterhall, from a purely environmental point of view, less damaging than Falmer?

If you then look at transport Falmer, wins hands down, but if it is accepted either that it's feasible to walk or park and ride it from Preston Park or ideally build a station the arguments against Waterhall start to become less robust.

The balance could be that it is considered to be more preferable to protect the Falmer AONB than the Waterhall AONB, if an AONB it has to be, even if this means making a costly infrastructiure change via a new station.

On face value Falmer ticks the right boxes, but who knows how the decision makers are thinking?

We certainly will not be home and dry with Falmer unless a watertight argument is presented to dimsiss arguments such as these, know matter how bizarre and dismissive they may superficially appear, if we are to assist the process in line with the thinking that the latest turn of events has been brought about by Prescott's desire to avoid a judicial review.

There's no way that Preston Park station could support a shuttle bus service for 22,000 people. Where would they all park? Not in Claremount Terrace, so they'd have to be on the London Road, causing some serious congestion. We'd be looking at about 50 buses.

If there were to have a shuttle service to Waterhall, it would have to be from Brighton or Hove stations.

And it's a stiff walk to Waterhall., not practical for families with young children and OAPs.

[Marc]

Some people are comparing the Falmer -> Waterhall AONB argument, Falmer will no longer be an AONB when the new national park on the south downs comes into effect (DK said so yesterday) AND Falmer has been earmarked for development...Waterhall has not.

[Lammy]

I don't know why anyone is spending time rubbishing Waterhall? If we get the nod to develop Waterhall will will have a better stadium that we could ever build at Falmer! You could have a dedicated station, loads of parking, a 30,000+ stadium...

It's a much better site for us than Falmer. Let's spend time rubbishing Toad's Hole and Sheepcote. These sites would be a nightmare!!

[perseus]

Bromley shrimp: it is not and never was remotely anything to do with environmental merit.

It is to do with an arbitary line drawn on a map designating what is an AONB and what is not. The rest is politics (especially the South Downs Conservation Board) and objectors taking advantage of this arbitary line not to build something they do not like. With the Downsman objectors, they include a rabid anti-football hater etc.

Sometimes there are bits of really cruddy land that can only be improved by building on them.

As for Falmer VWN, one thing against it as a football stadium location is that it is such a cruddy bit of land.

Many supporters would like to see Waterhall developed into a stadium location, but, alas, in the current political climate it is unrealistic in the forseeable future.

[Cadiz Seagull]

Planning considerations aside, Waterhall would be the best solution IMHO but it is my understanding that we simply would not get permission there.
If the Council gave us permission they would run the risk of opening the flood gates to other applications to build north of the A27. OK they could refuse permission, but that would leave them open to an appeal along the lines of "you've already given permission for building one project, why not ours?"
The Council are in a far stronger position to be able to refuse permission to build north of the A27 if they haven't already set a precedent by giving us the OK.
And quite right too, who wants to see development north of the A27? Carry on like that and eventually we'll join up with Croydon :D

[Heffle Gull]

Originally posted by perseus
To get to Sheepcote, the best way for me is to drive to Falmer and then turn off up the road to Woodingdean.

Same for me, so maybe we should build the stadium at sheepcote, Village way North would be the ideal site for a massive PArk & ride carpark, not just for the footy, but seven days a week, so I don't have to drive in to the city centre to work any more.

That should keep the Falmer Nimbys happy


:p

[BensGrandad]

If JP in his infinite wisdom should decide that Waterhall is the best alternative site does he have the authority to order the council to grant planning permission. Could the problem of park and ride not be overcome by reversing our existing arrangements and park the buses in Mill Road.

I personally think that we wil get Falmer but am trying to look at this in the eyes of a Falmer NIMBY and what I would suggest if in their shoes.

[Caveman]

I wonder whether Prescott has actually visited the site at Falmer? I doubt it very much. If he had, he would have realised that the location is little more than a muddy field between two major roads. Area of Outstanding Beauty? Don't make me laugh.

Exactly, but this is the one thing that has been bugging me with the press, they always show Falmer as a nice little pub and a pond with a couple of cute ducks paddling around. Not the big motorway and big buildings.

[Life After Bobby]

the odpm are very aware of what the site looks like

[Bromley shrimp]

I meant walk from Preston Park, altough I accept I actually said Park and Ride.

A stiff walk or not, we are examining the line of least resistance.
Bicycles could also for example be used as a supplemental way of reaching the ground and whilst using these or the walk are not ideal, any site option is not without is disadvantages. Securing a ground capable of sustaining a decent team is surely the overriding objective.

My point about Waterhall is that better brains than mine will eventually determine the outcome and if they are asking us to look at the alternatives we have little choice other than to take them extremely seriously and do so, whether it is a spurious exercise with hiden agendas or not.

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Waterhall is still the best site IMHO. However quite obviously Falmer fits the bill with all the requirements set down.

[Curious Orange]

Waterhall has always been an ideal site for building a great big stadium, however it will fail a number of the DPM's criteria. Visual and environmental impact, and other planning priorities such as all of it being in and AONB and it being against planning policy to permit anything north of the A27 immediately spring to mind. Comparisons with Falmer aren't really fair because the visual and environmental impact is much less (can't see the site unless you're right on top of it), it's only partially on AONB, and planning policy isn't broken by building there.

Right, can everyone now concentrate on Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley please!!

[goldstone]

Originally posted by Gwylan
There's no way that Preston Park station could support a shuttle bus service for 22,000 people.

Please get real. Wherever the stadium is built there is no way that the entire capacity will arrive by train. Half at the very most.

[Superseagull]

Toads Hole valley is privately owned so it would cost many millions to buy. And there is no certainty the owner would want to sell it anyway!

[H block]

If ever the suitability of any of the aforementioned sites other than Falmer were debated on NSC it would never get past a couple of posts before the same old voices came out with the same old saying.

FALMER IS THE ONLY SITE. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

Well J.P. is not a hundred per cent on that and nor were the inspectors.

So now THAT issue will be properly debated on here and of course much more inportantly evidence will be put to the people who matter as to the availability of alternative sites.I personally have no idea whether there is a alternative site and I only hope that the Albion have got things right in their (eggs in 1 basket) philosophy.I think though that all the shoutadowners of the last 2 years should apologise to the others who raised the ``alternative site``issues not because we believe Falmer is the wrong alternative but that it was always going to be a subject that J.P and his office were going to need to address.

[Life After Bobby]

Originally posted by Superseagull
Toads Hole valley is privately owned so it would cost many millions to buy. And there is no certainty the owner would want to sell it anyway!

sorry to say, but that is irrelevant. this is strictly a planning issue

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by Life After Bobby
sorry to say, but that is irrelevant. this is strictly a planning issue

It is an issue because the cost of development is one of the criteria the ODPM wants addressed.

[Life After Bobby]

Originally posted by Curious Orange
It is an issue because the cost of development is one of the criteria the ODPM wants addressed.

actually, you're right, except the killer point is probably more "Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?"

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by goldstone
Please get real. Wherever the stadium is built there is no way that the entire capacity will arrive by train. Half at the very most.

Of course not. Only an idiot would think that everyone would come by rail. If 22,000 people arrived by train, they'd need several hundred buses, can't even imagine where they'd park. As I said in my original post, given the amount of people that would come by train, I'd guess about 50 buses would be about the right figure but I'm sure there'd be transport experts who'd know the exact figure.

[balloonboy]

Some of the most relevant comments I've read in the past 24 hours are the words of Bodfish and Bassam, as reported on the Official Site. They're worth re-looking at, now the heat of the moment has died down.

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally posted by Gwylan
Of course not. Only an idiot would think that everyone would come by rail. If 22,000 people arrived by train, they'd need several hundred buses, can't even imagine where they'd park. As I said in my original post, given the amount of people that would come by train, I'd guess about 50 buses would be about the right figure but I'm sure there'd be transport experts who'd know the exact figure.
Once you start getting into the number of buses required to serve a stadium, the figures start to become extremely relevant.

Sheepcote Valley would need 30 extra double deckers over and above the requirement for Falmer. 13 of these would be required for park and ride (some of them just to allow for the extra journey time between Sheepcote Valley and the available park & ride sites, like Mill Road; some of them for a new park & ride site that would have to substitute for the lack of a nearby railway station). 17 extra buses would be needed to provide a bespoke shuttle service between the city centre and the stadium.

But where the hell are these buses (and drivers) going to come from? There is simply no spare capacity in the existing public transport system. No operator would purchase buses for use on only 25 days a year. A no professional bus driver would take on work for 25 shifts a year.

The only source of buses and drivers would be to impose severe cuts in the existing bus network whenever a match is being played. And that in itself would lead to more car journeys into the City Centre - exactly the opposite of what local and national transport policy is trying to achieve.

These are the figures for Sheepcote Valley. Similar calculations can be done for Toads Hole Valley. Either option would be in conflict with any sort of sustainable transport policy.

When the Inquiry looks at this issue, it will become obvious that not only does the Albion need Falmer, the City does as well.

[Mental Lental]

The thing I am scared about is if the ODPM conludes that there is an alternative site. This means that the all the work that has gone into the Falmer application over the last five years basically gets thrown straight into the bin, and the club then has to spend another great big chunk of time and money on the application for the 'more suitable' site. This application will no doubt face extreme resistance from the NIMBYs in the new area who are extremely likely to be able to put up a better case for why we can't build the stadium near their homes than the Falmer residents have for the Falmer site. The whole process starts all over again and we wait another five years while waiting for all the inevitable bureaucracy.

There is no way that if the ODPM concludes that there is a more suitable site this will mean that we can send the builders straight in to build there instead. If this happens we are basically fucked. We cannot afford another controversial application on another site so the 'if the inquiry concludes that there is another site, that's alright because we can build there instead' attitude is an extreme misconception.

Everyone has always claimed it is Falmer or bust.

And it is.

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by Lord Bracknell
Once you start getting into the number of buses required to serve a stadium, the figures start to become extremely relevant.

Sheepcote Valley would need 30 extra double deckers over and above the requirement for Falmer. 13 of these would be required for park and ride (some of them just to allow for the extra journey time between Sheepcote Valley and the available park & ride sites, like Mill Road; some of them for a new park & ride site that would have to substitute for the lack of a nearby railway station). 17 extra buses would be needed to provide a bespoke shuttle service between the city centre and the stadium.

But where the hell are these buses (and drivers) going to come from? There is simply no spare capacity in the existing public transport system. No operator would purchase buses for use on only 25 days a year. A no professional bus driver would take on work for 25 shifts a year.

The only source of buses and drivers would be to impose severe cuts in the existing bus network whenever a match is being played. And that in itself would lead to more car journeys into the City Centre - exactly the opposite of what local and national transport policy is trying to achieve.

These are the figures for Sheepcote Valley. Similar calculations can be done for Toads Hole Valley. Either option would be in conflict with any sort of sustainable transport policy.

When the Inquiry looks at this issue, it will become obvious that not only does the Albion need Falmer, the City does as well.

Thanks Lord B. That's a thorough answer. And these are facts that I'm sure are going to come out in the Inquiry.

The other options are falling by the wayside, one by one.

[London Calling]

Originally posted by London Calling
Stations are not necessarily that expensive to build.

I would imagine the real "train" issue at Waterhall is that there are major infrastructure plans to provide an even faster link between London and Brighton.

The last thing the National Rail Authority needs is trying to accomadate up to 22,000 people arriving and leaving within two one hour spells.

It would seriously knacker up their train schedules.



Falmer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hey, let's get serious for a moment .... since when is a stadium with a capacity of 22,000 going to have 22,000 people arriving by train??

I would think no more than half even if the station was immediately adjacent to the ground.


22,000 or 11,000. THe NRA could not agree to to one of its main tracks having such a heavy overload.

Where else on its main Network does it have a similar situation?

And in such a key place?

On a different note I welcome this discussion on Waterhall and the alternatives.

Because we as supporters also possess a wealth of knowledge and expertise.

The Club needs to utilise this experience in fine tuning its presentaion and agruments for Falmer and againgst the alternatives.

The more discusion athe merrier.

LC

[Turkey]

Originally posted by Mental Lental
The thing I am scared about is if the ODPM conludes that there is an alternative site. This means that the all the work that has gone into the Falmer application over the last five years basically gets thrown straight into the bin, and the club then has to spend another great big chunk of time and money on the application for the 'more suitable' site. This application will no doubt face extreme resistance from the NIMBYs in the new area who are extremely likely to be able to put up a better case for why we can't build the stadium near their homes than the Falmer residents have for the Falmer site. The whole process starts all over again and we wait another five years while waiting for all the inevitable bureaucracy.

As I undertsand it another application would not be necessary if another site is found suitable because any objections must be made in this enquiary. So if another site is found then we'll automatically have been granted permission to build there.

[Bromley shrimp]

Turkey, a fresh application would be necessary, how else would the local planning authority know the extent of the demise for which planning was being sought, quite apart from the architectural detail?

It could be however be that the principle of an acceptable alternative could result from another site being identified.

LC you make some good points (I thought Dalston was the less salubrious end of Shoreditch).

The debate continues hear with diverse opinions and inconclusion as you might expect. As you read the thread about alternatives it makes the inspectors' decisions all the more hard to fathom.

On the back of this my real fear is that if you take the 22,000 figure out of the equation and replace it with 9,000 for "the provincial club" that we apparantly are, then Withdean wins hands down.

When stacked against compromising the AONB or unsustainable transport links or the environment or voters this would, from the authorities point of view, be the ready made solution.

I know people will say "yes but 22,000 has been accepted as a criteria", but these are powerful politicians we're dealing with who can really do as they please and certainly change their mind. Similarly they are government inspectors involved. When the logic becomes inconsistent all bets are on.

I hope I've got it totally wrong, but who could say 100% that it's not a possibility? I would be pleased with any outcome apart from Withdean and it's obvious capacity limitation, which would effectively kill any real ambition for the club at a stroke.

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by Bromley shrimp
On the back of this my real fear is that if you take the 22,000 figure out of the equation and replace it with 9,000 for "the provincial club" that we apparantly are, then Withdean wins hands down.

When stacked against compromising the AONB or unsustainable transport links or the environment or voters this would, from the authorities point of view, be the ready made solution.

I know people will say "yes but 22,000 has been accepted as a criteria", but these are powerful politicians we're dealing with who can really do as they please and certainly change their mind. Similarly they are government inspectors involved. When the logic becomes inconsistent all bets are on.

Well, I'll say it:

22,000 CAPACITY IS ONE OF THE ODPM's CRITERIA.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Curious Orange
Well, I'll say it:

22,000 CAPACITY IS ONE OF THE ODPM's CRITERIA.

indeed it is:

"(iii) Is the site large enough for a 22,000 capacity community stadium together with a bus/coach park? "

Which in my view means they recognise that a 22,000 capacity stadium is *needed*, if not they would've said "Is the site large enough to hold the selective amount of people for a football match?" - that could be 9,000 and upwards and would've been alot worse because the NIMBYS could then just point to Withdean and JP would probably agree.

[Theatre of Trees]

Originally posted by perseus
To get to Sheepcote, the best way for me is to drive to Falmer and then turn off up the road to Woodingdean.

I would also imagine that at 5.00 on a Saturday afternoon the police would also be interested in directing the traffic this way too rather than snarling up the already clogged roads of the city centre. The Falmer nimbys also include a number of Woodingdean residents and I can't see them being too excited about the prospect of having even more traffic than was expected at Falmer. As a non-driver I have worked at Sussex Uni and travelled regualrly to Wilson Avenue to play football, the former beats the latter hands down in accessibility.

[Barnet Seagull]

Originally posted by Heffle Gull
Same for me, so maybe we should build the stadium at sheepcote, Village way North would be the ideal site for a massive PArk & ride carpark, not just for the footy, but seven days a week, so I don't have to drive in to the city centre to work any more.

That should keep the Falmer Nimbys happy


:p

Obviously for safety and security purposes it'll have to be a very well lit car park. ;)

[Bart]

Can I just make a couple of general points:

If the re-opened inquiry, and JP, conclude that there is a viable alternative site, the alternative site will not be granted permisson by default. In fact JP is very unlikley to make any comments on the individual alternative sites (he'll leave that for the Inspector) because he won't want to fetter his position on any future decision his office might have to make if the Club come forward with an application for an alternative site.

The other point is the question of land ownership. Although the Government in their decisions (and in their advice to local authorities) are still prepared to give weight to the extent to which a landowner might be prepared to sell the land to the developer, the Courts have a very different attitude. Their view is that any landownership issue which might prevent a planning permission from being implemented is not a material consideration and should not play a part in the decision as to whether or not to grant planning permission in the first place.

[balloonboy]

Bart, who are you?

[perseus]

The previous Public Inquiry was for Falmer Village Way North.

Falmer Village Way South could (or should) be included as a valid alternative as well. It seems to me just as legitiamte as the other suggestions.

In this way walkers over the downs can see the stadium probably. And it could be bigger as well, which means it could be cheaper to get in. .

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by Bart
The other point is the question of land ownership. Although the Government in their decisions (and in their advice to local authorities) are still prepared to give weight to the extent to which a landowner might be prepared to sell the land to the developer, the Courts have a very different attitude. Their view is that any landownership issue which might prevent a planning permission from being implemented is not a material consideration and should not play a part in the decision as to whether or not to grant planning permission in the first place.

However, in the re-opened Inquiry, the availability of the alternative sites is one of the criteria for consideration in terms of their viability.

[London Calling]

Originally posted by perseus
The previous Public Inquiry was for Falmer Village Way North.

Falmer Village Way South could (or should) be included as a valid alternative as well. It seems to me just as legitiamte as the other suggestions.

In this way walkers over the downs can see the stadium probably. And it could be bigger as well, which means it could be cheaper to get in. .

Seems reasonable (IF ITS NOT IN AN AONB ETC) but i assume is not a viable option since it not a recommended alternative.

LC???

[Bart]

Originally posted by London Calling
Seems reasonable but i assume is not a viable option since it not a recommended alternative.

LC???

The letter from the ODPM says that the Secretary of State requires further evidence on a number of diferent matters, including at point 4(c):

Whether there are any other sites [other than the 7 named alternative sites] that could be suitable for the proposed development having regard to the above criteria.

So, yes in theory it could be re-considered at the inquiry.

[perseus]

c) Whether there are any other sites that could be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the above criteria.

So anything within the Brighton & Hove conurbation within the Football League limits could be included.

I do not know exactly what the Football League rules are: eight miles from where?

Or what the Brighton & Hove conurbation includes, parts of land in the Lewes Local Authority district?

So whether Falmer Village Way South would actually be included: is urban, as in conurbation. (Not urban yet, but by the time we have finished building!)

The judges in the Judicial Review will doubtless be asked to sort this out?

[Lord Bracknell]

You'd have to be bloody clever (or bloody stupid) to propose an additional alternative site that is in the AONB and the future National Park. It would have to be tested against the criteria that apply to major developments in AONBs and National Parks and be shown to be the ONLY suitable site available.

To do that you'd have to side with the NIMBYs and argue the case that Falmer is unacceptable.

[Bwian]

Originally posted by Curious Orange

Right, can everyone now concentrate on Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley please!!

I haven't read all of the clauses and conditions attached to the recent decision by the ODPM but I'm sure there was something about visual impact (or did I dream that?)

If this is true then how on God's Earth can THV be considered? The stadium could only stand out more than at THV if it were built above the Southwick Hill Tunnel entrance.

I may be hopelessly wrong on this but I'm sure that visual impact was a consideration. Please tell me that I'm not ready for the funny farm just yet!

[perseus]

Visual impact was the only thing the green lobby could think off. There are no bats, plants, butterflies on the muddy field; they have all been poisoned by the farmer's chemicals attempting to grow crops on poor quality chalkland base.

So they are left with the rather subjective element of the visual appearance.

With decent architecture the usual idea is to mould it into the landscape a or at least make it be able to be seen, cf. Lancing College Chapel.
Brighton Planning Office recommended that.

Village Way South had the better external appearance, fitted in better with the landscape.

It is absolutely no good trying to appease the opponents. Build something decent to please the majority of the public and try and satisfy them.

[Lord Bracknell]

Perseus -

You seem to be WANTING to find an alternative site.

Can I ask a special favour?

As an Albion supporter, could you just for once join in with everyone else and work for the outcome that Prescott has set up and that all the rest of us want ... the Falmer Stadium that has already been designed and planned for Village Way North?

If you're not prepared to back the Club's plan, can you just piss off back to that ridiculous Evening Argus forum you're so fond of?

[Marc]

ODPMs Letter:

"Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?"

Unacceptable? I'm presuming this means "hidden well if the stadia would be on the downs so as not to look ugly compared to the natural beauty that surrounds it" right?

If not then it should be shown to be a work of art as most new stadia are and stand proud to show visitors that we have a lovely looking stadium in the city.

Walking upto Old Trafford you always go "wow!", driving down the M4 you always turn to the Madjeski and say "nice!", if our stadium is to be hidden from plain view then fair enough, if not then I want a stadium to proudly represent our City and the football club....a stadium where away fans or even just tourists see it and go "thats pretty cool loking!"

[London Calling]

Originally posted by CrabtreeBHA
ODPMs Letter:

"Can a stadium be built on the site without any unacceptable visual impacts?"

Unacceptable? I'm presuming this means "hidden well if the stadia would be on the downs so as not to look ugly compared to the natural beauty that surrounds it" right?

If not then it should be shown to be a work of art as most new stadia are and stand proud to show visitors that we have a lovely looking stadium in the city.

Walking upto Old Trafford you always go "wow!", driving down the M4 you always turn to the Madjeski and say "nice!", if our stadium is to be hidden from plain view then fair enough, if not then I want a stadium to proudly represent our City and the football club....a stadium where away fans or even just tourists see it and go "thats pretty cool loking!"

I would now love one of those stadiums that look like submarines or an all glass affair.

Architecture at the moment with civil engineering is amazing with some of the best designs coming up in Conservation areas or adjacent to scenic areas.

LC

[Brovion]

Originally posted by H block
If ever the suitability of any of the aforementioned sites other than Falmer were debated on NSC it would never get past a couple of posts before the same old voices came out with the same old saying.

FALMER IS THE ONLY SITE. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

Well J.P. is not a hundred per cent on that and nor were the inspectors.

So now THAT issue will be properly debated on here and of course much more inportantly evidence will be put to the people who matter as to the availability of alternative sites.I personally have no idea whether there is a alternative site and I only hope that the Albion have got things right in their (eggs in 1 basket) philosophy.I think though that all the shoutadowners of the last 2 years should apologise to the others who raised the ``alternative site``issues not because we believe Falmer is the wrong alternative but that it was always going to be a subject that J.P and his office were going to need to address.
I think you miss the point. I certainly won't be apologising. We were fighting a campaign, we HAD to be united. The last thing we needed was for people to say "I know a field between Lancing and Shoreham that would be a far better site". The same way as there could be no 'Plan B', if our enemies thought we were even considering somewhere else that could have been seized on as ammunition.

Because we were united we've come a long way. Now however the game has changed, the debate has been re-opened so please feel free to suggest your alternative and why you think it would be better than Falmer.

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally posted by Brovian
Because we were united we've come a long way. Now however the game has changed, the debate has been re-opened so please feel free to suggest your alternative and why you think it would be better than Falmer.
The game hasn't changed. We have to prove that ALL of the alternative sites are unacceptable.

If we fail to do that, Prescott's decision will simply be a NO to Falmer. It won't be a YES to the alternative.

OK, we would no doubt be able to prepare and submit a planning application for the alternative site. But there would be a massive delay, while the plans were drawn up, grants were re-negotiated and all the necessary planning agreements (about land ownership, highway issues, transport plans, etc) took place.

And there would have to be an opportunity for any objectors to have their say.

I reckon it would be 2006 (or even 2007) before we got planning permission. Meanwhile, the Club's financial position would become more and more precarious.

We have to keep united. The campaign slogan has got to stay the same:-

THERE'S ONLY ONE SITE IN BRIGHTON!

[Lammy]

Does anyone honestly think that a viable alturnative to Falmer will come out of this Public Enquiry? I cannot think of ANY site that come close to Falmer!

[Harold]

Originally posted by perseus
c) Whether there are any other sites that could be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the above criteria.

So anything within the Brighton & Hove conurbation within the Football League limits could be included.

I do not know exactly what the Football League rules are: eight miles from where?


It has always been my understanding that it is 8 miles from the Royal Pavillion. I believe that to be the geographical marker denoting (for formal reasons like these at least) the centre of Brighton.

[London Calling]

Originally posted by Harold
It has always been my understanding that it is 8 miles from the Royal Pavillion. I believe that to be the geographical marker denoting (for formal reasons like these at least) the centre of Brighton.


Normally the "Main" Post Office or an alternative location if an area has a historic site. Eg in London Charing Cross

LC

[London Calling]

Originally posted by Lord Bracknell
The game hasn't changed. We have to prove that ALL of the alternative sites are unacceptable.

If we fail to do that, Prescott's decision will simply be a NO to Falmer. It won't be a YES to the alternative.

OK, we would no doubt be able to prepare and submit a planning application for the alternative site. But there would be a massive delay, while the plans were drawn up, grants were re-negotiated and all the necessary planning agreements (about land ownership, highway issues, transport plans, etc) took place.

And there would have to be an opportunity for any objectors to have their say.

I reckon it would be 2006 (or even 2007) before we got planning permission. Meanwhile, the Club's financial position would become more and more precarious.

don't disagree with this or Lammy's post.

As I said earlier the alternatives need to be critique to dismiss them.

There is a whole lot of informed knowledge within the ranks of BHA supporters which still need to be scrutinised and utilised.

LC

Originally posted by Lord Bracknell
We have to keep united. The campaign slogan has got to stay the same:-

THERE'S ONLY ONE SITE IN BRIGHTON! ;)

[Lord Bracknell]

I've edited the above post by London Calling only to make it clear which bits were his contribution and which were mine. No change in the content.

[Bromley shrimp]

No matter how hard and long we debate this one, as it stands Presser has raised a question mark which jolly well have to get on and deal with. Healthy debate is great, whilst in-fighting serves no useful purpose when we're all on the same side. If you're not with that basic concept put you're head above the parapet now.

Why the re-evaluation of alternative sites has been called for is an interesting one, given that you might be forgiven for thinking that this must have already been done to death in the original application.

The inspector's decisions have not helped our cause one iota and provide what may turn out to be the most giant of red herrings, given what I consider to be the utter perverseness of his conclusions.

If that is taken as a starting point, and even given that I am not a qualified DOE Inspector it would I suggest not be being wildly extravagent to give me the benefit of the doubt on just one of the options as being clearly unsuitable/unavailable.

What I am trying to say is that if there REALLY was a suitable option(s) then surely they might have given us a clue by pointing us in the right direction, rather than saying go re-visit ALL the options and any others you can dream up as an after thought. If, say, Brighton Station, which is clearly not available, needs to be re-examined couldn't it be that in actual fact all of the alternative sites up for re-consideration are to a greater or lesser extent for one reason or another similarly not nearly as suitable as the appeal site if at all?

I am presenting a positive hear in as much as to suggest that this line of thinking could provide us with a good inkling that the re-evaluation is a thinly veiled disguise to avoid the judicial hearing, which somebody else said could be the outcome if the ODPM were to ride rough shod over the inspector by granting Falmer without ado at this stage of the proceedings?

[balloonboy]

Originally posted by Bromley shrimp

What I am trying to say is that if there REALLY was a suitable option(s) then surely they might have given us a clue by pointing us in the right direction, rather than saying go re-visit ALL the options and any others you can dream up as an after thought. If, say, Brighton Station, which is clearly not available, needs to be re-examined couldn't it be that in actual fact all of the alternative sites up for re-consideration are to a greater or lesser extent for one reason or another similarly not nearly as suitable as the appeal site if at all?

I am presenting a positive hear in as much as to suggest that this line of thinking could provide us with a good inkling that the re-evaluation is a thinly veiled disguise to avoid the judicial hearing, which somebody else said could be the outcome if the ODPM were to ride rough shod over the inspector by granting Falmer without ado at this stage of the proceedings?

I am of the same view. Even though mentioned as an alternative in the Public Inquiry, it is clearly no longer an option. To me, the fact that it was included puts a question mark over the genuineness of including any of the other sites. If one site is so flawed, the others are no doubt flawed too. If (say) the obviously ridiculous options had been excluded by the ODPM (the Station, Shoreham Power Station), then I'd be worried that the other sites might have something going for them. As it is, my take is that the ODPM has said "look, all seven are crap alternatives....let's keep them all in".

[BensGrandad]

Originally posted by Harold
It has always been my understanding that it is 8 miles from the Royal Pavillion. I believe that to be the geographical marker denoting (for formal reasons like these at least) the centre of Brighton.

This is now totally irrelevant as I have said many times that if I went to the Football League and said I have planning permission to build a ground and the money to build it but it is at e.g.. Shoreham Airport do you honestly think that they would refuse permission. Not in a million years hence MK Dons. This must be forgotten and efforts spent on persuading the NIMBYS of the other seven sites that they are not acceptable. A friend of mine lives in Woodingdean and I shall be pushing her and her husband to object to Sheepcote Valley.

Those residents already have the hump about the shutting of a junior school in Whitehawk and the pupils being sent to Woodingdean I am sure it won't take a lot to raise their wrath about a football stadium.

[m20gull]

The 8 mile limit might not be relevant with the Football League (hence MK Dons) but it is a restriction for the re-opened public enquiry.

Criterion (i) Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove?

[BUTTERBALL]

There is a need for a community stadium within the city boundary. That is the overriding theme.

[dougdeep]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Waterhall is landfill too.Surely this is another reason to rule it out.

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by dougdeep
Nobody seems to have mentioned that Waterhall is landfill too.Surely this is another reason to rule it out.

But when was it last used as a landfill? Elsewhere it has been said that landfills shouldn't be built on for forty years, cetainly I can't remember Waterhall being used for that purpose in my lifetime, so that's at least twentynine years.

[sullyupthewing]

Originally posted by Curious Orange
But when was it last used as a landfill? Elsewhere it has been said that landfills shouldn't be built on for forty years, cetainly I can't remember Waterhall being used for that purpose in my lifetime, so that's at least twentynine years. #

Not 100% sure but I trink it stopped being used early to middle 60s

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by sullyupthewing
#

Not 100% sure but I trink it stopped being used early to middle 60s

So that's that argument ruled out then, probably. However we should be quite comfortable with the AONB/proposed National Park, against local planning policy, visual and environmental impact, difficult transport solution, negligible socio-economic benefits arguments.

[BensGrandad]

Is it a case of us getting the backing of NIMBYs of all of the suggested alternative sites. Which combined should far outweigh the NIMBYs of Falmer.

Is this a route that we should look at taking?

[perseus]

Even if they are on your side, NIMBYs can be a bit of a pain.

Just get the local people to tell the truth. Exaggerations of the faults of alternative sites only lead to scepticism on the part of the neutrals.

This applies to the exaggerations of the benefits of Falmer as well. The promised 100 jobs (media release) was never believed in the first place.

PS: note the conservatism with my remarks; what I really mean to say that NIMBYs really are serious pain in the neck and are more trouble than they are worth, even if you oppose a scheme. They colour any serious debate with unfounded fears and stupid exaggerations, collective paranoia and general silliness.

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally posted by perseus
The promised 100 jobs (media release) was never believed in the first place.
And your EVIDENCE for this is what?

SEEDA take a quite different view.

[Uncle Spielberg]

Ed

Keep up the superb work you and Roz have done on this. I wish I had the patience and diplomacy that you have, but as you know I don't !.

You will deserve a mighty slap on the back if we pull this one off.

GG

[Lord Bracknell]

Thanks for that.

Just don't put money on it, Gareth.

:lolol:

[Gritt23]

Although initially gutted at what seems like endless delays, I am encouraged that it would seem there is a very good chance of a YES. Albeit, probably not for another 12 months (just basing that on how everything seems to take 3 times longer than it should - I don't KNOW anything).

Let's look at this rationally. We know that there are serious flaws with all 7 alternatives, so that is a reason to celebrate. We KNOW that very strong cases can be put against all of them, some (Shoreham Harbour and Brighton Station are laughable).

What would have been difficult is if a 'better' site had become available while all this had been going on. I don't know what is planned for the old Cement Works, but it never seems to start. Just imagine if JP had said 8 sites and that was the eighth, stating "We believe this site is now available due to development plans previously in place, now falling through. In light of the fact that it is a Brownfield site, we will overlook any issues relating to it being more than 8 miles from the Pavilion."

Now THAT would have been difficult, a plausible site being thrown into the mix, but that has not happened. All we have are the sites we have already looked into and rejected. The club have obviously picked the best site, why would they not. Now we just have to explain why the others were not viable.

It is perfectly clear that THERE IS ONLY ONE SITE IN BRIGHTON, we just need to present all the information fully to ensure that the ODPM can demonstrate they have investigated everything fully, and given all parties every possible chance.

It's a delay, but should be no more than that. Let's just stay patient for a little longer, and we will ALL be sat there in FALMER watching the Albion.

Great work Lord B & Roz, keep it up. It's taken me nearly a week to get to this point, you guys have been upbeat about it all along. Well played! :clap:

[Brighton till i die]

keep the faith - it will be ours!:drink:

[Storer68]

does anyone know when Falmer will cease to an AONB because the boundaries have moved.

Will that be during or after the new enquiry has convened? Because if it is after the enquiry, then the arguments against Falmer will still be valid (from a planning pov)

[On the Left Wing]

You've forgotten to mention NSP ... an alternative site with loads of space to fill!!!!
:jester:

[Hiney]

Originally posted by On the Left Wing
You've forgotten to mention NSP ... an alternative site with loads of space to fill!!!!
:jester:


:lolol: :lolol: :lolol: :lolol: :lolol:

Welcome back mate, btw

[hove born&bred]

I want Falmer as much as any one well I want a proper stadium but what if............. the only site available was Withdean it is actually the same size as the Falmer site(s) if nothing else was spare then I am sure the club would consider Withdean and you could build a Parkway station there.


I still think there is a way to go but feel a stadium will be built or building commenced in the next twelve months

[zefarelly]

I dont agree that Waterhall has poor transport and access . . .thats just being lazy, it is however north of the railway line, but thats never stopped anyone doing anything before, I actually thingk its the best site, but hey, what do I know.

Withdean would be possible if . . . .we built it 100 feet up in the air, therefore eliminating noise from the nimby equation, the space could be used for a multi storey car park, train station is already there, the raide stadia would eliminate flooding, and the site is big enough for 20 000 seats, theonly minor issue is improving the main road into Brighton, but thats been a major requirement for about 20 years now anyway, and shouldnt be the clubs problem

and I agree with on the Left wing, NSP is a tardis of a site !:lolol:

[Bromley shrimp]

Unfortunateley, Waterhall is the only site Collyer has categorically dismissed, which makes his contrary views even more difficult to stomach.

(Where, for example, does he get the notion that footballer supporters are prpared to walk 6 - 8km to a ground on a regular basis?). How close to Waterhall Toad's Hall have to be to be considered to be close to Waterhall even discounting the altitude change?

I think the Inspector must have arrived in a Tardis.

Clearly, he has zero empathy with supporters as adjudjed by his report, which effectively rubbishes much of the Albion points, and more demonstably by the way in which the whole thing is effectively slanted at all the alternatives (bar Waterhall) being better than Falmer, with Withdean head and shoulderrs above everything else.

One fatal flaw in the now outdated report is that his comparisons are based on our stature as a Div 2 club (or Div 3 in old money as I now prefer even more stroingly to refer to it as with the advent of the Championship and yet more confusion).

This fact will not go away. We are now just one league down from the best. Our average home attendance in 77/78, (Old Div 2) 78/79 (Old Div 2)and 79/80 (Old Div 1) was 25,264, 22,074 & 24,795 respectively, so please don't give me '96/'97 as a realistic comparison or the Gillingham years J. R.

The fact that we manage our finances so prudently and have gained success on the back of it is in spite of Withdean. It has nothing to recommend it as a long term or even short term proposition. 9k capacity simply is not enough. We are not a glorified Southwick, and bear more comparison with the likes of Charlton when potential is put into the equation, which clearly it has not by the Inspectorate at any stage. It simply does not support his standpoint and would silence the Nimbys and his argument that we are aptly suited to a small ground until Shoreham Harbour or the Second Coming.

[perseus]

Transport and acess: the trouble with both Waterhall and Toad's Hole (or the good thing) is that not that have bad access, but the highways department would not allow traffic lights, but would insist on an expensive junction, spaghetti-style, set up, which would cost too much dosh to be worthwhile just for a stadium on its own.

With railway stations, they would get built if a certain number of passengers will use them. I do not know what the numbers are. It could be 750,000 a year, but this seems a bit high. A stadium on its own even in the Premier would not reach this figure.

My feeling is that although a railway station is highly desirable, it is only really essential if we have Premiership aspirations.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Bromley shrimp
Unfortunateley, Waterhall is the only site Collyer has categorically dismissed, which makes his contrary views even more difficult to stomach.

(Where, for example, does he get the notion that footballer supporters are prpared to walk 6 - 8km to a ground on a regular basis?). How close to Waterhall Toad's Hall have to be to be considered to be close to Waterhall even discounting the altitude change?

I think the Inspector must have arrived in a Tardis.

Clearly, he has zero empathy with supporters as adjudjed by his report, which effectively rubbishes much of the Albion points, and more demonstably by the way in which the whole thing is effectively slanted at all the alternatives (bar Waterhall) being better than Falmer, with Withdean head and shoulderrs above everything else.

One fatal flaw in the now outdated report is that his comparisons are based on our stature as a Div 2 club (or Div 3 in old money as I now prefer even more stroingly to refer to it as with the advent of the Championship and yet more confusion).

This fact will not go away. We are now just one league down from the best. Our average home attendance in 77/78, (Old Div 2) 78/79 (Old Div 2)and 79/80 (Old Div 1) was 25,264, 22,074 & 24,795 respectively, so please don't give me '96/'97 as a realistic comparison or the Gillingham years J. R.

The fact that we manage our finances so prudently and have gained success on the back of it is in spite of Withdean. It has nothing to recommend it as a long term or even short term proposition. 9k capacity simply is not enough. We are not a glorified Southwick, and bear more comparison with the likes of Charlton when potential is put into the equation, which clearly it has not by the Inspectorate at any stage. It simply does not support his standpoint and would silence the Nimbys and his argument that we are aptly suited to a small ground until Shoreham Harbour or the Second Coming.


Good post Bromley :clap:

I bloody hope the Club use points from your post (not direct but you know what I mean) when dismissing the use of Withdean as a future possibility.

[Caveman]

Argus website Poll .... (http://www.thisisbrighton.co.uk/)

On right hand side of the page, Falmer is the clear winner so far! :)

[m20gull]

Originally posted by Caveman
Argus website Poll .... (http://www.thisisbrighton.co.uk/)

On right hand side of the page, Falmer is the clear winner so far! :)

9% for Brighton Station is the funniest.

Shouts: They're already building something there!

Can I vote for the Goldstone Business Park, then?

[dougdeep]

What I don't understand is how Mr Hoyle, who must be well educated and have good qualifications to achieve his position, can come up with a comment like "I have no doubt that Sheepcote Valley has far fewer planning disadvantages than Falmer, even taking account of present transport deficiencies".
Surely only a Falmer resident would agree with that.

[ditchy]

Having been to Reading a number of times the similarities with sheepcote are frightening .. Everytime i have been there i have had to park south of the motorway and a good 20/30 min walf to the stadium .. the location i believe is on an old rubbish tip and certainly not near any railway station....what do Reading do ? they lay on extra buses and park and ride and have a sizeable carpark .. Sheepcote could have an enormous carpark and plenty of buses could be provided..,,Road links are poor in comparison to Falmer but could be updated at not too much extra cost ..Dont get me wrong i want a new stadium as quick as possible but the other sites with the exception of Brighton station and shoreham harbour are not cut and dried ruled out options ... at the end of the day i hope Falmer does prove to be a winner but lets just view things from somebody elses eyes before so as to get all angles

[ditchy]

Having been to Reading a number of times the similarities with sheepcote are frightening .. Everytime i have been there i have had to park south of the motorway and a good 20/30 min walf to the stadium .. the location i believe is on an old rubbish tip and certainly not near any railway station....what do Reading do ? they lay on extra buses and park and ride and have a sizeable carpark .. Sheepcote could have an enormous carpark and plenty of buses could be provided..,,Road links are poor in comparison to Falmer but could be updated at not too much extra cost ..Dont get me wrong i want a new stadium as quick as possible but the other sites with the exception of Brighton station and shoreham harbour are not cut and dried ruled out options ... at the end of the day i hope Falmer does prove to be a winner but lets just view things from somebody elses eyes before so as to get all angles

[Bromley shrimp]

Originally posted by ditchy
Having been to Reading a number of times the similarities with sheepcote are frightening .. Everytime i have been there i have had to park south of the motorway and a good 20/30 min walf to the stadium .. the location i believe is on an old rubbish tip and certainly not near any railway station....what do Reading do ? they lay on extra buses and park and ride and have a sizeable carpark .. Sheepcote could have an enormous carpark and plenty of buses could be provided..,,Road links are poor in comparison to Falmer but could be updated at not too much extra cost ..Dont get me wrong i want a new stadium as quick as possible but the other sites with the exception of Brighton station and shoreham harbour are not cut and dried ruled out options ... at the end of the day i hope Falmer does prove to be a winner but lets just view things from somebody elses eyes before so as to get all angles

Could using London Road Railway Station prove a viable alternative to get to Sheepcote from, given the potential walking distances that we're now talking about? Sorry to have to ask, but my geography of that part of town is somewhat limited.

[dougdeep]

I'd rather walk from Falmer than London Road.

[perseus]

Don't be fooled by Sheepcote.

The anti-Falmer brigade are mentioning Sheepcote because it is not in the National Park plans and the downs lobby won't support them if they chose Toad's Hole or Waterhall.

Sheepcote is not really a practical idea, not if the Albion want fans to turn up. It is a bit like Gillingham in such an awkward place. I have even heard it suggested that it was quicker for some fans to get to Gillingham than it was Withdean. Sheepcote is a nightmare.

Just because Reading put their stadium in a grotty inconvenient place, it does not mean it is a good idea.

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally posted by ditchy
Sheepcote could have an enormous carpark and plenty of buses could be provided
To get people to a stadium at Sheepcote Valley would require at least another 30 double deck buses - over and above the number of buses that are already committed to Falmer.

Either that or a massive car park and a totally unacceptable level of traffic congestion throughout East Brighton and the city centre.

The buses are simply not available, either. Not without shutting down a good proportion of the city's public transport system whenever a game is played.

[dougdeep]

ALTERNATIVES? There aren't any! Just get it built at Falmer.

[The Oldman]

See in the Leader this week that the man who knows the score, Richard Lindfield says that Mike Middleton, former Brighton councillor is putting forward the old Lewes Road barracks as an another option. Lindfield says not the first time he has heard it mentioned:rolleyes:

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally posted by Gaffer
See in the Leader this week that the man who knows the score, Richard Lindfield says that Mike Middleton, former Brighton councillor is putting forward the old Lewes Road barracks as an another option. Lindfield says not the first time he has heard it mentioned:rolleyes:
As another option for what?

(Sorry ... we don't get the Leader out here).

Surely not a stadium site?

There's simply not enough space between the railway and the Lewes Road to fit one in.

[BensGrandad]

Wasn't Mike Middleton or isn't MM one of the custodians of the 40 note fund? Or have I got the wrong man?

If so why is he trying to put his oar in and muddy the waters with ridiculous suggestions as that site s a stadium. Might be large enough as training ground for us though if we had the money.

[Lord Bracknell]

From the City Council's "City News" (May 2004)

Preston Barracks plan chosen

An outstanding, elegant landmark development for the city has been chosen to transform the derelict site at Preston Barracks.

The groundbreaking, contemporary proposal by a consortium of Chichester Diocesan Housing Association (CDHA), Hyde and Wilson Bowden, will create over 1,000 local jobs, 412 homes of which 40% will be affordable, 20,000 square metres of business space with an innovation centre and community facilities.

The former Ministry of Defence site on the Lewes Road is earmarked for a mixed development of businesses and accommodation. The winning proposal was chosen from a shortlist of four.

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/image_library/preston-barracks-pic.jpg



In other words ... the site isn't available.

And, yes, Mike Middleton is a trustee of the Forty Notes Fund, which most of us probably imagine was set up to work WITH the Club, not undermine its plans for Falmer.

[BensGrandad]

I feel that Richard Lindfield being the club announcer could have done more to quell this rubbish in his column in the Leader. It appears that the supporters are expected to get behind Falmer but others who are closer don't have to.

[Kev the Ape]

send that to all the nimbys in nimbyland and then they might just shut up and give us falmer!! this is going on far to long!!!:censored:

[Kev the Ape]

send that to all the nimbys in nimbyland and then they might just shut up and give us falmer!! this is going on far to long!!!:censored:

[The Large One]

Originally posted by Gaffer
See in the Leader this week that the man who knows the score, Richard Lindfield says that Mike Middleton, former Brighton councillor is putting forward the old Lewes Road barracks as an another option. Lindfield says not the first time he has heard it mentioned:rolleyes:

I can only assume that Richard Lindfield is mis-quoting Mike Middleton on this, as I can't believe that the latter would come out with something so stupid. Middleton was certainly NOT speaking on behalf of the 40 Notes Fund, and, as a former councillor, was (if he was quoted correctly) airing his opnion as a private individual.

Middleton lost his councillor status at the last round of council elections to - wait for it - The Green Party. He now spends more time running his scaffolding business and is - quite seriously - spending more time with his family.

It's worse than a ladies' knitting circle at Newsquest sometimes. Lindfield ought to know better than peddle this nonsense.

[perseus]

Mike Middleton has come out in public with a serious suggestion for one other site in the past.

[BensGrandad]

Originally posted by perseus
Mike Middleton has come out in public with a serious suggestion for one other site in the past.

I would have thought that NOW is not the right time for supporters to be looking and suggesting new sites. So much money has gone into Falmer that we have reached a point where it is Falmer or bust.

IMO it is more constructive for supporters to get behind the proposals for Falmer, even if like me, it wasn't your original choice.

IT HAS TO BE NOW.

[perseus]

Mike Middleton must know this more than anybody else as he was chairing the Labour party working group on the stadium proposals.

This is why the Leader comment is incongruous and probably just plain wrong.

[BensGrandad]

Perhaps the club should step in and demand more common sense and loyalty from Richard Lindfield.

[Kev the Ape]

is it true is the enemy david belloti signed up for this???:glare:

[Kev the Ape]

is it true is the enemy david belloti signed up for this???:glare:

[sullyupthewing]

Originally posted by Gaffer
See in the Leader this week that the man who knows the score, Richard Lindfield says that Mike Middleton, former Brighton councillor is putting forward the old Lewes Road barracks as an another option. Lindfield says not the first time he has heard it mentioned:rolleyes:

It must piss Martin Perry right off when he reads rubbish like this.

[dougdeep]

If it's no to Falmer, then I think the government should pay our costs, it's only fair.:lolol:

[perseus]

Some facts about development:

1) Not for tradition but for economic reasons, sporting stadia have always been built on the edge or outside of town. The real estate in town is always too expensive. This is a fact of life.

So this means that alternative sites like Brighton station were never remotely feasible.

2) You cannot build on public open spaces any more. The public will kick up such a stink that it would make the Falmer complaints look like a chimpanzee tea party (a bit like that anyway). It would ened up going to the European Courts.

There was a fuss over grazing cows on Lancing Ring and almost as many people turned up as the Hove Town hall demonstration about the new stadium.

This immediately knocks out both Waterhall and Sheepcote.

[London Calling]

Falmer.:jester: :lolol: :) :lol: :flameboun :bounce: :clap2: :D

[dougdeep]

FALMER. Accept no alternative.:)

[Gwylan]

Originally posted by perseus
Some facts about development:

1) Not for tradition but for economic reasons, sporting stadia have always been built on the edge or outside of town. The real estate in town is always too expensive. This is a fact of life.


That is utter twaddle. There is a long tradition of building stadia in towns and cities. Just look at the London teams, look at the Liverpool teams, look at Newcastle, Sheffield United, Bradford City, the old Derby County, Leicester and Sunderland grounds. I could name dozens more.

It's only recently that clubs have moved to the outskirts, traditionally they have been close to the centre of town.

I agree that cost of real estate is high now and that's why out-of-town developments are more attractive...and why Falmer is the only answer.

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by Gwylan
That is utter twaddle. There is a long tradition of building stadia in towns and cities. Just look at the London teams, look at the Liverpool teams, look at Newcastle, Sheffield United, Bradford City, the old Derby County, Leicester and Sunderland grounds. I could name dozens more.

It's only recently that clubs have moved to the outskirts, traditionally they have been close to the centre of town.

I agree that cost of real estate is high now and that's why out-of-town developments are more attractive...and why Falmer is the only answer.

Although in this case the Albion would be following their own tradition, as the Goldstone WAS an out of town stadium. However, that is of no relevance to this discussion.

[dougdeep]

Originally posted by Curious Orange
Although in this case the Albion would be following their own tradition, as the Goldstone WAS an out of town stadium. However, that is of no relevance to this discussion.
The Goldstone wasn't built for the Albion don't forget.

[Sergi Gotsmanov]

There was a fuss over grazing cows on Lancing Ring


I think i would make a fuss about a cows grazing on my ring!

Mind you there was that time in magaluf....sharon her name was

[Marc]

Originally posted by dougdeep
The Goldstone wasn't built for the Albion don't forget.

It was'nt? I did'nt know that, explain please :)

[dougdeep]

It was built for Hove.F.C. in 1901,a club that was in existence since 1884. The Albion took it over in 1904 when Hove moved to Hove Park.

[Curious Orange]

Originally posted by dougdeep
The Goldstone wasn't built for the Albion don't forget.

I didn't say it was. The point was that it was an out of town stadium.

[dougdeep]

Originally posted by Curious Orange
I didn't say it was. The point was that it was an out of town stadium.

But how can they follow their own tradition, when they didn't?