The NEW £60million Falmer Stadium

[British Bulldog]

The original rebuttal from the club said that the footprint remains the same, but then we have been told it increases by 6.7%.

I did find that a bit strange myself BoF, I got the impression Knight & Perry were'nt quite singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

[Easy 10]

Whats 6.7% between old friends though ?

 

[Scoffers]

Whats 6.7% between old friends though ?

Perry's probably pissed off because the difference is Dick Knights extended office and not his

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Is this not something worth pointing out to the club? The mixed messages? If anything it COULD be used against them in a battle of words with various parties. The last thing we want is the club being accused to lying or deliberately misleading people.

 

[ROSM]

Perry's probably pissed off because the difference is Dick Knights extended office and not his

it could be:
- wider paths,
- more tree planting on the periemeter,
- greater roof overhang at the rear,
- putting the power plant outside the walls of the stadium,
- spaces for storing forks

The point is that the 6.7% if within the construction boundary and within the distance scope of originally planning permission , and not taller, should not lead to an issue. It's like having permission to build a house and putting a lean to onto it. That may not in itself lead to negating planning permission.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

+6.7% increase by floor area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible then?

 

[ROSM]

Is this not something worth pointing out to the club? The mixed messages? If anything it COULD be used against them in a battle of words with various parties. The last thing we want is the club being accused to lying or deliberately misleading people.

not a bad suggestion at least to explain what constitutes the extra (e.g. 1% bike shed, 2% revised walling of walkways etc.)

 

[Titanic]

+6.7% increase by floor area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible then?

Not if you include the hollowed out bunds.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

+6.7% increase by floor area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible then?

Indeed there's not ! I could extend the floor area of my house by putting an extra floor but this wouldn't extend the overall footprint.

 

[Titanic]

Not if you include the hollowed out bunds.

See The Insiders comment...

http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?t=132062

 

[ROSM]

to be fair Knight does say 50% increase floor area and 6.7% footprint

 

[Barrel of Fun]

+6.7% increase by floor area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible then?

Argus Ploughing Dangerous Furrow
Posted on: Wed 17 Sep 2008
By Albion Chairman Dick Knight


Just what is it about the Argus's misleading interpretation of the club's updated stadium plans?.......

- Siting, location and orientation - No change
- Footprint area - Marginal increase (+ 6.7 per cent)
- Capacity 22,500 - No change
- Roof Height at apex and arch - No change
- Environmental impact - Improved

Planning Application Put into Perspective
Posted on: Mon 15 Sep 2008 (seagulls.co.uk)

Albion bosses, chairman Dick Knight and chief-executive Martin Perry, have moved quickly to put the report in today's Argus (Shock Revamp for Falmer) into proper perspective.

The club issued the following statement at lunchtime today:

The newspaper reports the stadium will be 50 per cent bigger. This is a misleading statement, considering the site's footprint remains the same, the height of the stadium is unaltered, and the capacity - 22,500 - is unchanged.

Changes in legislation have resulted in a huge increase in the space needed for visitor circulation - including the concourse areas - and this has forced a complete redesign of the stadium interior, but does not affect the overall footprint.

The report does correctly state the costs have risen by £10 million to £60 million, a direct legacy of the ten-year battle for planning permission. Costs having risen sharply, particularly in the past eighteen months.

Since the original application was lodged in 2001 there have been other changes in legislation, including disability access and safety regulations. When the original plans were given the green light by the government, the club announced then that the plans would be adjusted in the light of these changes.

Two key factors for fans are that this application does not have to be approved for us to begin work on site. The first activity on site will be to widen Village Way and permission for this has already been given.

Secondly, because the changes do not affect the overall size of the site, the location, the usage nor the capacity, there is no chance this application will be called in by the Government.....

Perhaps we can assume that the latest article is misleading referring to a footprint increase? But surely the footprint refers to the whole site?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

to be fair Knight does say 50% increase floor area and 6.7% footprint

Sorry, I mean't to say:
"+6.7% increase by footprint area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible?".
There's me getty sarcy about people not reading things fully and then I go and .....................:thud:

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

Let's face it, the two statements below are contradictory. At least one of them is untrue.

"the site's footprint remains the same" 15/9/2008

"Footprint area - Marginal increase (+ 6.7 per cent)" 17/9/2008

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Let's face it, the two statements below are contradictory. At least one of them is untrue.

"the site's footprint remains the same" 15/9/2008

"Footprint area - Marginal increase (+ 6.7 per cent)" 17/9/2008

I don't think so.
1) The planning application that's being submitted doesn't seek to change/expand the development site, hence the "site's footprint" remains unchanged overall.
2) The footprint area of the stadium buildings is proposed to increase by 6.7%. I think the reasons for this are explained in one of Insider's replys on "Ask the Club" (thanks Titanic).

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Whats this all about Brett. surely we cannot just go from 22000 to 30000 without a whole new planning permission as it will greatly increase the proposed traffic etc.

Oh but we did....

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Of course you can plug any increase in costs by using cash from a wealthy benefactor

That will never work.

 

[Hiney]

Top bouncing

 

[AK74]

 

[Brovion]

Falmer will NEVER happen, it's just Dick Tight's pipedream. . We're better off redeveloping Withdean.