Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Sussex] monks farm planning



LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
46,415
SHOREHAM BY SEA
As I posted on a separate thread yesterday, there's a tract of land next to where I live, which has been sold with planning permission for homes, two years ago.
It's been nicely fenced off since then, but not a single drop of concrete has been laid yet. Land is an investment, and some developers are just sitting on it.

And thats where they should change the laws...make it less profitable for developers to sit on land etc ...
 
Last edited:

shaolinpunk

[Insert witty title here]
Nov 28, 2005
7,187
Brighton
Unfortunately we are lumbered with needing 3.9m new homes, mostly in Southern England. Brownfield sites can only supply a small proportion. Wherever they are built, there will be worse congestion, no matter what anyone says.

I think we should protect sites of great beauty or native fauna/flora.

Places like Monks Farm are neither, so it fits the bill.

I wish the UK population figure had stayed steady to prevent all this, but the genie was let of the bubble in 1997.


As a nation we should be more open to building upwards
 

Nixonator

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2016
6,733
Shoreham Beach
I haven't been following this closely. What are the enormous benefits to the future of the club?

Martin Perry said at the time this was proposed:



No statement on what the profit would be (perhaps elsewhere), but it doesn't sound like something that benefits the club enormously, but rather helps pay off some of the debts owed to TB. Now we are in the PL, the club is profitable (obviously no guarantees we will stay there) - and so TB will not continue to put money into the club.

Surely people shouldn't blindly support something they would normally disagree with just because it benefits the club?

I feel like it's blatantly obvious to say but I'll say it anyway, the benefits are not going to be significant whilst we remain in the Premier League. If you are supremely confident that we will be here indefinitely and/or bounce back immediately within the term of parachute payments OR TB is immortal and will be here forever then I'll glady agree with you. Also, something else blatantly obvious, paying TB back out of the current income we are receiving (as some other moron suggested) is going to directly reduce our chances of remaining in the league and thus continuing to repay him.

This project has the long term sustainability of the club in mind, and will be enormously beneficial if we are pushing again in the Championship without parachute payments. Of course Bloom and Perry are not going to outline exactly how we can 'cook the books' as Gibson at boro and many others have done in the past, just as he isn't going to outline the benefits to us of owning a Belgian club.

The club have directly asked for the fans backing on this, judging by recent history I'm at a loss as to how anyone could possibly believe it's a project of self-interest for TB, even if you do not understand the implications.
 
Last edited:


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
A slow and constant flow v intermittent bursts. Is there really much difference? I'm not sure I'm seeing that a roundabout is going to revolutionise that particular junction. But I admit I'm not a traffic expert.
The evidence is that they do improve traffic flow, except if 1 heavy traffic input route blocks another with heavy traffic input - in this case lights have to be incorporated into the roundabout - but it is still a traffic flow win.
 

Superphil

Dismember
Jul 7, 2003
25,387
In a pile of football shirts
Interesting.

I thought part of the planning application was that they would be removed.

No reference to those lights that I can see. There is to be a new roundabout but that isn’t as far down as the airport lights, it’s around the location of the traveller site unless I’ve misunderstood something, which if I have I apologise.

a2a6cf4028903914dcef03cd9a4d2dc9.jpg


Of course, a new roundabout with 400 odd dwellings worth of morning commuter traffic is also only going to make the congestion worse, there is no way on earth this will lead to anything more than more traffic in the morning and evening commuter time.
 

Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
No reference to those lights that I can see. There is to be a new roundabout but that isn’t as far down as the airport lights, it’s around the location of the traveller site unless I’ve misunderstood something, which if I have I apologise.

a2a6cf4028903914dcef03cd9a4d2dc9.jpg


Of course, a new roundabout with 400 odd dwellings worth of morning commuter traffic is also only going to make the congestion worse, there is no way on earth this will lead to anything more than more traffic in the morning and evening commuter time.
That is indeed the roundabout which will result in road alterations and the removal of the Sussex Pad lights.
 

cardboard

New member
Jul 8, 2003
4,573
Mile Oak

adub68

Active member
Jul 25, 2013
100
Worth pointing out that a development on not the developers idea. The site was originally going to be a golf course. With no progress on the golf course and the area then having been zoned for up to 600 houses and a retail / commercial site - developers were invited to put forward proposals by the council. As I understand it the concept of the scheme itself is not in question it is whether it meets the other requirements of the council / planning authorities - including traffic and environmental impact. The club managed to get a lead on other developers by buying the relevant land outright (rather than optioning) and committing to deliver a site /sites to both to a housing developer and a commercial/retail developer (including I expect taking on the responsibility for the new road / junction infrastructure). The developer in these types of developments makes its returns primarily when it hands over the relevant parts of the sites to the housing developer / commercial site developer (i.e. the club is unlikely to be involved in building or selling the houses unless it cant sell the land on to a housing developer). Right now the football club is likely to be materially loss making on the project - given the upfront land acquisition costs. Goes without saying that the only way for the club to break even / turn a profit is for the project to proceed. However I can understand why people would want to assess this irrespective of whether the club is involved or not. However the fact is that this development is likely to proceed with some developer at some time therefore as the club are currently in a loss position for me it is a yes based on not wanting the club to be left in a / or literally with a hole.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
A slow and constant flow v intermittent bursts. Is there really much difference? I'm not sure I'm seeing that a roundabout is going to revolutionise that particular junction. But I admit I'm not a traffic expert.

If you consider traffic flow at the proposed junction, anyone coming from the IKEA / NMF / Airport road (whether heading east or west) has to give way to traffic coming from the east on the A27.

The only stops traffic coming from the east on the A27 have to make is those who are coming from the west and turning into the IKEA/NMF/SA road. That will be comparatively little compared to the vast of the traffic.

The only cars the traffic coming from the west on the A27 have to stop for is those turning east from the IKEA/NMF/SA turning. Again, relatively few.

All traffic has to slow down for the roundabout, but then you have to at present anyway, as the speed limit in that particular bit is only 40mph.

With traffic lights, EVERYONE has to stop - whether they need to or not.

Roundabouts do slow the traffic down (which they need to is you're coming from the east anyway), but they keep it flowing.

This sort of thing doesn't necessarily work for every junction, but I'm guessing this one will be an improvement on what is there presently.
 

The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
Of course, a new roundabout with 400 odd dwellings worth of morning commuter traffic is also only going to make the congestion worse, there is no way on earth this will lead to anything more than more traffic in the morning and evening commuter time.

Let's say 600 cars (and I'd guess that's a high estimate) leave that junction in the morning. They don't all do it at the same time. Over the course of, say, an hour, that's 10 cars a minute. Not much, is it?
 

Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
The sooner I can go to an IKEA in Shoreham than have to drive all the way up to Croydon, the better.

I know some locals who go to Southampton Ikea because they cannot bear to go to Croydon, so that traffic is already using the A27. Southampton is a bit further away, of course. The A23/M23 isn't too bad until you get to Purley.
 


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
No reference to those lights that I can see. There is to be a new roundabout but that isn’t as far down as the airport lights, it’s around the location of the traveller site unless I’ve misunderstood something, which if I have I apologise.

a2a6cf4028903914dcef03cd9a4d2dc9.jpg

Here is the plan.

https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/media/media,145426,en.pdf

The roundabout will indeed be a bit further west than the Sussex Pad junction. However, according to those plans, that junction will be done away with, and access to the airport from the north, will be via the smaller rounadabout due south of the big A27 roundabout.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here