Alternative Sites - the official facts.

[Turkey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.