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

Alternative Sites - the official facts.



Lady Bracknell

Handbag at Dawn
Jul 5, 2003
4,514
The Metropolis
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

You havin' a bubble?
Jan 31, 2004
7,611
On the terraces!!
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?!?!
 
Last edited:

Scotty Mac

New member
Jul 13, 2003
24,405
well that sorts that then
 


Lammy

Registered Abuser
Oct 1, 2003
7,581
Newhaven/Lewes/Atlanta
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."
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,320
Uffern
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

Registered Abuser
Oct 1, 2003
7,581
Newhaven/Lewes/Atlanta
Gwylan said:
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...
 


Locky

New member
Oct 2, 2003
1,640
Brighton
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

Aberystwyth Town FC
Jul 27, 2004
5,306
(North) Portslade
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.
 

Sorrel

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,733
Back in East Sussex
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

New member
Jul 6, 2003
25,267
Locky said:
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

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,320
Uffern
Locky said:


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

Sophisticated rhetorician
Jul 8, 2003
1,305
Off M4 J11
Lammy said:
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.'
 

Sorrel

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,733
Back in East Sussex
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

New member
Jul 26, 2004
4
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

Registered Abuser
Oct 1, 2003
7,581
Newhaven/Lewes/Atlanta
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.
 

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