798 Student Flats to be Built on Falmer Campus

[Uter]

I didn't know anything about this until today, which is surprising given the scale of the development. I doubt this will go to a public inquiry despite being of a comparable size to the stadium and presumably within an AONB. I am unaware of any complaints from Baker, De Vecchi et al.


Student flats to go ahead (From The Argus)

800 new flats to house students (From The Argus)

 

[ManOnTheRun]

I'd assume that it sits entirely within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove and so it wouldn't really matter what LDC/Baker thought of it .. It's not like there isn't a precedent for it either, theres been a hell of a lot of changes to the campus in the last 10 years (inc student accomadation).

 

[CHAPPERS]

It's on the already existing campus, I doubt there is anything to complain about.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Interesting to see some mug is still complaining about the stadium in the comments section. They are about to erect a few tower blocks and they still moan about a stadium of which over half the visable area is sunk into the ground. For me that just about sums up the intelligence of these people.

 

[Uter]

I'd assume that it sits entirely within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove and so it wouldn't really matter what LDC/Baker thought of it .. It's not like there isn't a precedent for it either, theres been a hell of a lot of changes to the campus in the last 10 years (inc student accomadation).

I think councils can still object to developments in neighbouring districts. This could arguably adversely affect the Falmer villagers in terms of parking and trafffic.

I would have thought the rules of development would still apply when wanting to build on an AONB even if a precedent has been set, i.e. is it in the national interest and it is the only site available.

I'm just a little surprised a significant development like this can get through the system with little fuss. I'm not arguing against it, but it's a little frustrating to contrast this with the titanic battle we faced obtaining planing permission. Where are the protests about this? Was all the opposition really about a stadium, or was the underlying motivation a dislike of football supporters?

 

[strings]

I think there is little opposition because the majority of locals seem to believe that all students should live on campus and stay away from the local community.

Certainly that is what the argus has been suggesting with all of its reports about students ruining communities.

 

[Smythe]

Maybe this is the hotel in disguise.....cunning plan from DK and MP.

 

[Jim D]

Maybe this is the hotel in disguise.....cunning plan from DK and MP.

Do you mean the 798 room 'Student Flats Hotel'?

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

The opposition was always just about football.

 

[steward 433]

Two points here

1. I thought that all building North of the A27 was a big NO from the council?

2. would this have got through so easily without the £5.3 million road improvements for the stadium access/egress?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Two points here

1. I thought that all building North of the A27 was a big NO from the council?

2. would this have got through so easily without the £5.3 million road improvements for the stadium access/egress?

The site is designated for university accommodation in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, just as the Stadium site was designated for community stadium use in the same Local Plan.

Both sites are in the AONB.

Curiously, the South Downs Joint Committee (formerly the Sussex Downs Conservation Board) objected to the Stadium. On the other hand, the Planning and Policy Manager of the SDJC only has this to say about the student accommodation:-

"I accept the principle of the development of the site for University accommodation. The issue is then how this can be achieved in the most sensitive way, given the the location of the site within the Sussex Downs AONB".


It looks like Freddie Goodwin may be right:- "The opposition always was just about football".




As for the SEEDA spending of £5.3 million on (amongst other things) better road access to the University of Sussex campus, this application will certainly benefit. It's one reason why public money is justified for the roads needed for the stadium project - there are so many beneficiaries, it would be wrong to load all of the costs on to the Football Club.

 

[steward 433]

It looks like Freddie Goodwin may be right:- "The opposition always was just about football".

Thought that was looking like the case


As for the SEEDA spending of £5.3 million on (amongst other things) better road access to the University of Sussex campus, this application will certainly benefit. It's one reason why public money is justified for the roads needed for the stadium project - there are so many beneficiaries, it would be wrong to load all of the costs on to the Football Club.

As you righly point out it is good that more than just the community stadium will benefit from the new road designs, especially the university who will assist on matchday parking.

Was this a bit of backscratching between club and university i wonder then?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Sussex University have always backed the stadium project.

 

[steward 433]

I know hence the use for parking.

Nice when two institutions can get along so nicely.

Shame same can't be said of certain local political figures!

 

[csider]

I didn't know anything about this until today, which is surprising given the scale of the development. I doubt this will go to a public inquiry despite being of a comparable size to the stadium and presumably within an AONB. I am unaware of any complaints from Baker, De Vecchi et al.


Student flats to go ahead (From The Argus)

800 new flats to house students (From The Argus)

you would have known sooner if you had read my thread started on wednesday..!!

 

[Uter]

Curiously, the South Downs Joint Committee (formerly the Sussex Downs Conservation Board) objected to the Stadium. On the other hand, the Planning and Policy Manager of the SDJC only has this to say about the student accommodation:-

"I accept the principle of the development of the site for University accommodation. The issue is then how this can be achieved in the most sensitive way, given the the location of the site within the Sussex Downs AONB".


It looks like Freddie Goodwin may be right:- "The opposition always was just about football".

It certainly makes me wonder. It would be far easier to argue that there are plenty of alternative sites for this accommodation off campus and outsite of the AONB, yet they chose not to. I sometimes wonder whether the opposition to a stadium would have been quite so vehement had it been a cricket ground.

Apologies to csider. I have just read your thread, but missed it first time round.