So, lets destroy the other sites

[Scoffers]

Apparantly, here are the 7 sites to be reviewed

Brighton Station
Brighton Greyhound Stadium
Shoreham Harbour
Sheepcote Valley
Toad's Hole Valley
Waterhall
Withdean Stadium

So, lets build a not so 'dodgy' dossier of why these sites are not viable. Who wants to start?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

brighton station- policing costs would be too high, land too expensive, they're building a sainsbury's there anyway


corals- no room to expand after building of city park behind it

shoreham harbour- too expensive i believe, not in brighton

sheepcote valley- no access whatsoever


toads hole valley- not sure- its just a bit shit

waterhall- north of by-pass, poor access


withdean- was only going to be temporary

 

[Seagulltonian]

Brighton Station - Not available - Sainsbury's got their planning permission ages ago, and building work has just started

 

[Scoffers]

Basically, access is the big problem, all of the sites which are large enough you'd have to spend gazzilions to put the road/rail infrastucture in.

The BIG plus point for Falmer is that it already has a Station and Major road network right there.

 

[London Irish]

Sheepcote valley is contiminated land because of previous tipping, so development would be hazardous there and any remedial work on this utterly prohibitive.

And both Toad's Hole and Sheepcote are vital green lungs for the city of Brighton and Hove, no environmental activist worth his salt should want them built there.

Virtually everywhere else is unavailable, except Shoreham and Waterhall which would require fortunes to be spent on access and transport.

This is going to be a piece of piss!

 

[Scoffers]

Top comments London Irish, lets just hope the Enquiry comes to the same conclusions

 

[perseus]

Waterhall is NOT feasible.

It is not economic without ancillary development (which even if a football stadium was allowed the extra development would not be in a feasible time.)

Building on public green open spaces would be subject to a legal challenge.

The transport arrangements in accordance with national policy cannot be complied without a railway station (and a railway station would not be economic and would not be built without ancillary development).

AND this applies to every single one of the six sites mentioned. Hoile has confirmed they are not in the Local Plan so this would mean an additional additional Public Inquiry (probably).

Falmer is the only feasible site within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove.

Waterhall is NOT an option!

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Waterhall is NOT feasible.

It is not economic without ancillary development (which even if a football stadium was allowed the extra development would not be in a feasible time.)

Building on public green open spaces would be subject to a legal challenge.

The transport arrangements in accordance with national policy cannot be complied without a railway station (and a railway station would not be economic and would not be built without ancillary development).

AND this applies to every single one of the six sites mentioned. Hoile has confirmed they are not in the Local Plan so this would mean an additional additional Public Inquiry (probably).

Falmer is the only feasible site within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove.

Waterhall is NOT an option!

and i suppose pende is?

 

[Scotty Mac]

and i suppose pende is?

beat me to it tom!

falmer is the only one - apart from maybe toads hole. what was the resoning behind not building there?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

beat me to it tom!

falmer is the only one - apart from maybe toads hole. what was the resoning behind not building there?

its one of the few large green areas in brighton-
far away from a train station-
would cost a fair bit
was bellottis idea

 

[perseus]

I would certainly be worried about the Toad's Hole site.

There are proposals to remove this site from the National Park boundaries.

The site is uneconomic (the road infrastructure would cost too much with no spin-offs) and it is far inferior to Falmer from a transport (especially rail transport).

I do NOT think it is a goer, but opponents to Falmer would twist the facts around to fit their case.

The BBC report says that financial considerations now come into the scheme of things. So just being too expensive would rule it out?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

I would certainly be worried about the Toad's Hole site.

There are proposals to remove this site from the National Park boundaries.

The site is uneconomic (the road infrastructure would cost too much with no spin-offs) and it is far inferior to Falmer from a transport (especially rail transport).

I do NOT think it is a goer, but opponents to Falmer would twist the facts around to fit their case.

ignore my last post,

seriously i think this is the main competitor to falmer

 

[Scotty Mac]

I would certainly be worried about the Toad's Hole site.

There are proposals to remove this site from the National Park boundaries.

The site is uneconomic (the road infrastructure would cost too much with no spin-offs) and it is far inferior to Falmer from a transport (especially rail transport).

I do NOT think it is a goer, but opponents to Falmer would twist the facts around to fit their case.

you'd have to level the whole thing out.

some stadiums are not near stations - look at reading. and hove would'nt be too far to walk

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

you'd have to level the whole thing out.

some stadiums are not near stations - look at reading. and hove would'nt be too far to walk

the bottom of it is flat- you could build a ground there, but access is the main problem

 

[ditchy]

why access a prob.. it has the bypass on its door step come off thr junction at dyke road and str8 in

 

[deadlock]

Sheepcote valley is contiminated land because of previous tipping, so development would be hazardous there and any remedial work on this utterly prohibitive.

It is possible to build a stadium on a contaminated site - we did it at the Madejski. When you come next month have a look for the methane vents - tall metal tubes dotted around the site. It does cost a barrowload of cash, though, and is to be avoided if there is an alternative. With us there wasn't within the boundaries of Reading Borough, but you've got an ideal site opposite Sussex Uni...

Best of luck (except for the 7th).

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

why access a prob.. it has the bypass on its door step come off thr junction at dyke road and str8 in

which means everyone will have to drive there- so where will they park?

 

[Scotty Mac]

It is possible to build a stadium on a contaminated site - we did it at the Madejski. When you come next month have a look for the methane vents - tall metal tubes dotted around the site. It does cost a barrowload of cash, though, and is to be avoided if there is an alternative. With us there wasn't within the boundaries of Reading Borough, but you've got an ideal site opposite Sussex Uni...

Best of luck (except for the 7th).

we could build it on sheepcote, but transport would be the other major problem - you'd never get everyone in and everyone out

apart from falmer, only toads hole could do it at a stretch

 

[Scotty Mac]

which means everyone will have to drive there- so where will they park?

park and ride like falmer will have

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

park and ride like falmer will have

but falmer would have train also-
how will you get 20,000 odd people to use a park & ride service?