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.
Hope you are right P .. as i said ..i dont care where we have a stadium as long as its a decent building ,but my own thiughts are that waterhall looks the most suitable
Falmer is in/on edge of an AONB, but last time i checked it was a bunch of temporary University buildings. Who know how they detemin the boundries for these AONB, but i get the impression they just draw the line along the nearest natural/siginifcant obstacle, whih in both cases is the A27.
Waterhall was always strongest site, but Falmer was more feasible for financial reasons. Waterhall would have cost more due to needing some nifty engineering to keep the water out and building a rail stop. by going for Falmer we are able to tap into various grants and other funding sources as its a bit of a joint venture with the universities. Anyone who denies these points is being dishonest. Planning a Waterhall would have been a doddle as its already used for sports (ive been told so by a someone who used to be on a council planning committee). If we a had £60million spare, we'd probably already have a stadium at Waterhall built.