Alternative sites to Falmer

[Rangdo]

I think one of the main ones is that there is no viable alternative to building in the AONB which is the whole foundation of the plan and the reopening of the inquiry.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

When I read the report it appeared to me, rather dissapointingly, to say that the application contravened just about every planning guidline there is [except dusturbing bats - because there are non] for development in an AONB.

Can you explain for me the government's conditions you refer to? Explain me happy....

In layman's terms...

I think the point here is not that there aren't contraventions of the AONB planning guidelines, but the scale. Fact is, Falmer probably isn't suitable for a stadium according to the governments guidelines, HOWEVER, it IS the most suitable of all the other sites. There are no other better sites available. Prescott has agreed the case that the stadium IS necessary, therefore, in all likelihood it will be at Falmer.

 

[perseus]

You still haven't got it, have you?

You continue to claim that the Albion team somehow "failed" at the earlier stages in the Inquiry. They didn't. It was the Inspector who failed by being unable to understand that the government's conditions for allowing development in an AONB had been met.

The post-Inquiry representations made by the Club, together with the evidence presented by the Club at the Inquiry, were sufficient to get Prescott to reject the Inspector's recommendations.

However, since some of the issues dealt with in the post-Inquiry representations were never fully examined in public (another failure by the Inspector?), Prescott has had to re-open the Inquiry to avoid the possibility that his YES decision might be challenged through a Judicial Review process.

I know you haven't followed any of this (you've said that you are only interested in sites that are very local to you and that Falmer is a matter for people who live in Brighton), but the least you owe to the Albion is to STOP TRYING TO DISCREDIT THE CLUB'S PERFORMANCE AT THE INQUIRY.

Results speak for themselves. We got a draw. We needed a victory.

 

[Ccider]

In layman's terms...

I think the point here is not that there aren't contraventions of the AONB planning guidelines, but the scale. Fact is, Falmer probably isn't suitable for a stadium according to the governments guidelines, HOWEVER, it IS the most suitable of all the other sites. There are no other better sites available. Prescott has agreed the case that the stadium IS necessary, therefore, in all likelihood it will be at Falmer.

Old ground probably but inspector spent some pages on exploring Sheepcote [the southern end probably wasn't part of the landfill] - whilst its a long way from the station many more fans would walk there. At Falmer NO-ONE is going to walk. So does it end up a judgement call - building in AONB or a long way from a station?

 

[Biscuit]

Why do we need alternative sites?

WE WANT FALMER.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

Old ground probably but inspector spent some pages on exploring Sheepcote [the southern end probably wasn't part of the landfill] - whilst its a long way from the station many more fans would walk there. At Falmer NO-ONE is going to walk. So does it end up a judgement call - building in AONB or a long way from a station?

I think the problem with Sheepcoat is that there are Limited transport options. Walk (5km from the station), Drive or LIMITED scheduled bus service.

Falmer has the advantage of a more frequent scheduled bus service due to the universities and also more importantly the station.

 

[Rangdo]

I think the problem with Sheepcoat is that there are Limited transport options. Walk (5km from the station), Drive or LIMITED scheduled bus service.

Falmer has the advantage of a more frequent scheduled bus service due to the universities and also more importantly the station.

You can't stop people driving and the roads to sheepcote would just not handle the traffic.
Also, I think the land is not suitable for construction for a number of years.

 

[perseus]

The Sussex Downsmen said that if we built the stadium at Shoreham Harbour, it would kick-start the regeneration of the area. And then the private sector would be sure to finance the road building that would be needed.
What planet are these people from? The roads would be needed first, unless Mr Slim doesn't mind hour long queues past his house every game. The little matter of us being unable to afford the land doesn't seem to have occured to these idiots either.

The opponents of Falmer produced a third party plan produced by a private planning group saying these words. This plan was not explained for what it was.

The facts are that:

1) Shoreham Harbour is in the West Sussex Structure Plan for harbour related activities only (to protect businesses and jobs that rely on the harbour).

2) The Harbour Authority are not legally allowed to sell the land.

3) The land is unstable pebbles. This doesn't mean that they cannot build a stadium, (because they built the Power Station) but it would be more expensive piling down to the bedrock deep below.

4) The transport policies would be difficult to comply with, causing a nuisance to neighbours, the A259 is at capacity, and there is not a train station.

These obstacles are insurmoutable in the short term, forseeable future. It is not a reasonable suggestion, nor is Beeding Cement Works. And there are plenty of reasons why Sheepcote is not suitable, like the rotten transport and the planning guidelines about removing public open space.

The answer is not the at these are reasonable suggestions, but the opponents will attempt to cloud the arguments, which they seemed to have successfully done at the last Public Inquiry.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

When I read the report it appeared to me, rather dissapointingly, to say that the application contravened just about every planning guidline there is [except dusturbing bats - because there are non] for development in an AONB.

Can you explain for me the government's conditions you refer to? Explain me happy....

Major development in an AONB is permitted if the development is significant in terms of national interest, if the development is beneficial in social and economic terms, if the environmental impact of the development can be mitigated and if no other suitable site is available.

I think it is clear that the Inspector failed to understand the importance that the government places on sustainable transport access to major developments. Hence his willingness to consider that alternative sites might be "suitable and available". Without sustainable transport, sites like Sheepcote Valley aren't suitable.

The major failing of the Inspector's report is that he doesn't give this key point of government planning policy the weight that is due to it.

His report is also weak on the national interest considerations and the social and economic benefits of the proposed development. But that's not particularly important, since these issues aren't being revisited at the resumed Public Inquiry. This must mean that the Albion have already satisfied Prescott that those conditions are satisfied. If Falmer failed to deliver against those conditions (or the mitigation of environmental impact), Prescott would have had no choice but to turn down the application.

 

[Ccider]

This must mean that the Albion have already satisfied Prescott that those conditions are satisfied. If Falmer failed to deliver against those conditions (or the mitigation of environmental impact), Prescott would have had no choice but to turn down the application.

Thx. So he's never actually said this? Its only an assumption that we've convinced him of the need? Paranoid souls like me might think he's just delaying the NO to re-elect 3 MPs.

:rescott: