Day 1 - Wed 2nd Feb - INITIAL SESSION

[Paddy B]

*snigger* you said Chopper

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

DAY ONE REPORT

The latest phase of the Albion’s eight year struggle to find a new permanent home in the City kicked off at Brighton Town Hall on Wednesday with the re-opening of the Falmer stadium Public Inquiry. A packed Council Chamber saw the teams line up for action in front of a new Inspector, David Brier, whose task it will be to sift through many thousands of words of fresh evidence, listen to days of cross-examination of witnesses and then write a report that will help John Prescott make the decision he couldn’t quite reach last year – will the Albion get approval for a new stadium at Falmer?

The issue is a simple one. Is there anywhere better than Falmer, the site that was identified by the Albion as long ago as 1999 as the only feasible location for the Club to develop its full potential as a major force in English football and the focus of community sport in the city?

Most of the morning session was taken up with administrative matters. Which organisations are here to have their say? All the usual suspects were there – the Football Club, the City Council, Lewes District Council, Falmer Parish Council, Rottingdean Parish Council, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, the Society of Sussex Downsmen, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, plus a few newcomers to the argument – the Regency Society of Brighton and Hove, Shoreham Port Authority, the Friends of Sheepcote Valley, the Friends of Whitehawk Hill, the Friends of Waterhall and the Friends of Stanmer Park. On the surface, all this friendliness looked very promising. But how long will it last?

Many of the participants in the Inquiry had joined the Inspector the previous day on a tour of the various sites that will be investigated over the next few weeks. As people gathered at the Town Hall, that little coach trip had already made the front page of the Argus, following accusations that Falmer Parish Council had been playing dirty tricks by banning cars from their village to make the area more beautiful and less congested than it normally was. In referring to this story, the Inspector simply pointed out that his tour was of little consequence and that he intended to make a proper inspection of the sites towards the end of the Inquiry, once he had heard some evidence.

More admin issues followed. The Inquiry session will normally run from 10am to 5pm, except on Fridays, when it will start at 9.30 and finish at 1.30. It won’t be a re-run of the previous Inquiry. It will stick strictly to the issues set out in John Prescott’s letter, dated 26 July 2004. It’s a Public Inquiry, not a public meeting, so “please refrain from laughter and clapping, which can be very distracting”. And the Inspector will not be making a recommendation that planning consent will be granted or refused. Eh? Say that again…

“My Report will be an appraisal of the weight to be given to the merits of the alternative sites. It will not make a recommendation”.

We then discovered that no-one knew what the fire evacuation procedures were. At the Town Hall, that is, not at the various stadium sites. Someone hurried off to find out, leaving the floor clear for a brief discussion of whether or not the Council Chamber met the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act as far as people with hearing difficulties were concerned. Another reminder from the Inspector that this was a Public Inquiry, with strict terms of reference.

Then, suddenly things got moving. Jonathan Clay, the Albion’s barrister, was on his feet, presenting his opening submission. We learned that the Club were mystified by the failure of the previous Inspector to understand the importance of a stadium in Brighton to the national interest. He had failed to identify any legal or practical reason why the project at Falmer should not proceed. Fortunately, John Prescott had not been persuaded by the earlier Report. “If he had accepted that the stadium was not in the national interest, he could not possibly have invited us to provide evidence on alternative sites which are in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. If he considered the environmental effects of the stadium at Falmer were unacceptable, he would not have reopened the Inquiry”.

On the alternative sites, the Club considered that Brighton Station was no longer available, because alternative development was already underway. Coral’s Greyhound Stadium was agreed by all the major parties to be too small. Neither of these two sites would figure very much at the Inquiry.

Falmer Parish Council had not identified a precise location at Shoreham Airport, although it appeared that they wanted a stadium not next to the airport, but instead of it. In any event, the airport site was not suitable or viable, nor was it within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove. The same applied to Beeding Cement Works.

Waterhall, deep in the AONB, had been dismissed as unsuitable by the previous Inspector. It was unsustainable, formidably expensive and probably incapable of being provided with safe access at reasonable cost.

Shoreham Harbour was not a practical alternative in the short or medium term and would not be made available by the Port Authority.

Withdean failed the requirement to provide a site large enough for a 22,000 capacity community stadium with a bus/coach park. Even as a short-term, intermediate stadium, pending development at Shoreham Harbour, as suggested by Mr Collyer, it wasn’t a realistic prospect.

There were only two real contenders as alternatives – Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley. But Sheepcote Valley presented insurmountable access problems that would cause gridlock in central and east Brighton every time there was a large capacity crowd. This would apply to either of the two Sheepcote sites that Lewes District Council had identified. Moreover, one of those sites, the more northerly of the two, had the added disadvantages of land contamination and visual prominence.

Toads Hole Valley was in the AONB, but the environmental impact of development there would be more severe and more wide reaching than at Falmer. The site was unaffordable and would not be accessible by a sustainable means of transport. The owners were more interested in promoting their land for employment uses, which they had failed to persuade the City Council were acceptable.

The Club’s position was that there is only one site for a community stadium for Brighton and Hove which sustainable, viable and available, and that site is at Falmer.

Mary Macpherson then outlined the City Council’s case, which supported the position of the Albion. Falmer was the only realistic choice for the location of a community stadium. The City Council would, however, assist the Inspector by producing, as far as it can, all the information needed to evaluate the sites that will be considered by the Inquiry.

This includes an entirely new transport analysis using fresh data relating to the accessibility of the various sites by sustainable modes of transport. This would take account of known information about where Albion supporters lived. It would demonstrate that Falmer provides the best sustainable access, once the otherwise unavailable sites at Brighton Station and Coral’s Stadium have been discounted. Sheepcote Valley would have over 11,000 supporters trying to reach the stadium by car, with insufficient on-site parking (or park and ride) to serve them – leaving over 3,000 supporters looking for parking spaces in nearby residential streets.

Toads Hole Valley would present similar problems, with 2,600 cars likely to park in front of people’s houses.

On top of the transport drawbacks of the alternative sites, there were other planning considerations that the City Council would wish to put before the Inspector.

Robert White, for Lewes District Council, took a quite different view of the issues. He gave great weight to the conclusion of Inspector Collyer that the need for a stadium, in terms of national considerations, had not been demonstrated. If there was a need, there were alternative sites which were available, affordable and suitable, that would not be as harmful to the environment or amenity as Falmer. However, Lewes considered that only Sheepcote Valley, Toads Hole Valley, Withdean and Shoreham Harbour were available and suitable for the football club, although the council accepted that Withdean was really only suitable as a short-term option until an alternative could be found.

We then adjourned for lunch.

After the break came the Albion’s first technical witness, Andy Simons, architect with the KSS Design Group. He gave a very interesting presentation on the design issues that need to be taken into account in planning a football stadium. It needs to be large enough, the site needs to have space for transport infrastructure, safety requirements need to be fully met and visual impact needs to be considered carefully.

The design of the stadium at Falmer was specific to the site and took account of the surrounding landscape. His evaluation of the alternative sites was necessarily based on basic principles, rather than detailed final designs.

The Coral’s Stadium site was too small, and would require the loss of the Co-op supermarket and the abandonment of neighbouring development that was already at an advanced stage.

Shoreham Harbour would require much of Aldrington Basin to be filled in and even then would present some safety issues.

Sheepcote Valley (South) would require the relocation of some existing facilities, such as the caravan park and Whitehawk Football Club. The northern option, put forward by Lewes District Council would be exceptionally visible and use contaminated land.

The Toads Hole Valley site was large enough for a stadium, but would be highly visible in a very sensitive area. Safe access would need to include a very wide pedestrian underpass beneath King George VI Avenue. Car parking would have a big visual impact, worsened if the site was shared with commercial development.

The main issue at Waterhall would be visual impact, compounded by the need to provide a new access to the A27 and a wide footbridge over the A27 (which would present practical and safety issues).

Withdean would require the re-orientation of the stadium if 22,000 spectators were to be accommodated and, even with the demolition of the Sports Centre and the Sportsman, it would not be possible to accommodate facilities for buses and coaches. This would mean that the Tongdean Lane railway arch would need to be widened, at huge cost, and expensive works would also be needed at Snakey Lane. The stadium would be highly visible from nearby houses.

A stadium at Shoreham Airport would be very difficult to achieve if the proposed new runway were to go ahead. The only acceptable location, in aviation safety terms, would be at the extreme north west of the airport site, unacceptably close to residential properties. The options would be more flexible if the new runway did not go ahead, but new access to the A27 would be required in any event. It would also be necessary to consider new access from the south, crossing the railway.

The afternoon concluded with a detailed discussion about the Inquiry timetable. With so many intended witnesses, there is a real possibility that the Inquiry will have to continue into April, concluding in the week ending Friday 15 April. Everybody agreed that it would be desirable to finish by 9 March if possible, but this would need some of the major parties to commit themselves to cutting down the time available for them to present evidence. Further discussions between the Planning Inspectorate’s staff and the various parties need to be had. However, it now looks certain that there is no way that the Inquiry can be completed and the Inspector’s Report submitted in time for a decision to be announced by John Prescott before a May general election.

Only one beer? The first one wouldn't have touched the sides of my throat

 

[perseus]

Lord Bracknell's post

Seems OK.

Why no mention of the removal (relocation) of public space and environmental qualities of Sheepcote? (a small point, but carrries well with the birdwatchers).

Question: what are the Shoreham Port Authority going to say?

They should concentrate on running the port properly. They are not even empowered to sell the land if they wanted to.

 

[Marc]

They should concentrate on running the port properly. They are not even empowered to sell the land if they wanted to.

Impact on traffic, environment, businesses that type of stuff.

 

[perseus]

I think that the management of the port at one time (Maritime Plan*) have secret long term plans to consolidate (asset-strip) the port facilities and build non-port related activities. This is not in the Structure Plan but the Maritime Plan was presented at the last Public Inquiry.

This is the Sussex Downs Conservation Board putting this across as a long term (unrealistic) plan. It is never going to happen, but they will attempt to sow the seeds of this possibility. I would not trust them.

(* "consultancy" paid for by Brighton and Adur Councils.)

 

[The Large One]

Lord Bracknell's post

Seems OK.

Why no mention of the removal (relocation) of public space and environmental qualities of Sheepcote? (a small point, but carrries well with the birdwatchers).

Question: what are the Shoreham Port Authority going to say?

They should concentrate on running the port properly. They are not even empowered to sell the land if they wanted to.

f*** SAKE, Judas.

We have up to six weeks of this nonsense to go through. They are not going to say everything on day one, are they? Wait til everyone gets up and has their turn.

 

[ShorehamGull]

No mention of the fit bird today

 

[perseus]

No mention of the fit bird today

Is it Miss A Gerry or not?

 

[Porky]

No matter who wins or loses in this interminabl quagmire, there will be one group of winners.
Those modern day charlatans .....THE LAWYERS.

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
When ypu see his/her lips moving.

 

[ShorehamGull]

Is it Miss A Gerry or not?

No it's Mr Clay's Blonde haired assistant