Day 10 - Thu 17th Feb - FICKLE C.P.R.E.

[Rangdo]

Don't be too alarmed, Sheepcote fails to meet the sustainable transport criteria that was laid out in the ODPM letter that re-opened the Inquiry. So far it sounds as though no group has provided any evidence to prove that sustainable transport is possible to the site - the argument seeming to be that transport is not actually an issue at all. Fortunately the ODPM think otherwise.

The consultants hired by LDC are the ones we need to be watching. They'll have accumulated actual evidence as opposed to "I don't think congestion will be a problem".

 

[Curious Orange]

The consultants hired by LDC are the ones we need to be watching.

My thoughts precisely.

 

[Scarface]

It amazes me that this inquiry has gone on for so long and I am yet to read about a decent solid arguement against Falmer or in favour of another site.

 

[perseus]

Good old Dave - top bloke. He's a big mate of the comedian-activist Mark Thomas, virtually his Brighton contact. Yes, I do recall him being very anti-Falmer, but I admire what he's doing exposing the hypocrisy of the middle-class conservation groups like CPRE and the Regency Society over Sheepcote. Apparently green land is only worth protecting next to affluent villages, not council estates. I don't know how nuanced his message was to the inquiry, I guess his arguments are not exactly tailored to be that winning to a government planning inspector, but any evidence against Sheepcote will help us in our overall goal, so I say well done Dave. His alternative sites can be safely ignored, but surely have great mileage for comedy purposes. Wouldn't it be great to nationalise the playing fields of Brighton's biggest public school and smack a stadium right on it? I could see Mark Thomas doing one of his Channel 4 shows on that

I expect your bloke Dave has had first time experience of the arrogance and conceit and rudeness and hypocrisy and stupidity of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board (including employees).

Just about everybody I have come across (except a few disciples of campaigning greenies) has expressed the same opinions about them.

They are not even really excelling themselves over Falmer. They are just running true to form. I like the bit about "trashing of the downs by agri-business" albeit he did not say aided and abetted by the SDCB.

 

[Curious Orange]

It amazes me that this inquiry has gone on for so long and I am yet to read about a decent solid arguement against Falmer

The only argument against Falmer is that part of the site is in an AONB, and that it hasn't yet been proved conclusively that there isn't a more suitable alternative site. From the reports we've heard back from the Inquiry thus-far nobody, or indeed no body, has been able to prove that an alternative site is able to entirely meet the criteria laid out by the ODPM.

 

[Rangdo]

It amazes me that this inquiry has gone on for so long and I am yet to read about a decent solid arguement against Falmer or in favour of another site.

Thats because the people putting their cases across at the moment are all the obsessive nutters who feel compelled to stick their oar in. However, one LDC start to unpack their briefcases it will be a different matter. Don't forget they've spent tens of thousands of pounds on their case.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The consultants hired by LDC are the ones we need to be watching. They'll have accumulated actual evidence as opposed to "I don't think congestion will be a problem".

Indeed.

Lewes District Council's transport consultant, Tony Harrison, has already submitted his written evidence to the Inquiry.

He agrees with the Albion's transport expert that uncontrolled parking around a ground at Sheepcote Valley will be a serious problem and that a Transport Management Scheme ("TMS") would be necessary to deal with it.

This is Lewes DC's evidence:- "A TMS for the Sheepcote Valley Site must be complemented by on-street parking controls that are enforceable in the surrounding area. This means introducing, if necessary, controls that prevent parking by non-residents on match days. The City Council would use its considerable decriminalised parking enforcement resources and powers. A TMS could imply a need for Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) in association with Resident's Parking Schemes, funded by the Club".

The Albion's evidence is that the size of the Controlled Parking Zone would have to be large enough to discourage drivers from using their cars to get to matches. Because there are so many streets within walking distance (one mile? two miles?) of the ground, this would be very expensive to introduce and run.

There is a difference of opinion between the parties as to what the running costs are. The Albion's expert was talking in terms of several million pounds a year, to cover the costs of enforcement across the whole area.

These costs are usually recovered by charging for Residents' Parking Permits - at about £80 per car per year. Where a scheme has been introduced as a result of a new development (for example, in the area around the Royal Sussex County Hospital), the developer can be forced to pay for residents' permits. That could cost the Albion a fortune and render the whole Sheepcote Valley site unaffordable.

If a residents' parking scheme is NOT enforced, the inevitable outcome will be that many thousands of spectators will choose to travel to games by car, in the expectation (or hope) that they will find free on-street parking within walking distance.

And, if free on-street parking IS available within walking distance, who would bother with Park & Ride? The whole congestion disaster would just escalate.

This is the reason, incidentally, why so much debate is going on at the Inquiry about how far people are prepared to walk to a football match. It's not about "Would you walk to Sheepcote Valley if you lived in Elm Grove?" It's about "How far away from the ground would you be prepared to park your car if you could do so free of charge?"

Well?

 

[Tommy Cook reporting]

Maybe it's still early in the enquiry, but I'm getting concerned that Sheepcote is now being touted as an acceptable alternative to Falmer. I don't think it matters how small or wierd the various groups are - the fact is that there seems to be a concerted effort to get us (and the inspector) looking at Sheepcote. If this happens then we'll be faced with more planning enquiries - even if Prescott decides not to call it in - and hundreds of thousands more in additional costs.

Jim D, we covered this the other day, and Martin Perry himself confirmed on Harty's phone-in, that Prescott would not be able to call in any Planning application if Sheepcote was chosen simply because he would have already said it is the only option! The whole point of the inquiry is to decided whether or not there is an alternative to Falmer. If Sheepcote is the alternative then there it will be!!!

 

[The Large One]

Lord B, what is Sussex Police's take on all this?

My question comes from many matters - and I have to be careful here, I am not tarring everyone with the same brush - but given the social and economic hardships associated with Whitehawk, would parking your car there be a consideration in terms of public safety?

Alternatively, how do they feel about the prospect of 3,000 Millwall / Portsmouth / ###### fans walking from Brighton Station to Sheepcote Valley?

Do they have an opinion which they are allowed to voice to the Inquiry?

 

[The Oldman]

This is the reason, incidentally, why so much debate is going on at the Inquiry about how far people are prepared to walk to a football match. It's not about "Would you walk to Sheepcote Valley if you lived in Elm Grove?" It's about "How far away from the ground would you be prepared to park your car if you could do so free of charge?"


Well? [/B][/QUOTE]

Morning Lord B.
Hope you are enjoying your day off.
As for how far away from the ground you would park your car, my guess is its about time as much as distance. Over 30 minutes and not worth looking for a free parking space. Under 20, most certainly. That would be a huge area to police around Sheepcote. Much easier to control parking at Falmer. There is not much free parking available within 30 mins of Village Way except perhaps the streets of Moulescoombe and Woodingdean although the walk down the hill might put folk off..

 

[perseus]

Sussex Police are asked for their comments on all major Planning Applications.

The cost difference to the taxpayer between different sites will run into £millions over the years.

The proximity to the railway station, especially when playing London clubs is an important cost consideration, as well as logistics.

Anybody experienced aggro at ####### ###### over car parking?

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Indeed.

"How far away from the ground would you be prepared to park your car if you could do so free of charge?"

Well?

I walk from the Park and Ride in Mill Road when I go to Withdean and then back afterwards. The walk back is uphill most of the way. I have got totally used to it and enjoy it as it gives me some good exercise. So there's your answer. I might be tempted to park in Woodingdean and walk. By the way, is the enquiry taking place next Friday (25/02/2005)?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Originally posted by Gaffer
As for how far away from the ground you would park your car, my guess is its about time as much as distance. Over 30 minutes and not worth looking for a free parking space. Under 20, most certainly. That would be a huge area to police around Sheepcote. Much easier to control parking at Falmer. There is not much free parking available within 30 mins of Village Way except perhaps the streets of Moulsecoomb and Woodingdean although the walk down the hill might put folk off..

That is precisely the point.

Parking at Falmer can be effectively controlled. And that means that people can be encouraged to use Park & Ride, buses and trains (with travel vouchers sold with match tickets).

At Sheepcote Valley, this isn't possible (and people wouldn't want to buy a travel voucher with their ticket).

 

[Lord Bracknell]

By the way, is the enquiry taking place next Friday (25/02/2005)?

Next week's programme:-

Tuesday & Wednesday - The Albion's Planning Expert
Thursday - The City Council's Experts
Friday Morning - The Friends of Sheepcote Valley & (probably) the Society of Sussex Downsmen

10am - 5pm Tuesday to Thursday
9.30am - 1.30pm Friday
Brighton Town Hall

 

[The Large One]

Next week's programme:-

Thursday - The City Council's Experts

In one day? Jeez, we're hoping...

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Jim D, we covered this the other day, and Martin Perry himself confirmed on Harty's phone-in, that Prescott would not be able to call in any Planning application if Sheepcote was chosen simply because he would have already said it is the only option! The whole point of the inquiry is to decided whether or not there is an alternative to Falmer. If Sheepcote is the alternative then there it will be!!!

Agreed but there is no chance that Brighton and Hove would pass a planning application for this as it does not meet the Local Plan and also the sustainable transport agrument.

That is why I am so concerned over the apparent shift towards Sheepcoat Valley

 

[The Oldman]

Agreed but there is no chance that Brighton and Hove would pass a planning application for this as it does not meet the Local Plan and also the sustainable transport agrument.

That is why I am so concerned over the apparent shift towards Sheepcoat Valley

But surely if the DPM said Sheepcote should be the site to be considered and the city council rejected it, the club would appeal and the DPM would grant permission?
However in view of the transport problems Sheepcote still has some way to go to be the preferred site in planning terms if I understand Lord B and others correctly

 

[The Large One]

Agreed but there is no chance that Brighton and Hove would pass a planning application for this as it does not meet the Local Plan and also the sustainable transport agrument.

That is why I am so concerned over the apparent shift towards Sheepcoat Valley

That's the point, Dave - the APPARENT shift towards Sheepcote. Because we are not talking about Falmer at this Inquiry, it's not in the forefront of people's minds, it can appear to be on the backburner.

It's a bit like getting excited about Arsenal and Manchester United scrapping for second spot, when Chelsea are, in fact, pissing it.

 

[perseus]

Jim D, we covered this the other day, and Martin Perry himself confirmed on Harty's phone-in, that Prescott would not be able to call in any Planning application if Sheepcote was chosen simply because he would have already said it is the only option! The whole point of the inquiry is to decided whether or not there is an alternative to Falmer. If Sheepcote is the alternative then there it will be!!!

This all falls down if Prescott rejects Falmer and declines to recommend another site (for fear of prejudicing any subsequent Planning Application).

And there is every indication because Sheepcote is not in the Local Plan any Planning Application would lead to objections leading to another Public Inquiry (even if the Council waylaid these objections with a Scrutiny Committee). Whatever, a public consultation, I would thought be be obligatory under the public open spaces planning guidelines?

Furthermore, when removing open spaces, there is always the risk of action in the European Courts. The RSPB is not protesting against Falmer. They may very well object to Sheepcote.

Falmer is about a few conceited people objecting to something they don't like. Sheepcote would be a different ball game entirely.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

Good old Dave - top bloke. He's a big mate of the comedian-activist Mark Thomas, virtually his Brighton contact. Yes, I do recall him being very anti-Falmer, but I admire what he's doing exposing the hypocrisy of the middle-class conservation groups like CPRE and the Regency Society over Sheepcote. Apparently green land is only worth protecting next to affluent villages, not council estates. I don't know how nuanced his message was to the inquiry, I guess his arguments are not exactly tailored to be that winning to a government planning inspector, but any evidence against Sheepcote will help us in our overall goal, so I say well done Dave. His alternative sites can be safely ignored, but surely have great mileage for comedy purposes. Wouldn't it be great to nationalise the playing fields of Brighton's biggest public school and smack a stadium right on it? I could see Mark Thomas doing one of his Channel 4 shows on that

I got 'asked to leave' from Brighton College so I'm all for the sports ground. maybe we can have our training ground there!!!!