Lord Bracknell
On fire
Public Inquiry - Day Two Report
Fans of Monty Python might remember the bookshop sketch which culminated in the discovery of a rare book called “Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying”. Real fans might even have read it.
They would have been at a distinct advantage as proceedings got underway on the second day of the resumed Falmer Stadium Inquiry.
The main witness in the morning session was Martin Perry, Albion Chief Executive, who led us through the intricacies of how to do … er … Quantity Surveying. The topic was an important one – whether or not any of the alleged alternative sites were, in fact, available, suitable and affordable.
The first basic test was whether the sites were in the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, since it seemed important for a football club called Brighton and Hove Albion to be based in the community that had sustained it for over a century. That rather did for Upper Beeding Cement Works (much of which turns out to be in Horsham District) and Shoreham Airport, which, even if it changed its name to Brighton City Airport, wouldn’t qualify as a site that was actually IN the conurbation. The Club would simply not be prepared to go to either of these sites.
But anyway, neither of these sites could be realistically acquired. The Airport site at New Monks Farm had an owner who was decidedly unwilling to sell and the cost of providing road access from the A27 made it unaffordable. The Cement Works looked a bit more promising – the owner was willing to sell. But only if the Football Club paid for all the costs of cleaning up the site and laying on the incredibly expensive road improvements that would be necessary to get 22,000 people out there to watch the football.
We learned that Adur District Council oppose a stadium at the airport and are very concerned about the access and traffic issues affecting the Cement Works site. They also oppose any plans to re-open the railway to Upper Beeding, since it would conflict with the current recreational use of the trackbed as an important amenity in the proposed National Park.
Back in the conurbation, things looked very difficult with a number of the sites. Brighton Station had already been snapped up by another developer, so that was obviously out of the question, to say nothing about its affordability. Coral’s Greyhound Stadium needed to come with the Co-op store next door, together with the development site the other side of the fence, so that looked very iffy as well.
The Shoreham Harbour site was in the ownership of 25 separate freeholders – very unpromising. Even if they all turned out to be keen to be displaced by a stadium, the £83.6 million development costs would kill the project off, even before someone started worrying about how to raise something like an extra £90 million to provide road access to the A27 (£200 million if you fancied the tunnel option). Incidentally, both the Shoreham Port Authority and Adur District Council strongly oppose the use of Shoreham Harbour as a stadium site.
Withdean was out of the question as well, bearing in mind the need to relocate existing users like the athletics clubs, the leisure centre, the pub and the City’s park and ride facility. Since a 22,000 seater stadium would leave no room for a coach park, there was also the question of how to get all those pedestrians to the buses and trains after the game. Widening Tongdean Lane under the railway would be expensive enough, but Snakey Lane would also be needed. And would the 16 freeholders be willing to sell? Another site to add to the list headed “unrealistic”.
A stadium at Waterhall would also mean relocating existing community sports facilities. Access issues, like a second underpass beneath the A27, or a link road from the Devils Dyke roundabout, made it unaffordable. Another no-no.
So we were down to Sheepcote Valley or Toads Hole Valley. And this is where the lesson on how to go quantity surveying came in. We learned all about “Elemental Cost Plans” and “Value Engineering” and whether “Cost per Seat” was a meaningful measure to use. And we learned what an affordable stadium actually is. It turns out to be a stadium that can be funded from loans, where the borrower can keep the debt repayments down to no more than 25 per cent of the football club’s turnover.
Falmer met that target. So would Sheepcote Valley South. The other sites didn’t (Shoreham Harbour, for example, comes out at 77 per cent of turnover – and that’s without the roads).
But what about Toads Hole Valley? This was an interesting part of the morning. It turns out that the discussions with the owners have been very bumpy, mainly because it is clear that they would be seeking ways to achieve a major commercial development alongside any football stadium – in spite of the fact that there is no provision in the Local Plan for any development on the site. The THV owners appear to be willing to lease the Club enough land for a stadium and coach parking – for a peppercorn rent and a premium payment of £5.5 million, provided that they can develop half a million square foot of office space on the site. Now that’s a LOT of office space! And, bearing in mind that the Football Club would have to bear all of the development costs of the stadium and meet the very expensive access costs, it really is a non-starter. The option of the Club buying the whole site and sharing the benefits of a more sensibly scaled development doesn’t seem to be available. So THV fails the affordability test as well as not being available, in any practical sense of the word.
And that more or less concluded Martin Perry’s evidence, apart from his revelation that Lewes District Council had engaged a consultant to undertake their own version of the same site analysis. Presumably this use of council tax payers’ money was intended to produce evidence that could be used to challenge the Club’s own conclusions. Remarkably, however, Martin made the observation that – once you’d made the appropriate adjustments to take account of slightly different Quantity Surveying approaches – there wasn’t that much difference between the two parties.
Indeed, rather than embark on a cross-examination of the Club’s Chief Executive, the District Council’s representative agreed that it would be a good idea if the two organisations could get together and produce an agreed statement of costings (or at least a clear statement of areas of agreement and disagreement).
All very promising. I guess even Ethel the Aardvark would be impressed.
And so the Inquiry moved on to look at Transport issues. That will be the subject of my next report. But it can wait until all the evidence has been put.
Fans of Monty Python might remember the bookshop sketch which culminated in the discovery of a rare book called “Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying”. Real fans might even have read it.
They would have been at a distinct advantage as proceedings got underway on the second day of the resumed Falmer Stadium Inquiry.
The main witness in the morning session was Martin Perry, Albion Chief Executive, who led us through the intricacies of how to do … er … Quantity Surveying. The topic was an important one – whether or not any of the alleged alternative sites were, in fact, available, suitable and affordable.
The first basic test was whether the sites were in the conurbation of Brighton and Hove, since it seemed important for a football club called Brighton and Hove Albion to be based in the community that had sustained it for over a century. That rather did for Upper Beeding Cement Works (much of which turns out to be in Horsham District) and Shoreham Airport, which, even if it changed its name to Brighton City Airport, wouldn’t qualify as a site that was actually IN the conurbation. The Club would simply not be prepared to go to either of these sites.
But anyway, neither of these sites could be realistically acquired. The Airport site at New Monks Farm had an owner who was decidedly unwilling to sell and the cost of providing road access from the A27 made it unaffordable. The Cement Works looked a bit more promising – the owner was willing to sell. But only if the Football Club paid for all the costs of cleaning up the site and laying on the incredibly expensive road improvements that would be necessary to get 22,000 people out there to watch the football.
We learned that Adur District Council oppose a stadium at the airport and are very concerned about the access and traffic issues affecting the Cement Works site. They also oppose any plans to re-open the railway to Upper Beeding, since it would conflict with the current recreational use of the trackbed as an important amenity in the proposed National Park.
Back in the conurbation, things looked very difficult with a number of the sites. Brighton Station had already been snapped up by another developer, so that was obviously out of the question, to say nothing about its affordability. Coral’s Greyhound Stadium needed to come with the Co-op store next door, together with the development site the other side of the fence, so that looked very iffy as well.
The Shoreham Harbour site was in the ownership of 25 separate freeholders – very unpromising. Even if they all turned out to be keen to be displaced by a stadium, the £83.6 million development costs would kill the project off, even before someone started worrying about how to raise something like an extra £90 million to provide road access to the A27 (£200 million if you fancied the tunnel option). Incidentally, both the Shoreham Port Authority and Adur District Council strongly oppose the use of Shoreham Harbour as a stadium site.
Withdean was out of the question as well, bearing in mind the need to relocate existing users like the athletics clubs, the leisure centre, the pub and the City’s park and ride facility. Since a 22,000 seater stadium would leave no room for a coach park, there was also the question of how to get all those pedestrians to the buses and trains after the game. Widening Tongdean Lane under the railway would be expensive enough, but Snakey Lane would also be needed. And would the 16 freeholders be willing to sell? Another site to add to the list headed “unrealistic”.
A stadium at Waterhall would also mean relocating existing community sports facilities. Access issues, like a second underpass beneath the A27, or a link road from the Devils Dyke roundabout, made it unaffordable. Another no-no.
So we were down to Sheepcote Valley or Toads Hole Valley. And this is where the lesson on how to go quantity surveying came in. We learned all about “Elemental Cost Plans” and “Value Engineering” and whether “Cost per Seat” was a meaningful measure to use. And we learned what an affordable stadium actually is. It turns out to be a stadium that can be funded from loans, where the borrower can keep the debt repayments down to no more than 25 per cent of the football club’s turnover.
Falmer met that target. So would Sheepcote Valley South. The other sites didn’t (Shoreham Harbour, for example, comes out at 77 per cent of turnover – and that’s without the roads).
But what about Toads Hole Valley? This was an interesting part of the morning. It turns out that the discussions with the owners have been very bumpy, mainly because it is clear that they would be seeking ways to achieve a major commercial development alongside any football stadium – in spite of the fact that there is no provision in the Local Plan for any development on the site. The THV owners appear to be willing to lease the Club enough land for a stadium and coach parking – for a peppercorn rent and a premium payment of £5.5 million, provided that they can develop half a million square foot of office space on the site. Now that’s a LOT of office space! And, bearing in mind that the Football Club would have to bear all of the development costs of the stadium and meet the very expensive access costs, it really is a non-starter. The option of the Club buying the whole site and sharing the benefits of a more sensibly scaled development doesn’t seem to be available. So THV fails the affordability test as well as not being available, in any practical sense of the word.
And that more or less concluded Martin Perry’s evidence, apart from his revelation that Lewes District Council had engaged a consultant to undertake their own version of the same site analysis. Presumably this use of council tax payers’ money was intended to produce evidence that could be used to challenge the Club’s own conclusions. Remarkably, however, Martin made the observation that – once you’d made the appropriate adjustments to take account of slightly different Quantity Surveying approaches – there wasn’t that much difference between the two parties.
Indeed, rather than embark on a cross-examination of the Club’s Chief Executive, the District Council’s representative agreed that it would be a good idea if the two organisations could get together and produce an agreed statement of costings (or at least a clear statement of areas of agreement and disagreement).
All very promising. I guess even Ethel the Aardvark would be impressed.
And so the Inquiry moved on to look at Transport issues. That will be the subject of my next report. But it can wait until all the evidence has been put.
