The Large One
Who's Next?
Yes. Yes I have. Next, please. 
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Day 4 - Tue 8th Feb - NO ONE WALKS MILES TO FOOTBALL
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Just a quick repeat of what I said on Friday ...
The 11 per cent figure for cycling isn't an estimate of the number of bums that will sit astride a saddle on match days. It's the number of people who live within "cycling distance" of the particular stadium site (5 kms).
At the end of today's session, we had some clarification of walking distances as well - sufficient to dispel any myth that thousands of football fans are willing to walk five miles to a match. The hard evidence is that a lot of fans will walk up to a mile, but very few will ever walk more than two miles. Unlike the nonsense that Inspector Collyer put into his report.
And the Albion barrister really got cross about all of the Arsenal "evidence" that was tabled today, particularly since it was submitted by the Falmer Parish Council lawyer who cannot be cross-examined about it.
The Inspector agreed that evidence that can't be subject to cross-examination can't be given much weight. So he has asked if Falmer PC can put up a witness who might know something about the Arsenal Stadium application and the London Borough of Islington's parking policies. Which means that we can all look forward to a cracking day at the Town Hall when Farmer Carr impersonates a Man Who Knows Something.
The 11 per cent figure for cycling isn't an estimate of the number of bums that will sit astride a saddle on match days. It's the number of people who live within "cycling distance" of the particular stadium site (5 kms).
At the end of today's session, we had some clarification of walking distances as well - sufficient to dispel any myth that thousands of football fans are willing to walk five miles to a match. The hard evidence is that a lot of fans will walk up to a mile, but very few will ever walk more than two miles. Unlike the nonsense that Inspector Collyer put into his report.
And the Albion barrister really got cross about all of the Arsenal "evidence" that was tabled today, particularly since it was submitted by the Falmer Parish Council lawyer who cannot be cross-examined about it.
The Inspector agreed that evidence that can't be subject to cross-examination can't be given much weight. So he has asked if Falmer PC can put up a witness who might know something about the Arsenal Stadium application and the London Borough of Islington's parking policies. Which means that we can all look forward to a cracking day at the Town Hall when Farmer Carr impersonates a Man Who Knows Something.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Great. Another delay while they root around for a Gooner NIMBY in Falmer.
Actually, that walking bit discussed today sounds good for us. It puts the emphasis on transport for Sheepcote, which as we all know, is going to be a city-clogging farce.
Actually, that walking bit discussed today sounds good for us. It puts the emphasis on transport for Sheepcote, which as we all know, is going to be a city-clogging farce.
Last edited:
Screaming J
He'll put a spell on you
This cycling obsession seemed to be shared by all Planners for some reason. Whenever I go to meetings with them which, sadly, I have to do quite often, you can bet your rear end that before the end of the meeting one of them will say "what are the implications for our cycling policy in all this ?".
The answer to this is, of course, always "bu**er all".
Lord Bracknell
On fire
My daily report -
Week two of the Inquiry. And day three of the Albion’s transport evidence.
It seems clear that the outcome will hang on arguments about how far people might be prepared to walk to a football match, whether anyone will get on a bike, how many buses can be found to bust congestion, where the nearest station is, and whether people can be persuaded not to leave their cars cluttering up residential streets around the ground.
Mark Leigh, the Club’s transport expert, was finally allowed back home to Manchester at 5.30pm on Tuesday. ‘At least it’s late enough to miss the worst of the rush hour on the M25’ was his parting thought. Positive thinking, right to the end.
He’d done well for us. Battered by relentless questioning from representatives of the opposition, he stuck to his clear message. A stadium anywhere but Falmer would cause problems. Left to their own devices, 70 per cent of football fans travel to games by car.
With effective transport management, car sharing can be encouraged and alternative modes of transport, like buses and trains, can damp down the environmental impact of a stadium. But without effective controls on cars, demand for on-street parking will bring misery to local residents and clog up road junctions throughout the city.
And the mechanisms don’t exist to control cars anywhere but Falmer. We learned a lot about carrots and sticks. With a 22,000 seater stadium, it won’t be enough to wave the stick of a no parking zone around the stadium, unless there’s the carrot of an attractive alternative means of getting to the game. And a railway station two miles away is not an attractive enough carrot. No railway station (as at Upper Beeding Cement Works) would result in up to 7,000 cars travelling along a country road with the capacity to take 1,700 vehicles an hour, and nowhere to park when drivers eventually got to the ground. Simply not credible.
Toads Hole Valley is two miles from the nearest station. All the evidence is that only 7 per cent of football supporters are willing to walk two miles to a football match. So, however good the train service is, most people would drive. And they’d park on nearby streets, unless an enforceable residents’ parking scheme, costing £2 million a year to run, was in place throughout the surrounding area. And if the scheme WAS in place, people simply wouldn’t be able to get to matches, because there wouldn’t be enough buses to get them there.
Much the same arguments would defeat attempts to deliver sustainable transport access to Sheepcote Valley, even allowing for the better bus services along the seafront. The fact that Arsenal Football Club can afford to pay for parking restrictions around their new 60,000 seater stadium makes not a jot of difference to an Albion planning application for a ground where matchday income is likely to be £2 million less. That’s £2 million a game, by the way.
The transport argument seems to have gone well for the Albion. At the end of Mark Leigh’s evidence, the Inspector, David Brier, took his turn to ask some questions. There weren’t many of them, and they were complicated, technical questions. The man seems to understand transport. That bodes well.
There were other good signs. The Inquiry might not now need to drag on until April. It turns out that some of the Albion’s evidence will not be challenged by most of the parties, which should cut down on the time it takes to present it. And Robert White, Lewes District Council’s lawyer, has been persuaded to make his Closing Submission in writing, to allow him the luxury of his Immovable Professional Obligation, without delaying the end of the Inquiry. Excellent news!
The only cloud on the horizon was the news that there will be some sort of case put for yet more alternative sites – Hove Park, Hove Recreation Ground, the Goldstone site, Hickstead and Newhaven East Side. Thank you Mr Scott! Of whom, more later, no doubt. Hopefully, the promise from Jonathan Clay, that the Albion won’t dignify these barmy ideas with any lengthy investigation, won’t damage our fundamental case. The Inspector seemed sympathetic, as he explained, wearily, that everyone deserved a fair hearing, but cases for alternative sites would have to demonstrate real credibility to be given any weight.
Finally – what’s this stuff about Arsenal? Falmer Parish Council have submitted a pile of documents about the Ashburton Grove development and the London Borough of Islington’s parking strategy, which – complained Jonathan Clay – can only be dealt with properly if the Parish Council put someone up to be questioned about them. But do they have an expert? We shall see next week whether Tom Carr, their star witness, has been able to do some homework. But, if you ask me, that’s a tough job for a farmer.
Week two of the Inquiry. And day three of the Albion’s transport evidence.
It seems clear that the outcome will hang on arguments about how far people might be prepared to walk to a football match, whether anyone will get on a bike, how many buses can be found to bust congestion, where the nearest station is, and whether people can be persuaded not to leave their cars cluttering up residential streets around the ground.
Mark Leigh, the Club’s transport expert, was finally allowed back home to Manchester at 5.30pm on Tuesday. ‘At least it’s late enough to miss the worst of the rush hour on the M25’ was his parting thought. Positive thinking, right to the end.
He’d done well for us. Battered by relentless questioning from representatives of the opposition, he stuck to his clear message. A stadium anywhere but Falmer would cause problems. Left to their own devices, 70 per cent of football fans travel to games by car.
With effective transport management, car sharing can be encouraged and alternative modes of transport, like buses and trains, can damp down the environmental impact of a stadium. But without effective controls on cars, demand for on-street parking will bring misery to local residents and clog up road junctions throughout the city.
And the mechanisms don’t exist to control cars anywhere but Falmer. We learned a lot about carrots and sticks. With a 22,000 seater stadium, it won’t be enough to wave the stick of a no parking zone around the stadium, unless there’s the carrot of an attractive alternative means of getting to the game. And a railway station two miles away is not an attractive enough carrot. No railway station (as at Upper Beeding Cement Works) would result in up to 7,000 cars travelling along a country road with the capacity to take 1,700 vehicles an hour, and nowhere to park when drivers eventually got to the ground. Simply not credible.
Toads Hole Valley is two miles from the nearest station. All the evidence is that only 7 per cent of football supporters are willing to walk two miles to a football match. So, however good the train service is, most people would drive. And they’d park on nearby streets, unless an enforceable residents’ parking scheme, costing £2 million a year to run, was in place throughout the surrounding area. And if the scheme WAS in place, people simply wouldn’t be able to get to matches, because there wouldn’t be enough buses to get them there.
Much the same arguments would defeat attempts to deliver sustainable transport access to Sheepcote Valley, even allowing for the better bus services along the seafront. The fact that Arsenal Football Club can afford to pay for parking restrictions around their new 60,000 seater stadium makes not a jot of difference to an Albion planning application for a ground where matchday income is likely to be £2 million less. That’s £2 million a game, by the way.
The transport argument seems to have gone well for the Albion. At the end of Mark Leigh’s evidence, the Inspector, David Brier, took his turn to ask some questions. There weren’t many of them, and they were complicated, technical questions. The man seems to understand transport. That bodes well.
There were other good signs. The Inquiry might not now need to drag on until April. It turns out that some of the Albion’s evidence will not be challenged by most of the parties, which should cut down on the time it takes to present it. And Robert White, Lewes District Council’s lawyer, has been persuaded to make his Closing Submission in writing, to allow him the luxury of his Immovable Professional Obligation, without delaying the end of the Inquiry. Excellent news!
The only cloud on the horizon was the news that there will be some sort of case put for yet more alternative sites – Hove Park, Hove Recreation Ground, the Goldstone site, Hickstead and Newhaven East Side. Thank you Mr Scott! Of whom, more later, no doubt. Hopefully, the promise from Jonathan Clay, that the Albion won’t dignify these barmy ideas with any lengthy investigation, won’t damage our fundamental case. The Inspector seemed sympathetic, as he explained, wearily, that everyone deserved a fair hearing, but cases for alternative sites would have to demonstrate real credibility to be given any weight.
Finally – what’s this stuff about Arsenal? Falmer Parish Council have submitted a pile of documents about the Ashburton Grove development and the London Borough of Islington’s parking strategy, which – complained Jonathan Clay – can only be dealt with properly if the Parish Council put someone up to be questioned about them. But do they have an expert? We shall see next week whether Tom Carr, their star witness, has been able to do some homework. But, if you ask me, that’s a tough job for a farmer.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Great update as ever Lord B.Lord Bracknell said:
This has me HORRIFIED though - surely, SURELY these other sites mentioned are complete and utter non-starters.
Not sure where Hove Recreation ground is ? ? But you'd NEVER fit a 22,000 seater stadium in Hove Park - that is just bloody ridiculous. And as for Hickstead and Newhaven - since when have those sites been in Brighton ? They were stretching a point to get Shoreham and Beeding included, but just how far and wide is the net going to be cast ? How about Dover, or Havant ? If ANY weight is given to those alternatives, this whole process will descend even further into farce than it already has.
Last edited:
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I can't believe this berk has nominated the Goldstone, we know roughly how much that site would cost to buy the freehold back for and we clearly don't have £30 million lying around.
(figure plucked out of the air based on £21 million, plus a bit for the interveneing years. The figure of £30 million is no way FACT)
(figure plucked out of the air based on £21 million, plus a bit for the interveneing years. The figure of £30 million is no way FACT)
Last edited:
JJ McClure
Go Jags
Is Hove Rec where the rugby club play?
All those extra sites are complete no brainers.
All those extra sites are complete no brainers.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Surely a line has to be drawn here. The ODPM wrote last JULY explaining the sites which were to be further investigated, and inviting potential alternatives to be submitted. It is, to put it mildly, a little late in the day to start raising further alternatives DURING the f***ing INQUIRY.
This is just sheer desperation on the NIMBYS part. They know damn well they are losing the battle on the alternate sites, and so their last hope is to further delay it all even further by lobbing in something else, ANYTHING, to further derail the Inquiry and the Falmer application. The Inspector MUST see through this and draw a line under the proceedings otherwise, in theory, this process will never end (which is what they want, of course).
On the one hand, its reassuring that the Inspector has said that any alternative would have to "demonstrate real credibility to be given any weight." But on the other hand, how far down the road does everyone have to go to "demonstrate credibility" ? We've already had the nonsensical submissions of Beeding and Shoreham Airport thrown into the pot - if THOSE non-starters had to be investigated, then the scope for other totally pointless and unworkable alternatives is almost limitless.
This has REALLY pissed on my chips today.
This is just sheer desperation on the NIMBYS part. They know damn well they are losing the battle on the alternate sites, and so their last hope is to further delay it all even further by lobbing in something else, ANYTHING, to further derail the Inquiry and the Falmer application. The Inspector MUST see through this and draw a line under the proceedings otherwise, in theory, this process will never end (which is what they want, of course).
On the one hand, its reassuring that the Inspector has said that any alternative would have to "demonstrate real credibility to be given any weight." But on the other hand, how far down the road does everyone have to go to "demonstrate credibility" ? We've already had the nonsensical submissions of Beeding and Shoreham Airport thrown into the pot - if THOSE non-starters had to be investigated, then the scope for other totally pointless and unworkable alternatives is almost limitless.
This has REALLY pissed on my chips today.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Easy, Easy. Be at peace.
It is down to Mr Scott to produce his 'evidence'. According to the schedule, he is due to speak near the end of the timetable for one day. Jonathan Clay will rip him to shreds in 30 seconds - without the chandelier falling on him.
Hove Rec is the next plot of land along Old Shoreham Road to the east of Hove Park.
It is down to Mr Scott to produce his 'evidence'. According to the schedule, he is due to speak near the end of the timetable for one day. Jonathan Clay will rip him to shreds in 30 seconds - without the chandelier falling on him.
Hove Rec is the next plot of land along Old Shoreham Road to the east of Hove Park.
- Thread starter
- #53
Those sites should'nt even be considered by the Inspector, ok its fair for someone to have a say but no way inhell should they be allowed them now. Besides if they were any good they would've put them in before Beeding/Airport sites but its obvious they are not even worthy of it.
Good news on the final submissions by letter, thats a Delaying Tactic scuppered easily enough...bloody NIMBYS
Good news on the final submissions by letter, thats a Delaying Tactic scuppered easily enough...bloody NIMBYS
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Thanks for the soothing flannel upon my fevered brow, TLO.The Large One said:
I sincerely hope you are right, and that the Inspector dismisses these other "alternatives" as quickly as Mr Clay will, otherwise this is just getting f***ing ridiculous.
Last edited:
Barnet Seagull
Luxury Player
With sustainable transport strategy beying the key, even the site of the the former Goldstone is a worse location than Falmer.
i was at the inquiry yestersday, it was funny the nimby's expert had no real evidence he just carried one talking about asbuton grove and how the council can put a residents parking scheme in effect at a small cost of 2 million a year.
the other funny thing was the lady late in the afternoon from the regency trust (who ever they are) asking Mr Leigh questions about putting a metro/tube like operation in place to take the fans to the shoreham harbour. t is never going to work.
also how many people cycle to football matches? i never have, i don't even own a bike.
the other funny thing was the lady late in the afternoon from the regency trust (who ever they are) asking Mr Leigh questions about putting a metro/tube like operation in place to take the fans to the shoreham harbour. t is never going to work.
also how many people cycle to football matches? i never have, i don't even own a bike.
cheshunt seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 2,576
Hove Rec is barely 100 yds from my mum's house near the intersection of the Drive and Old Shoreham Road, and the local rugby club only recently moved there.
The fact that it and these other ludicrously impractical sites are being put forward seems to smack of some desperation in the NIMBY camp.
The fact that it and these other ludicrously impractical sites are being put forward seems to smack of some desperation in the NIMBY camp.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I have heard it all now. A TUBE link from (presumably) Shoreham/Southwick Station to Shoreham Harbour ? I cannot even BEGIN to imagine the cost of tunnelling from those stations and running a tube train to and from the stadium. That is probably the most idiotic, pie-in-the-sky idea I have heard come out of this whole Inquiry - and thats certainly saying something.andima said:
Honestly, I would be utterly embarrassed standing up at an inquiry and making a suggestion like that. These people truley are inhabiting a completely different planet (or at least I wish they were).