Falmer article in today's Times

[Curious Orange]

Lucky there weren't too many NIMBYs about when the Goldstone was built....., on farmland......, on the edge of town.

I've had an automated response from the Times, apparently they'll ring me if they wish to use my letter. I'll keep you all posted as to what happens.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The farmer in question gave evidence at the Public Inquiry. He actually came across as a reasonable bloke. He obviously didn't want the stadium, because the loss of half his acreage would significantly affect his business (which is not a very big farm to start with). But his attitude was very much that he would have to adapt and maybe move somewhere else. The stuff in the Times about "losing my living if this goes ahead" is more hysterical than the impression he gave at the Inquiry. He, more than most people in Falmer, seems to have been aware that if the stadium doesn't take his land, some other development would.

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

He, more than most people in Falmer, seems to have been aware that if the stadium doesn't take his land, some other development would.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking -

Am I right in saying that Brighton & Hove Council's Local Plan had 'earmarked' the land for development anyway...??

 

[Gordon the Gopher]

"No one in the village wants the football stadium" ? Doesn't one of the Albion directors live in the village?

I feel a bit sorry for this guy but under the terms of the lease he could have lost his land anyway. And as Gully says, the club could look to help him out.

At least I know what farmer people are talking about now.

Derek Chapman, head of Adenstar who are contracted to build the stadium. Good bloke, put a lot of money into the club,,,flew his helicopter straight to cardiff from his house in Falmer!

 

[Yorkie]

There is another Falmer resident who is in favour of the stadium. He is a grandfather to a young lad who posts on the official message board.

He gets upset if anyone has a go at Falmer residents because, quite rightly, they are not all the same.

 

[Exiled in Exeter]

Stadium plan 'a threat to rural beauty spots'
BY LAURA PEEK

BRITAIN’S most cherished beauty spots will be under threat if plans to build a football stadium near Brighton are approved by John Prescott, environmentalists said last night.

***Breaking News***

Years after Falmer appears on the agenda they manage to find a NIMBY who is not in favour of it. Good work The Times.

 

[balloonboy]

I've slightly plagiarised Andrew's letter and sent something off - can't let that cr*p go without putting proverbial pen to paper!

Dear Sir,

I always find it interesting reading articles which cover issues on which I have a reasonable understanding - it's then much easier to gauge a newspaper's general standards of accuracy. When errors appear I begin to question the veracity of everything else the newspaper prints in all the myriad areas where my knowledge is far more limited. So, after reading yesterday's item entitled "Stadium plan 'a threat to rural beauty spots'", I really have to question whether I can believe anything written in The Times!

Firstly, and most obviously, the Falmer site is NOT surrounded by woodland. Immediately to the north is a railway line and the A27 dual carriageway. The transport links to the proposed Stadium would be perfect - it is difficult to imagine a site better able to be served by public transport and Park & Ride services, so important in the current climate of "sustainable developments". To the west of the site are various 1960s buildings belonging to the University of Brighton, an area where approval for further development (of university buildings) has already been granted. To the south is a field - definitely NOT woodland. In reality, the area must be the least beautiful AONB in the UK, and most sane environmentalists would surely not campaign to preserve land immediately adjacent to railways and dual carriageways. The picture you use to illustrate your piece has been very carefully crafted to exclude all these elements, and it's this type of very selective photography which does professional journalism no good.

Secondly, the area is definitely NOT within the National Park. A decision on the National Park boundary won't be taken until after the decision on the stadium, and at that stage it is highly likely that the AONB boundaries will be redrawn.

Thirdly, somewhat bizarrely, your accompanying map shows the Solent as having moved substantially east such that it mysteriously appears off the Brighton coast, whilst the South Downs have moved north!

Fourthly, a relatively minor detail, Norman Cook is NOT a director of Brighton & Hove Albion. This is one of those tedious errors which simply highlight that the journalist concerned presumably couldn't be bothered to do their research.

Finally, Richard Allden envisages further development on the site, including a hotel, driving range, etc. This simply won't happen. The very small number of local opponents to Falmer have in the past claimed that the site isn't big enough for a football stadium, so how can they then say that it will later sprout massive further development?

I should add that I am certainly NOT in favour of concreting over the South Downs. The beauty of the Downs, near where I grew up, must be preserved. However, let's not mistake that beauty for a rather ugly field right next to a major four lane highway and railway line, and let's not confuse the need to protect areas of genuine natural beauty for the proposed stadium site.

Yours faithfully,

Jim McAuliffe

 

[Yorkie]

Btw just on a slightly different aspect, the Millenium stadium doesn't have any access by car ; uses Park and Ride and the railway.

Were there any objections because of that? Was that used by our club as an example?

 

[tonytw]

how about copy and pasting andrews letter, and EVERYONE e mail it to the times ??, i would have thought the more pressure the better ? you would have to change the signature of course

 

[Bwian]

It would have more impact if we all send something different but carrying the same message-after all, we're complaining about and annoyed by lazy journalism. Let's not use their model of laziness to get our message across.

 

[Curious Orange]

I think that it would look better if any letters the Times received weren't all identical, as this shows that the people writing in do have a genuine personal opinion. I didn't intend posting my letter as a pro-forma, only so that I could canvass opinion as to the validity of the content.

 

[balloonboy]

I think that it would look better if any letters the Times received weren't all identical, as this shows that the people writing in do have a genuine personal opinion. I didn't intend posting my letter as a pro-forma, only so that I could canvass opinion as to the validity of the content.

Point taken - hopefully my version isn't too close to yours, although the key points are the same (obviously the main thrust of the argument is the inaccurate journalism, and there's only so many ways you can point out the same inaccuracies). However, I think it wouldn't be particularly helpful if we all just copied Andrew's letter word for word.

 

[Curious Orange]

Point taken - hopefully my version isn't too close to yours, although the key points are the same (obviously the main thrust of the argument is the inaccurate journalism, and there's only so many ways you can point out the same inaccuracies). However, I think it wouldn't be particularly helpful if we all just copied Andrew's letter word for word.

Looked fine to me, the format was inevitably similar but the is due to the inaccuracies in the article.

 

[Gwylan]

Here's mine:

Sir

Anyone reading Laura Peek’s article “A threat to rural beauty spots” would be amazed at the idea that a football club could seek to destroy such a rural idyll. Anyone, that is, but people from the area who know that, far from being a bucolic paradise, the area that has been earmarked for the new community stadium in Brighton, is in fact a piece of wasteland, bordered by some ugly university buildings, within a goalie’s drop kick of the A27.

It’s true that the area lies within the boundaries of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but the AONB designation did not stop the destruction of the Downs to expand the A27. Any talk of preserving the South Downs after that piece of vandalism seems foolhardy in the extreme. Most people would be in favour of protecting local beauty spots, but this is a rather ugly piece of development that could only be improved by a state-of-the-art stadium.

It should also be pointed out that the nearby Moulsecoomb estate, where I grew up, is one of the most socially deprived areas in England. The building of the stadium would provide a welcome boost to the local economy, a fact that has been completely ignored by the well-heeled inhabitants of Falmer village in their increasingly hysterical campaign against the stadium.

Yours faithfully
Maxwell Cooter

 

[Caveman]

Just goes to show that you shouldn't believe anything you read in a national newspaper!

 

[b.w.2.]

Here's my effort... they really MUST NOT be allowed to get away with this rubbish...

Stadium Plan 'a threat to rural beauty spots' by Laura Peek

6th June 2004

Dear Sirs,

I have just read the above referenced article that appeared in the 5 June edition of timesonline. In summary, I am absolutely flabbergasted that a national newspaper of your standing could print an article that contains so many inaccuracies and so much bias.

I have listed the most significant errors and omissions in the article below for your consideration and corrective action:

1. The site is most definitely not surrounded by woodland - directly to the north is a railway line and the extremely busy A27 dual-carriageway; to the west there are several rather ugly 1960's university buildings; and to the south is another road, namely Village Way.
2. The boundaries have not been set for the proposed National Park; the decision as to whether the stadium site is within or outside the National Park area will only be made after the stadium decision. It should also be noted that the site's status as an AONB will quite rightly be taken away once the National Park comes into being.
3. The suggestion that supporting facilities such as a hotel, driving range, shops or a cinema may be built in the future is absolutely incredible when set in the context of the prior claims of the stadium's opponents. Specifically, it was previously claimed that the site was far too small for a football stadium, now it is apparently big enough to house many facilities of a small town. This is pure conjecture and utter drivel. The reality is that such enabling developments are infeasible.
4. The Solent does not lie just south of Brighton.
5. Norman Cook is not a Director of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club.
6. The article makes no mention that the site was selected after a rigorous sequential analysis of all sites in the Brighton area revealed that Falmer was the only viable site. The site is fully aligned with government planning policies. The proposal incorporates sustainable transport as a cornerstone. It also offers a number of much-needed socioeconomic benefits, including job creation and training opportunities. The site was designated for development anyway.

I have never written to your fine publication before, but please can you ensure that the errors and bias in the aforementioned article are counterbalanced in some way.

Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus Ruff.

 

[Yorkie]

edited

 

[Yorkie]

One of the most glaring errors is that the public inquiry WILL finish in Autumn.

This was written 12 months ago.

 

[unnameable]

In my letter to The Times, e-mailed today, I pointed out the numerous inaccuracies contained in the article, not the least of which is the movement of The Solent. For such an esteemed newspaper to publish such an inaccurate and unbalanced piece is barely credible. I'm thinking the unthinkable: of switching to The Guardian.

 

[sullyupthewing]

I have emailed them, not with a letter for publication but having a sarky dig at the map and using journos that did not do there research, and that Britains flagship newspaper really should do better.