Sheepcoat Valley

[SillSeagull]

As a new member to NSC, can someone please update me on why Sheepcoat Valley is not a viable alternative if Falmer is turned down? I know that the transport routes would be the main problem, but there seems to be a felling that we could not even build a stadium there?

I know that we cannot afford another planning application, and that we don't want to consider a Falmer no, but was just wondering about the options JP might thrust upon us....

 

[Marc]

something to do with it being a Landfill site and new regulations meaning you have to wait X number of years before you can build on top (something to do with leaking gases from decaying stuff or something)

 

[CHAPPERS]

It's CONTAMINATED and cannot be built on for a good few years yet, can't remember exactly how long but it's a while.

 

[Uncle Buck]

As it stands there is a lot of methane in there. However I am sure Reading built on contaminated land, it just cost a fair bit to clean it up.

 

[readingstockport]

Think you're right there UB but the stadium is part of the entire retail B&Q/Green Park development and I think the council paid a large part of the cleanup - or rather we did through our council taxes. Not that I actually mind that much, just wish there were better pubs near by.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Think you're right there UB but the stadium is part of the entire retail B&Q/Green Park development and I think the council paid a large part of the cleanup - or rather we did through our council taxes. Not that I actually mind that much, just wish there were better pubs near by.

I think the council contribution for us is the land, so we would have to clean it up, which would cost a fortune.

I guess we could bore into it and then just chuck some matches in the holes, that should clear the methane and most of Whitehawk.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Not that I actually mind that much, just wish there were better pubs near by.

Agreed. Maybe there'd be a better atmosph...nah, I'll leave it

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Here's a letter I found in the Argus archives. Sums up the main problems with the place.

Sheepcote Valley cannot be developed for anything except maybe small buildings around its rim. It would be pretty impossible, certainly wholly impractical, to create the Albion's new stadium there.

I thought this was common knowledge and someone must have told that planning inspector so. However, in The Argus article on Tuesday, the reasons against Sheepcote given by MPs and others did not include this fundamental one.

Therefore could someone please pass this vital bit of information to John Prescott. I tried ages ago but got the standard letter back.

In the Eighties I was architect for a developer hoping to create an artificial ski and leisure centre in Sheepcote Valley. The development was abandoned because a detailed land survey carried out for our developer showed that the Valley - which has been used for waste tipping since early in the 20th Century - is too unstable and possibly too poisonous to support development.

Do not take fright if you live locally, though. It is fine as long as no-one attempts to build a stadium or similar that would weigh it down with concrete and seal it off from the open air.

Starting in the Thirties, maybe even before, the valley was deeply tipped without proper compaction or record of contents. There is a farm down there somewhere, ordnance from two world wars and the detritus from decades of Brighton's residents.

The survey concluded that the latest capping technology could not make it feasible to put down foundations or seal it for building to current standards. Now the safety standards are higher still.

I was present when a JCB dug a five-metre test hole. Once through the crust, there was no sign of a firm base within any practical depth - some ash, old timbers and rusty metal crumbled inwards and collapsed.

Any further trial holes were considered an unsafe proposition.

At the bottom end of Sheepcote Valley there are possibilities for foundations but here there are equal hazards from unknown leachates; they are all right when allowed to seep away but make major building work out of the question.

Since this survey, Southern Water used the valley to get rid of the spoil from the beach stormwater/sewage tunnel and in doing so upgraded safety measures such as methane test points, cappings and similar.

However, this will not have changed its suitability for building.

Southern Water must have similar survey data for the valley.

The planning officer who dealt with our leisure development

proposal must also recall this. He is now chief executive at Southern Region. Perhaps he could get through to Mr Prescott?

All the best to the Albion and a new stadium at Falmer.

Frances Hunt, RIBA

-Clifton Road, Brighton

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Don't be too distracted by the contaminated land issue. Only part of Sheepcote Valley is a former landfill site - the post-Inquiry representations by the opponents of Falmer made it quite clear that their suggestion is to locate a stadium at the lower end of the Valley (around the Whitehawk FC ground) where decontamination issues won't be anywhere near as serious.

The case against Sheepcote Valley is very strong - but it's essentially a transport argument. For all sorts of reasons, an Albion stadium at Sheepcote Valley is completely incompatible with government policy on sustainable transport access to major new developments. The myriad reasons why this is so will be revealed at the resumed Public Inquiry, which will also hear how a stadium at Sheepcote Valley would undermine the city's long established transport strategy that is much admired by John Prescott.

 

[Skaville]

Agreed, it's a transport nightmare- especially by road - It would actully be bad for Falmer residents as plenty of people would use the Wilsons Avenue, Warren Road, Falmer road route.

The best way to get there is by yacht. Only ten minutes from the marina. Great for Abramovich, bloody awful for every one else

 

[Yorkie]

Starting in the Thirties, maybe even before, the valley was deeply tipped without proper compaction or record of contents. There is a farm down there somewhere, ordnance from two world wars and the detritus from decades of Brighton's residents.

I had heard about the ordnance from two world wars. That means ammunition. Possibly unexploded ammunition?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I had heard about the ordnance from two world wars. That means ammunition. Possibly unexploded ammunition?

We could scan the site with a metal detector and then invite Archer and Bellotti to turn the first sod.

 

[Ccider]

Don't be too distracted by the contaminated land issue. Only part of Sheepcote Valley is a former landfill site - the post-Inquiry representations by the opponents of Falmer made it quite clear that their suggestion is to locate a stadium at the lower end of the Valley (around the Whitehawk FC ground) where decontamination issues won't be anywhere near as serious.

The case against Sheepcote Valley is very strong - but it's essentially a transport argument. For all sorts of reasons, an Albion stadium at Sheepcote Valley is completely incompatible with government policy on sustainable transport access to major new developments. The myriad reasons why this is so will be revealed at the resumed Public Inquiry, which will also hear how a stadium at Sheepcote Valley would undermine the city's long established transport strategy that is much admired by John Prescott.

Can the inquiry conclude that the disadvantages of transport access at Sheepcote are a lesser evil than the effect on the AONB at Falmer and thus reccomend Sheepcote southern end as the better of two evils?

 

[London Irish]

I think it is perfectly possible from an environmental point of view to show that developing Sheepcote is by far the WORST of the two evils. Protecting green lungs that stretch within urban environments is absolutely vital - shame on any "Green" who doesn't believe that.

Sheepcote is an important wildlife habitat and local residents value green open spaces near their homes. I think local residents surrounding Sheepcote would put up an even tougher fight than the Falmer-ites against a stadium.

I agree with previous postings that the contamination issue may be overstated and it's the transport issue that really should nail Sheepcote as an option IF Prescott follows his own beliefs on sustainability. But don't underestimate the green case for saving Sheepcote either.

Fortunately, it does seem as though the likes of the Friends of Sheepcote Valley have got their shit together for the inquiry and will be able to present a persuasive "anti" viewpoint from an environmental perspective.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Can the inquiry conclude that the disadvantages of transport access at Sheepcote are a lesser evil than the effect on the AONB at Falmer and thus reccomend Sheepcote southern end as the better of two evils?

That is a conceivable outcome - which would leave Prescott with a dilemma. Which matters more to HIM as the minister responsible for government planning policy?

If he decided to make an exception to his own transport policy and allow us to build at Sheepcote Valley, we would then have a stadium that, in normal circumstances, would have been turned down by the planning system. I guess the Club would have no great problem living with that. The rest of the City would just have to lump it.

 

[Ccider]

That is a conceivable outcome - which would leave Prescott with a dilemma. Which matters more to HIM as the minister responsible for government planning policy?

If he decided to make an exception to his own transport policy and allow us to build at Sheepcote Valley, we would then have a stadium that, in normal circumstances, would have been turned down by the planning system. I guess the Club would have no great problem living with that. The rest of the City would just have to lump it.

Surely the ODPM is aware of this possibility, having asked for the new inquiry, and should have a strategy prepared...

Having recently been to West Ham, Spurs and QPR I reckon the transport issues are somewhat overstated although I suppose that the Volks railway doesn't compete so well against the Underground!

Personally I think the club should adopt a more positive attitude to one of the alternatives - the infamous "There is no alternative" is not a good strategy!

 

[The Large One]

Personally I think the club should adopt a more positive attitude to one of the alternatives - the infamous "There is no alternative" is not a good strategy!

No! That would completely undermine the past six years' campaigning.

If we want to build a stadium somewhere, it is suicide for ANY potential project sponsor to say, 'well, we want it here, but we'll make do with there...' You set your goals, you aim to achieve them - you DO NOT blur your argument by stating a belief that somewhere else is satisfactory. Especially in a full-up city like Brighton & Hove.

 

[perseus]

Plus:

There are a whole lot of planning guidelines to discourage developers from building on public open space. Somebody is taking a developer to the European Court.

But the main point about this is the moral ground can be used to advantage.

Although AONBs have more legal protection, the issue could be between:
#
1) depriving one farmer producing surplus agricultural produce on a single medium (low) quality ploughed field of no environmental merit; i.e. Falmer.

2) depriving the public of valuable open space (Sheepote) enjoyed by hundreds of people for sport and open air recreation, with an environmental merit for wildife greater than a ploughed field with records of rare birds (that's for Bob Booker).

I am outraged that the Sussex Downs Conservation Board should ever suggest such a plan!

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

I think it is perfectly possible from an environmental point of view to show that developing Sheepcote is by far the WORST of the two evils. Protecting green lungs that stretch within urban environments is absolutely vital - shame on any "Green" who doesn't believe that.

Sheepcote is an important wildlife habitat and local residents value green open spaces near their homes. I think local residents surrounding Sheepcote would put up an even tougher fight than the Falmer-ites against a stadium.

I agree with previous postings that the contamination issue may be overstated and it's the transport issue that really should nail Sheepcote as an option IF Prescott follows his own beliefs on sustainability. But don't underestimate the green case for saving Sheepcote either.

Fortunately, it does seem as though the likes of the Friends of Sheepcote Valley have got their shit together for the inquiry and will be able to present a persuasive "anti" viewpoint from an environmental perspective.

LI, you are quite correct. As a birdwatcher, I know that Sheepcote Valley is a valuable wildlife reserve, gets rare birds several times a year and is important during the migration period, owing to the large number of shrubs and scrubby trees. Falmer has nothing of environmental value, and the trees the club plans to plant to landscape the stadium will benefit birds and other wildlife. And no, my second name is not Horton

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Just out of interest, who have we (the Albion) got giving evidence at this new enquiry? I presume you'll be speaking Ed?