Sheepcoat Valley

[Marc]

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

Maybe I should stand up in argument against the Cement & Pende sites as I live fairly near to both, being represented as a Member Of Society not in anyway associated with that of BHAFC!

Then I could suck it to 'em as to how crappy both those sites really are.....take THAT you NIMBY bastards!

 

[perseus]

As reported before, it is now on the official Sussex Downs Conservation Board web site they have:

http://www.vic.org.uk/pro/auframe.htm

Gone for Sheepcote, Shoreham Harbour (with reservations) and Withdean for their suggested sites for the Albion stadium and Beeding Cement Works (with even more reservations)

and rejected the other sites including Shoreham Airport and Toad's Hole Valley.

 

[Marc]

where on there perseus I cant find it

 

[perseus]

http://www.vic.org.uk/pro/agen/planmins13dec04.pdf

Agenda for December, Planning Cttee.

The resolution passed endorsed their alternative of Shoreham Harbour without the reservations expressed, but Beeding Cement Works was with reservations.

 

[The Large One]

Ed has been in hi-velocity spud-gun training, specialising in pea-brained target practice.

And no Perseus, that isn't what they said. Are you not capable or interpreting ANYTHING? This is what they said.

BRIGHTON AND HOVE ALBION FC STADIUM PROPOSAL

80. It was noted that the Public Inquiry into the Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club stadium proposals would be resumed on 2nd February 2005 to hear further evidence on the matter of alternative sites. The Committee considered the Board's position on the alternative sites to be presented at the re-opened Inquiry.

81. Some concern was expressed about the feasibility of the Shoreham Harbour site in terms of access and any plans which already existed for development on the site. The Planning Manager acknowledged that Shoreham Harbour was not an easy option but the first Planning Inspector had considered that the site was a potential long-term option.

82. The Committee also considered that there was a need to assess the potential of the former Shoreham Cement Works and Shoreham Airport as alternative sites. It was likely that Shoreham Airport would be unacceptable as an option because of the probable adverse landscape impact on the AONB. Shoreham Cement Works might be a potential option if sufficient benefits and transport links could be identified.

83. Resolved - That evidence be presented by the Board's Planning Manager at the re-opened Public Inquiry:

- promoting Shoreham Harbour, Sheepcote Valley and Withdean as acceptable possible alternative sites;

- proposing Shoreham Cement Works as a possible alternative site subject to significant benefits to improve the site and transport links;

- rejecting Toad's Hole Valley, Shoreham Airport and Waterhall as unacceptable possible alternative sites;

- accepting that Brighton Station and the Greyhound Stadium were not longer realistic alternative sites; and

- not promoting any other alternative sites.

 

[sparkie]

If Prescott decides against Falmer at the next inquiry and actually says that Sheepcote would be a better site, then another planning application would need to be submitted. So...

We all know how long a process this could be, so what would happen if in the meantime the Falmer site ceases to be in an AONB, and is left out of the National Park. Could objectors to Sheepcote Valley not then say 'What about building at Falmer? as it's a far better site and no longer has to satify the same planning criteria'.

Is it back to stage 1 and yet another (3rd/4th) inquiry?

 

[perseus]

I could not cut and paste a *.pdf file.

The success rate of the SDCB in opposing developments is 60%.

40% of the time their objections are overruled.

It looks like that at least one member of their Planning Committee was actually opposed to the Shoreham Harbour site being included as an alternative.

 

[The Large One]

IThe success rate of the SDCB in opposing developments is 60%.

40% of the time their objections are overruled.

Totally irrelevant. That does not incorporate the quality of the application in question.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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

It's not for the ODPM to have strategies on how to deal with planning applications that go to Public Inquiries. All the ODPM do is approve or turn down the applications.

The City Council, however, does have a strategy in relation to Sheepcote Valley.

It opposes a stadium there:-

"The Planning Inspector suggests that Sheepcote Valley could provide an alternative site. However that is to give less weight to sustainable transport in identifying a site for the Community Stadium. Sheepcote Valley has no possibility of rail connections; has no public transport links to the wider East Sussex hinterland and is not adjacent to a main trunk road. It is accessed via residential areas. A Community Stadium would have to be located either on a former waste tip where there are known methane gas problems or within an adjacent area where a thorough investigation of the risks from methane gas seepage would be required.

Sheepcote Valley is in the designated countryside and not allocated for development in any adopted plan and to include a reference to Sheepcote Valley [in the Local Plan], as a possible stadium site, could run the risk of having a second inquiry. The southern part of Sheepcote Valley comprises the East Brighton Park which is fully occupied by a caravan site, an existing pavilion and a newly approved large clubhouse, as well as the existing sporting activities. Objectors to the South Downs National Park (SDNP) proposed boundary have sought the inclusion of the whole of Sheepcote Valley in the SDNP. As at Village Way North, any development in Sheepcote Valley, would also be adjacent to and visible from, the Designation Order boundary area of the proposed SDNP. "

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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

The Albion have an array of expert witnesses lined up. The City Council are also appearing in support of the Albion.

I am registered as an "independent" interested party (not a BHAFC witness), but whether I will actually speak is yet to be decided.

 

[perseus]

Message deleted. The delete method does not seem to work.

 

[Wilts]

Ahem... ex-landfill sites with ridiculous transport arrangements are nothing new.

http://www.readingfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Stadium/0,,10306,00.html

Just buy cheap land and then bingo... there's your ground

 

[Yorkie]

It is pretty close to a motorway though, Wilts not a little B road or the main coast road which is single carriageway.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

And - as you say, Wilts - it's "nothing new". In fact it's several years old.

The thing is that planning policy has moved on and government guidance is being constantly updated.

The Albion's planning application should be determined in accordance with the current planning guidance - and that should condemn the idea of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley to the bin.