Lord Bracknell
On fire
The soundbite that seems to be creeping into the media coverage about Falmer is that Ruth Kelly thinks there are "deficiencies in the evidence about Sheepcote Valley".
I've got the letter that Ms Kelly's department sent out to the interested parties earlier this week. Let's have a look at what that letter actually says:-
... The Secretary of State considers that more general information is required on how alternative sites were assessed, but that this should include a particular look at the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley. This latter point is particularly important because the second Inspector's Report (IR2) at IR 10,46 and IR 10.158 indicated deficiencies in the evidence on the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley. We also consider that extending the timetable to 15 February is reasonable to enable your Council (ie LDC) to instruct transport consultants to produce this evidence ...
The references are to two specific paragraphs in Inspector Brier's Report:-
10.46 I have some sympathy with LDC’s submissions regarding the difficulty inherent in
drawing firm conclusions about the impact of a major development such as a stadium
upon the highway network in the absence of a full traffic impact assessment. Indeed, I
can well understand the HA’s reservations about the wisdom of making a comparison
between Falmer and the other locations in the absence of the information that such an
exercise would produce. In cross examination CE/PI’s transport witness, who shared the
Club’s concerns about the effect upon the Woodingdean Crossroads, accepted that it may
not be necessary to access Sheepcote Valley by this route and expressed reservations about
the projected effects on some of other the junctions identified in the Club’s assessment.
However none of this was backed up by any detailed quantitative analysis of the undertaken
by the Club. In the light of this, I am not satisfied that the Club’s assessment has
exaggerated the likely impact of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley. [4.78, 4.81, 6.53, 8.97]
Note - "CE/PI's transport witness" is a reference to the transport consultant employed by the Cook Estates/Pecla Investments, the owners of Toads Hole Valley.
10.158 The foregoing factors, not least the fact that Sheepcote Valley is not in the AONB,
offer persuasive reasons for preferring this location to Falmer. However, accessibility is its
Achilles heel. Despite the relative abundance of bus services serving the area and the
prospect that these may be augmented, capacity is lacking and there is no convenient
railway station. The evidence also points to the likelihood of serious traffic congestion
occurring when a capacity event occurs. It has not been demonstrated how this can be
overcome. For this reason therefore, I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect
that planning permission would be forthcoming.
So what does this mean?
As far as I can see, it means that Inspector Brier was convinced that the transport evidence against Sheepcote Valley was overwhelming, enough to rule it out as an option.
However, one consultant questioned the evidence about the traffic impact of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley on the grounds that the club might have got its predictions wrong about the routes that people might take to travel to matches. Hence the suggestion that the evidence might be "deficient".
What seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants is that the consultant mentioned in paragraph 10.46 had been engaged by the promoters of an alternative site, who had a vested interest in rubbishing the expertise of the Club's transport consultant and the City Council's transport consultant, not because of anything they had to say about Sheepcote Valley or Falmer, but because they had concluded that Toads Hole Valley was unsuitable on traffic grounds. Why on earth his opinion should be given any weight at all escapes me completely - particularly since his performance at the Inquiry was, quite frankly, pathetic.
More importantly ... no convincing evidence was produced by Lewes District Council to counter the transport evidence of the Club or the City Council. Para 10.158 of Brier's Report makes this very clear.
None of this seriously questions the quality of the Club's case against Sheepcote Valley. All that LDC are being invited to show now is that serious traffic congestion associated with a stadium at Sheepcote Valley CAN be overcome.
They'll have a hell of a job doing that, in my opinion.
I've got the letter that Ms Kelly's department sent out to the interested parties earlier this week. Let's have a look at what that letter actually says:-
... The Secretary of State considers that more general information is required on how alternative sites were assessed, but that this should include a particular look at the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley. This latter point is particularly important because the second Inspector's Report (IR2) at IR 10,46 and IR 10.158 indicated deficiencies in the evidence on the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley. We also consider that extending the timetable to 15 February is reasonable to enable your Council (ie LDC) to instruct transport consultants to produce this evidence ...
The references are to two specific paragraphs in Inspector Brier's Report:-
10.46 I have some sympathy with LDC’s submissions regarding the difficulty inherent in
drawing firm conclusions about the impact of a major development such as a stadium
upon the highway network in the absence of a full traffic impact assessment. Indeed, I
can well understand the HA’s reservations about the wisdom of making a comparison
between Falmer and the other locations in the absence of the information that such an
exercise would produce. In cross examination CE/PI’s transport witness, who shared the
Club’s concerns about the effect upon the Woodingdean Crossroads, accepted that it may
not be necessary to access Sheepcote Valley by this route and expressed reservations about
the projected effects on some of other the junctions identified in the Club’s assessment.
However none of this was backed up by any detailed quantitative analysis of the undertaken
by the Club. In the light of this, I am not satisfied that the Club’s assessment has
exaggerated the likely impact of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley. [4.78, 4.81, 6.53, 8.97]
Note - "CE/PI's transport witness" is a reference to the transport consultant employed by the Cook Estates/Pecla Investments, the owners of Toads Hole Valley.
10.158 The foregoing factors, not least the fact that Sheepcote Valley is not in the AONB,
offer persuasive reasons for preferring this location to Falmer. However, accessibility is its
Achilles heel. Despite the relative abundance of bus services serving the area and the
prospect that these may be augmented, capacity is lacking and there is no convenient
railway station. The evidence also points to the likelihood of serious traffic congestion
occurring when a capacity event occurs. It has not been demonstrated how this can be
overcome. For this reason therefore, I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect
that planning permission would be forthcoming.
So what does this mean?
As far as I can see, it means that Inspector Brier was convinced that the transport evidence against Sheepcote Valley was overwhelming, enough to rule it out as an option.
However, one consultant questioned the evidence about the traffic impact of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley on the grounds that the club might have got its predictions wrong about the routes that people might take to travel to matches. Hence the suggestion that the evidence might be "deficient".
What seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants is that the consultant mentioned in paragraph 10.46 had been engaged by the promoters of an alternative site, who had a vested interest in rubbishing the expertise of the Club's transport consultant and the City Council's transport consultant, not because of anything they had to say about Sheepcote Valley or Falmer, but because they had concluded that Toads Hole Valley was unsuitable on traffic grounds. Why on earth his opinion should be given any weight at all escapes me completely - particularly since his performance at the Inquiry was, quite frankly, pathetic.
More importantly ... no convincing evidence was produced by Lewes District Council to counter the transport evidence of the Club or the City Council. Para 10.158 of Brier's Report makes this very clear.
None of this seriously questions the quality of the Club's case against Sheepcote Valley. All that LDC are being invited to show now is that serious traffic congestion associated with a stadium at Sheepcote Valley CAN be overcome.
They'll have a hell of a job doing that, in my opinion.
