Alternative Sites - the official facts.

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

Why do you think they keep pushing for Falmer instead of the ideal site at Waterhall? I'll tell you why, someone's getting a chunk of money out of it somewhere

 

[London Calling]

Stations are not necessarily that expensive to build.

I would imagine the real "train" issue at Waterhall is that there are major infrastructure plans to provide an even faster link between London and Brighton.

The last thing the National Rail Authority needs is trying to accomadate up to 22,000 people arriving and leaving within two one hour spells.

It would seriously knacker up their train schedules.



Falmer

 

[Lammy]

Stations are not necessarily that expensive to build.

I would imagine the real "train" issue at Waterhall is that there are major infrastructure plans to provide an even faster link between London and Brighton.

The last thing the National Rail Authority needs is trying to accomadate up to 22,000 people arriving and leaving within two one hour spells.

It would seriously knacker up their train schedules.



Falmer

You're just thinking of yourself you selfish git

 

[Yoda]

It doesn't have a rail link, it has a railway line. Preston park station is miles away and building a station could cost not far off the cost of the stadium itself.

Plus there's only room on the north bound line.

 

[sully]

Agree with LC.

Moulsecoomb station is not that old and didn't cost an arm and a leg to build (I had a hand in agreeing the final account!).

Being next to a tunnel is a rubbish reason for not building a station there. There are many examples of stations not only next to, but IN tunnels on the rail network.

The only "real" reason I can see for a no to Waterhall is the national park one.

 

[sully]

Plus there's only room on the north bound line.

Rubbish. The station doesn't have to be right under the road junction. There's loads of room for it a few hundred yards to the north.

 

[Gwylan]

I don't really care where the stadium is..as long as we get one.

But one thing does baffle me. How come the Falmer residents were so concerned about building on an AONB and protecting downland when discussing Falmer and not when it comes to building on download at Waterhall?

Why, that would make them such hypocrites ....

 

[ditchy]

The key thing Falmer has in its favour are the railway links. Falmer station could be extended to enable longer trains stop there on match days (Southern Railway/Network Rail maybe able to help fund this - provided finances exist). Furthermore capacity on the line is not an overly serious problem, unlike the main London - Brighton line. :falmerspi

So if it costs nothing to extend the platforms at Falmer how come it costs millions to build a station at Waterhall ..cant see why it would cost so much more . As for sheepcote its been a a mature landfill for at least 20years ... again ..not against Falmer .. just reasoning what could be said for other sites .. i am still a bit sceptical that its all ok as long as we prove the other sites not suitable ..as i said before opinions change over time ( which this is now dragging on) ..Can someone who is in the know please explain why waterhall deemed not suitable from a transport perspective .. The bypass is on its door step ..we all know ..access from the mainline would be a snip .. how much would it really cost to build small spur ala preston park used to have on the east side and still on the west side !!

 

[Yoda]

Rubbish. The station doesn't have to be right under the road junction. There's loads of room for it a few hundred yards to the north.

But not enough to accommodate the thousands of people using it.

Have you ever tried to use Fulham Broadway when Chelsea have been playing at home? That would be about the size of station they'd be able to fit in there. And then have to get Southern to agree to run a train in each direction every 5 minutes on what is already the busiest rail route in the Country (On trains to track ratio).

 

[Cadman]

For me the only sane choices are Falmer, Waterhall and Withdean.

Withdean is too small so out.

Withdean is not too small, you could easily build a 25,000 all seater stadium.

The problem is safe access and egress, through being hemmed in by the railway line, and there's not much you can do about that.

 

[sully]

Putting down additional track IS expensive. Plonking a couple of concrete platforms either side of the existing track not so.

As LC said, the last thing the rail authorities will want is a station trying to cope with a huge number of people right where there trying to run trains at full speed!

 

[sully]

But not enough to accommodate the thousands of people using it.

Have you ever tried to use Fulham Broadway when Chelsea have been playing at home? That would be about the size of station they'd be able to fit in there. And then have to get Southern to agree to run a train in each direction every 5 minutes on what is already the busiest rail route in the Country (On trains to track ratio).

I agree with that.

How many grounds have stations that can actually cope with the number of people trying to use them?

Presumably, there would have to be some sort of crowd control marvellously demonstrated to us in Cardiff. Simple.

Still won't happen, though, because of the national park, so not worth going into.

 

[Yoda]

Still won't happen, though, because of the national park, so not worth going into.

Here, here!

 

[m20gull]

Waterhall might be ideal, but it't the wrong side of the A27, therefore undisputably in the National Park and not available for development of any sort. Waterhall was Belotti's preferred site but was not proceeded with for that reason.

 

[Marc]

Being next to a tunnel is a rubbish reason for not building a station there. There are many examples of stations not only next to, but IN tunnels on the rail network.

christ I must've said this a million times now, NEW regulations mean you cannot build stations within 1mile of a Tunnel, yes there are loads of stations near tunnels because they we're built YEARS ago.

right...thats the last time

 

[ditchy]

Putting down additional track IS expensive. Plonking a couple of concrete platforms either side of the existing track not so.

As LC said, the last thing the rail authorities will want is a station trying to cope with a huge number of people right where there trying to run trains at full speed!

So saturday is the busiest day on the network !! no way . ok the odd midweek game to put up with ..but i think that could be overcome if the political will wanted it

likewise if the council really wanted to put this city on the map it could easily build an all round all usage stadium like arnhem have with removable pitch etc .. could then be used for ice hockey basketball and indoor athletics with roof closed and even conferences which i believe they are looking at to replace the brighton centre!!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Inspector Collyer’s conclusions about the alternative sites:-

Brighton Station. “The grant of permission for an alternative development presents a major obstacle in the way of securing this site for a new stadium. … If there were conclusive evidence that work on the permitted scheme was going ahead, I would accept that this site could not realistically be regarded as an available alternative for a stadium development”.

Greyhound Stadium. “I discount the Greyhound Stadium as a realistic alternative site”.

Shoreham Harbour. “In my judgement, to consolidate the stadium into the much larger regeneration project which the harbour strategy envisages is likely to be so complex, problematic and uncertain that this cannot be regarded as a realistic alternative”.

Sheepcote Valley. “This site has its disadvantages as well as advantages … whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance”.

Toads Hole Valley. “In terms of social and economic impacts, I acknowledge that this site does not score too well in comparison with Falmer.”

Waterhall. “I conclude that the AONB policy objections are overwhelming and that this site cannot reasonably be regarded as a viable alternative location for the development of a stadium”.

Withdean Stadium. “The Applicants’ argument against the development of a new stadium on this site is essentially on the grounds of its inability to accommodate one of the capacity required. But this raises the question of why it is necessary to have a 22,000 capacity stadium”.


This is obviously a selective gathering of brief quotes from an eleven page section of Collyer’s Report. One strategy he seems to be asking for consideration is to expand Withdean as part of a long-term plan to move to Shoreham Harbour, if and when the much bigger, comprehensive redevelopment of the harbour site goes ahead. The only options for a permanent 22,000 seater stadium that are in Collyer’s mind are at Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley.

 

[Biscuit]

Inspector Collyer’s conclusions about the alternative sites:-

Brighton Station. “The grant of permission for an alternative development presents a major obstacle in the way of securing this site for a new stadium. … If there were conclusive evidence that work on the permitted scheme was going ahead, I would accept that this site could not realistically be regarded as an available alternative for a stadium development”.

Greyhound Stadium. “I discount the Greyhound Stadium as a realistic alternative site”.

Shoreham Harbour. “In my judgement, to consolidate the stadium into the much larger regeneration project which the harbour strategy envisages is likely to be so complex, problematic and uncertain that this cannot be regarded as a realistic alternative”.

Sheepcote Valley. “This site has its disadvantages as well as advantages … whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance”.

Toads Hole Valley. “In terms of social and economic impacts, I acknowledge that this site does not score too well in comparison with Falmer.”

Waterhall. “I conclude that the AONB policy objections are overwhelming and that this site cannot reasonably be regarded as a viable alternative location for the development of a stadium”.

Withdean Stadium. “The Applicants’ argument against the development of a new stadium on this site is essentially on the grounds of its inability to accommodate one of the capacity required. But this raises the question of why it is necessary to have a 22,000 capacity stadium”.


This is obviously a selective gathering of brief quotes from an eleven page section of Collyer’s Report. One strategy he seems to be asking for consideration is to expand Withdean as part of a long-term plan to move to Shoreham Harbour, if and when the much bigger, comprehensive redevelopment of the harbour site goes ahead. The only options for a permanent 22,000 seater stadium that are in Collyer’s mind are at Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley.

I love you Bracknell.

 

[Miami Seagull]

Lets not forget as well that Waterhall is the home of Brighton Rugby Club. I think, and have always done so, that waterhall would be the ideal site.

 

[Curious Orange]

Waterhall won't be considered because it is against local planning policy to not build north of the A27, and so comes under "(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?".