Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Storer68 said:
That'll be Bellotti's plans on the back of a fag packet application.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Alternative Sites - the official facts.
- Thread starter Lady Bracknell
- Start date
That'll be Bellotti's plans on the back of a fag packet application.
If I were a Withdean resident I would we be worried that Withdean will be the permament home of the Albion with perhaps the promise that one day we will move to Shoreham. The latest inspectoe says again what the first Inspector said. Why 22,000 seats? We are a provincial club in their view and do not need a new stadium of that size.
I'll take anything but Withdean but I fear that's where we will be for some years and watch our beloved team slowly die to conference status.
I'll take anything but Withdean but I fear that's where we will be for some years and watch our beloved team slowly die to conference status.
London Calling
New member
Gaffer said:
According to DK another 3 years.
London Calling said: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
Hey, let's get serious for a moment .... since when is a stadium with a capacity of 22,000 going to have 22,000 people arriving by train??
I would think no more than half even if the station was immediately adjacent to the ground.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,777
Put this on another thread but it needs to be on this one really.
We're all overlooking Withdean is likely to be the NIMBYS choice and to illustrate this, a cautionary tale from a Barnet FC friend who's about 2 loops ahead of us on this rollercoaster.
It could forever be a ground hog day situation, each political party making excuses and asking for yet more evidence to postpone a decision further. Barnet were in EXACTLY the same situation 18 months ago. The NIMBYS were asked to prove an alternative site, and given a period to do so. They eventually came back and said redevelop Underhill (Withdean) which had already been ruled out locally for very similar reasons that we're experiencing. The local council backed the club, but central goverment backed the NIMBYS on account football, albeit not ideally, could be played there. The club appeal because it's not acceptable as a long term proposal but are asked to provide an alternative site. Repeat cycle again.
The situation consequently is no decision, a see-saw stand-off. Barnet's next move is either wait for the conservatives to come back into power and hope they have the balls to take on Whitehall. But when they were in power, they played the same game as Labour are doing now. They're now seriously considering a move out of the borough because they've spent £2million on planning applications in the past 10 years and got nothing. If they continue to be bleed dry they'll die (sound familiar?) Regardless, they can't go forward in any capacity at all, the same situation we're in. We're in real danager of going to the wall if Falmer isn't delivered soon. The delay today is a real danger to our survival and that's what the NIMBYS are still plotting. Albion will go bust if we can drag this out. Don't be so sure that subsequent delays can't materialise after the quoted "4-5 months put up of shut up the NIMBYS supposedly have". What if central goverment simply back their ideas to increase Withdean as a sporting development, albeit a shit one that isn't sufficient for the club's ambition? Other clubs like Barnet are in the same boat, Hillsborough really did change the football world more than we realised.
We're all overlooking Withdean is likely to be the NIMBYS choice and to illustrate this, a cautionary tale from a Barnet FC friend who's about 2 loops ahead of us on this rollercoaster.
It could forever be a ground hog day situation, each political party making excuses and asking for yet more evidence to postpone a decision further. Barnet were in EXACTLY the same situation 18 months ago. The NIMBYS were asked to prove an alternative site, and given a period to do so. They eventually came back and said redevelop Underhill (Withdean) which had already been ruled out locally for very similar reasons that we're experiencing. The local council backed the club, but central goverment backed the NIMBYS on account football, albeit not ideally, could be played there. The club appeal because it's not acceptable as a long term proposal but are asked to provide an alternative site. Repeat cycle again.
The situation consequently is no decision, a see-saw stand-off. Barnet's next move is either wait for the conservatives to come back into power and hope they have the balls to take on Whitehall. But when they were in power, they played the same game as Labour are doing now. They're now seriously considering a move out of the borough because they've spent £2million on planning applications in the past 10 years and got nothing. If they continue to be bleed dry they'll die (sound familiar?) Regardless, they can't go forward in any capacity at all, the same situation we're in. We're in real danager of going to the wall if Falmer isn't delivered soon. The delay today is a real danger to our survival and that's what the NIMBYS are still plotting. Albion will go bust if we can drag this out. Don't be so sure that subsequent delays can't materialise after the quoted "4-5 months put up of shut up the NIMBYS supposedly have". What if central goverment simply back their ideas to increase Withdean as a sporting development, albeit a shit one that isn't sufficient for the club's ambition? Other clubs like Barnet are in the same boat, Hillsborough really did change the football world more than we realised.
Stuart Munday
Well-known member
Sorry but if Prescotts office have actually been looking at anything for the last 9 months wouldnt they know what the best sight might be 
balloonboy
aka Jim in the West
Look, central govt has no desire to put this back on the back burner. If JP had the slightest desire to say no, then he would have done - those two inspectors' reports gave him all the ammo he could have wanted. Also interesting to note that DK seems to have moved his position from saying we will go to the wall without Falmer to a situation where he states we'll be a yo-yo club in the lower leagues. Not an enticing prospect, but not as disasterous situation as Barnet are in.portlock seagull said:
I wonder whether Prescott has actually visited the site at Falmer? I doubt it very much. If he had, he would have realised that the location is little more than a muddy field between two major roads. Area of Outstanding Beauty? Don't make me laugh.
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,777
He's never said we can survive long term without Falmer
Dover
Home at Last.
Locky said:
Waterhall should be called Water Halt.
This is the flood defence for the Brighton & Hove area. Build here and the city floods.
Dover
Home at Last.
portlock. Your main post is freightening!
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
We do need to ensure that potential objectors to each of the sites are fully aware of the reasons why their site is unsuitable.
The list of reasons why sites are unsuitable is now out of date in some respects. We need to ensure that is updated and comprehensive in relation to the criteria set by the ODPM before campaigning can start in earnest.
(yes I have posted this exact text on another thread, so no, you aren't experiencing deja-vu!!)
The list of reasons why sites are unsuitable is now out of date in some respects. We need to ensure that is updated and comprehensive in relation to the criteria set by the ODPM before campaigning can start in earnest.
(yes I have posted this exact text on another thread, so no, you aren't experiencing deja-vu!!)
London Irish
Well-known member
This Waterhall discussion is all very interesting, but pointless. I don't think there are big transport problems with it, it doesn't even need a railway station IMHO, but the development principle on building on downland is overwhelming. If we can build here, we can build at Falmer! End of discussion.
Withdean, come on, I know they'll try and put that forward but we can't even get the f***ing parking sorted to get it to 9k. It's a joke. Portlock, is Underhill really a direct comparsion with Withdean, surely the physical restrictions on expanding Withdean are in a different order altogether, nature reserve, houses, railway line, railway tunnel, other businesses on long leases, etc.
I agree that the sites that the intelligent NIMBYs will try to push for will be Toad's Hole and Sheepcote. That's the one we're our publicity machine will have to working top gear to counter. I would say its here we have to forge links with local campaigners. The transport arguments should be enough to rule them out but it's an argument that could come down to how financially unreasonable it is to spend development money on new roads. The environmental impact on surrounding communities even Collyer recognises at Toad's Hole, and we all know by now of the landfill/Danger UXB problems of Chernobyl, sorry Sheepcote.
Withdean, come on, I know they'll try and put that forward but we can't even get the f***ing parking sorted to get it to 9k. It's a joke. Portlock, is Underhill really a direct comparsion with Withdean, surely the physical restrictions on expanding Withdean are in a different order altogether, nature reserve, houses, railway line, railway tunnel, other businesses on long leases, etc.
I agree that the sites that the intelligent NIMBYs will try to push for will be Toad's Hole and Sheepcote. That's the one we're our publicity machine will have to working top gear to counter. I would say its here we have to forge links with local campaigners. The transport arguments should be enough to rule them out but it's an argument that could come down to how financially unreasonable it is to spend development money on new roads. The environmental impact on surrounding communities even Collyer recognises at Toad's Hole, and we all know by now of the landfill/Danger UXB problems of Chernobyl, sorry Sheepcote.
Last edited:
Luton Seagull
New member
Re; walking / bussing from Brighton Station to Sheepcote
Re; walking / bussing from Brighton Station to Sheepcote... where on Earth are we supposed to put the 300+ buses we would need to park outside Brighton Station for the matchday park and ride. It is bad enough when they have a couple of extra buses in Queen's Road when there's work on the rail line!
As for walking from "the A259 Corridor," I occasionally walk up from the Marina and I reckon it would take at least 30 minutes to get up to the Sheepcote site for the average walker.
Still, as we all know, there is loads of spare capacity on the A259!!!
Re; walking / bussing from Brighton Station to Sheepcote... where on Earth are we supposed to put the 300+ buses we would need to park outside Brighton Station for the matchday park and ride. It is bad enough when they have a couple of extra buses in Queen's Road when there's work on the rail line!
As for walking from "the A259 Corridor," I occasionally walk up from the Marina and I reckon it would take at least 30 minutes to get up to the Sheepcote site for the average walker.
Still, as we all know, there is loads of spare capacity on the A259!!!
Bromley shrimp
New member
Just to turn the Waterhall argument on it's head for a moment, people are saying that it has no merit over Falmer because it is similarly AONB.
Surely, if a decision were made to build in the AONB then it would be a case of it being the lesser of two evils. ie is Waterhall, from a purely environmental point of view, less damaging than Falmer?
If you then look at transport Falmer, wins hands down, but if it is accepted either that it's feasible to walk or park and ride it from Preston Park or ideally build a station the arguments against Waterhall start to become less robust.
The balance could be that it is considered to be more preferable to protect the Falmer AONB than the Waterhall AONB, if an AONB it has to be, even if this means making a costly infrastructiure change via a new station.
On face value Falmer ticks the right boxes, but who knows how the decision makers are thinking?
We certainly will not be home and dry with Falmer unless a watertight argument is presented to dimsiss arguments such as these, know matter how bizarre and dismissive they may superficially appear, if we are to assist the process in line with the thinking that the latest turn of events has been brought about by Prescott's desire to avoid a judicial review.
Surely, if a decision were made to build in the AONB then it would be a case of it being the lesser of two evils. ie is Waterhall, from a purely environmental point of view, less damaging than Falmer?
If you then look at transport Falmer, wins hands down, but if it is accepted either that it's feasible to walk or park and ride it from Preston Park or ideally build a station the arguments against Waterhall start to become less robust.
The balance could be that it is considered to be more preferable to protect the Falmer AONB than the Waterhall AONB, if an AONB it has to be, even if this means making a costly infrastructiure change via a new station.
On face value Falmer ticks the right boxes, but who knows how the decision makers are thinking?
We certainly will not be home and dry with Falmer unless a watertight argument is presented to dimsiss arguments such as these, know matter how bizarre and dismissive they may superficially appear, if we are to assist the process in line with the thinking that the latest turn of events has been brought about by Prescott's desire to avoid a judicial review.
Bromley shrimp said:
There's no way that Preston Park station could support a shuttle bus service for 22,000 people. Where would they all park? Not in Claremount Terrace, so they'd have to be on the London Road, causing some serious congestion. We'd be looking at about 50 buses.
If there were to have a shuttle service to Waterhall, it would have to be from Brighton or Hove stations.
And it's a stiff walk to Waterhall., not practical for families with young children and OAPs.
Lammy
Registered Abuser
I don't know why anyone is spending time rubbishing Waterhall? If we get the nod to develop Waterhall will will have a better stadium that we could ever build at Falmer! You could have a dedicated station, loads of parking, a 30,000+ stadium...
It's a much better site for us than Falmer. Let's spend time rubbishing Toad's Hole and Sheepcote. These sites would be a nightmare!!
It's a much better site for us than Falmer. Let's spend time rubbishing Toad's Hole and Sheepcote. These sites would be a nightmare!!
Bromley shrimp: it is not and never was remotely anything to do with environmental merit.
It is to do with an arbitary line drawn on a map designating what is an AONB and what is not. The rest is politics (especially the South Downs Conservation Board) and objectors taking advantage of this arbitary line not to build something they do not like. With the Downsman objectors, they include a rabid anti-football hater etc.
Sometimes there are bits of really cruddy land that can only be improved by building on them.
As for Falmer VWN, one thing against it as a football stadium location is that it is such a cruddy bit of land.
Many supporters would like to see Waterhall developed into a stadium location, but, alas, in the current political climate it is unrealistic in the forseeable future.
It is to do with an arbitary line drawn on a map designating what is an AONB and what is not. The rest is politics (especially the South Downs Conservation Board) and objectors taking advantage of this arbitary line not to build something they do not like. With the Downsman objectors, they include a rabid anti-football hater etc.
Sometimes there are bits of really cruddy land that can only be improved by building on them.
As for Falmer VWN, one thing against it as a football stadium location is that it is such a cruddy bit of land.
Many supporters would like to see Waterhall developed into a stadium location, but, alas, in the current political climate it is unrealistic in the forseeable future.