Alternative Sites - the official facts.

[Cadiz Seagull]

Planning considerations aside, Waterhall would be the best solution IMHO but it is my understanding that we simply would not get permission there.
If the Council gave us permission they would run the risk of opening the flood gates to other applications to build north of the A27. OK they could refuse permission, but that would leave them open to an appeal along the lines of "you've already given permission for building one project, why not ours?"
The Council are in a far stronger position to be able to refuse permission to build north of the A27 if they haven't already set a precedent by giving us the OK.
And quite right too, who wants to see development north of the A27? Carry on like that and eventually we'll join up with Croydon

 

[Heffle Gull]

To get to Sheepcote, the best way for me is to drive to Falmer and then turn off up the road to Woodingdean.

Same for me, so maybe we should build the stadium at sheepcote, Village way North would be the ideal site for a massive PArk & ride carpark, not just for the footy, but seven days a week, so I don't have to drive in to the city centre to work any more.

That should keep the Falmer Nimbys happy

 

[BensGrandad]

If JP in his infinite wisdom should decide that Waterhall is the best alternative site does he have the authority to order the council to grant planning permission. Could the problem of park and ride not be overcome by reversing our existing arrangements and park the buses in Mill Road.

I personally think that we wil get Falmer but am trying to look at this in the eyes of a Falmer NIMBY and what I would suggest if in their shoes.

 

[Caveman]

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.

Exactly, but this is the one thing that has been bugging me with the press, they always show Falmer as a nice little pub and a pond with a couple of cute ducks paddling around. Not the big motorway and big buildings.

 

[Life After Bobby]

the odpm are very aware of what the site looks like

 

[Bromley shrimp]

I meant walk from Preston Park, altough I accept I actually said Park and Ride.

A stiff walk or not, we are examining the line of least resistance.
Bicycles could also for example be used as a supplemental way of reaching the ground and whilst using these or the walk are not ideal, any site option is not without is disadvantages. Securing a ground capable of sustaining a decent team is surely the overriding objective.

My point about Waterhall is that better brains than mine will eventually determine the outcome and if they are asking us to look at the alternatives we have little choice other than to take them extremely seriously and do so, whether it is a spurious exercise with hiden agendas or not.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Waterhall is still the best site IMHO. However quite obviously Falmer fits the bill with all the requirements set down.

 

[Curious Orange]

Waterhall has always been an ideal site for building a great big stadium, however it will fail a number of the DPM's criteria. Visual and environmental impact, and other planning priorities such as all of it being in and AONB and it being against planning policy to permit anything north of the A27 immediately spring to mind. Comparisons with Falmer aren't really fair because the visual and environmental impact is much less (can't see the site unless you're right on top of it), it's only partially on AONB, and planning policy isn't broken by building there.

Right, can everyone now concentrate on Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley please!!

 

[goldstone]

There's no way that Preston Park station could support a shuttle bus service for 22,000 people.

Please get real. Wherever the stadium is built there is no way that the entire capacity will arrive by train. Half at the very most.

 

[Superseagull]

Toads Hole valley is privately owned so it would cost many millions to buy. And there is no certainty the owner would want to sell it anyway!

 

[H block]

If ever the suitability of any of the aforementioned sites other than Falmer were debated on NSC it would never get past a couple of posts before the same old voices came out with the same old saying.

FALMER IS THE ONLY SITE. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

Well J.P. is not a hundred per cent on that and nor were the inspectors.

So now THAT issue will be properly debated on here and of course much more inportantly evidence will be put to the people who matter as to the availability of alternative sites.I personally have no idea whether there is a alternative site and I only hope that the Albion have got things right in their (eggs in 1 basket) philosophy.I think though that all the shoutadowners of the last 2 years should apologise to the others who raised the ``alternative site``issues not because we believe Falmer is the wrong alternative but that it was always going to be a subject that J.P and his office were going to need to address.

 

[Life After Bobby]

Toads Hole valley is privately owned so it would cost many millions to buy. And there is no certainty the owner would want to sell it anyway!

sorry to say, but that is irrelevant. this is strictly a planning issue

 

[Curious Orange]

sorry to say, but that is irrelevant. this is strictly a planning issue

It is an issue because the cost of development is one of the criteria the ODPM wants addressed.

 

[Life After Bobby]

It is an issue because the cost of development is one of the criteria the ODPM wants addressed.

actually, you're right, except the killer point is probably more "Is site acquisition a realistic proposition?"

 

[Gwylan]

Please get real. Wherever the stadium is built there is no way that the entire capacity will arrive by train. Half at the very most.

Of course not. Only an idiot would think that everyone would come by rail. If 22,000 people arrived by train, they'd need several hundred buses, can't even imagine where they'd park. As I said in my original post, given the amount of people that would come by train, I'd guess about 50 buses would be about the right figure but I'm sure there'd be transport experts who'd know the exact figure.

 

[balloonboy]

Some of the most relevant comments I've read in the past 24 hours are the words of Bodfish and Bassam, as reported on the Official Site. They're worth re-looking at, now the heat of the moment has died down.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Of course not. Only an idiot would think that everyone would come by rail. If 22,000 people arrived by train, they'd need several hundred buses, can't even imagine where they'd park. As I said in my original post, given the amount of people that would come by train, I'd guess about 50 buses would be about the right figure but I'm sure there'd be transport experts who'd know the exact figure.

Once you start getting into the number of buses required to serve a stadium, the figures start to become extremely relevant.

Sheepcote Valley would need 30 extra double deckers over and above the requirement for Falmer. 13 of these would be required for park and ride (some of them just to allow for the extra journey time between Sheepcote Valley and the available park & ride sites, like Mill Road; some of them for a new park & ride site that would have to substitute for the lack of a nearby railway station). 17 extra buses would be needed to provide a bespoke shuttle service between the city centre and the stadium.

But where the hell are these buses (and drivers) going to come from? There is simply no spare capacity in the existing public transport system. No operator would purchase buses for use on only 25 days a year. A no professional bus driver would take on work for 25 shifts a year.

The only source of buses and drivers would be to impose severe cuts in the existing bus network whenever a match is being played. And that in itself would lead to more car journeys into the City Centre - exactly the opposite of what local and national transport policy is trying to achieve.

These are the figures for Sheepcote Valley. Similar calculations can be done for Toads Hole Valley. Either option would be in conflict with any sort of sustainable transport policy.

When the Inquiry looks at this issue, it will become obvious that not only does the Albion need Falmer, the City does as well.

 

[Mental Lental]

The thing I am scared about is if the ODPM conludes that there is an alternative site. This means that the all the work that has gone into the Falmer application over the last five years basically gets thrown straight into the bin, and the club then has to spend another great big chunk of time and money on the application for the 'more suitable' site. This application will no doubt face extreme resistance from the NIMBYs in the new area who are extremely likely to be able to put up a better case for why we can't build the stadium near their homes than the Falmer residents have for the Falmer site. The whole process starts all over again and we wait another five years while waiting for all the inevitable bureaucracy.

There is no way that if the ODPM concludes that there is a more suitable site this will mean that we can send the builders straight in to build there instead. If this happens we are basically f***ed. We cannot afford another controversial application on another site so the 'if the inquiry concludes that there is another site, that's alright because we can build there instead' attitude is an extreme misconception.

Everyone has always claimed it is Falmer or bust.

And it is.

 

[Gwylan]

Once you start getting into the number of buses required to serve a stadium, the figures start to become extremely relevant.

Sheepcote Valley would need 30 extra double deckers over and above the requirement for Falmer. 13 of these would be required for park and ride (some of them just to allow for the extra journey time between Sheepcote Valley and the available park & ride sites, like Mill Road; some of them for a new park & ride site that would have to substitute for the lack of a nearby railway station). 17 extra buses would be needed to provide a bespoke shuttle service between the city centre and the stadium.

But where the hell are these buses (and drivers) going to come from? There is simply no spare capacity in the existing public transport system. No operator would purchase buses for use on only 25 days a year. A no professional bus driver would take on work for 25 shifts a year.

The only source of buses and drivers would be to impose severe cuts in the existing bus network whenever a match is being played. And that in itself would lead to more car journeys into the City Centre - exactly the opposite of what local and national transport policy is trying to achieve.

These are the figures for Sheepcote Valley. Similar calculations can be done for Toads Hole Valley. Either option would be in conflict with any sort of sustainable transport policy.

When the Inquiry looks at this issue, it will become obvious that not only does the Albion need Falmer, the City does as well.

Thanks Lord B. That's a thorough answer. And these are facts that I'm sure are going to come out in the Inquiry.

The other options are falling by the wayside, one by one.

 

[London Calling]

Originally posted by 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.


22,000 or 11,000. THe NRA could not agree to to one of its main tracks having such a heavy overload.

Where else on its main Network does it have a similar situation?

And in such a key place?

On a different note I welcome this discussion on Waterhall and the alternatives.

Because we as supporters also possess a wealth of knowledge and expertise.

The Club needs to utilise this experience in fine tuning its presentaion and agruments for Falmer and againgst the alternatives.

The more discusion athe merrier.

LC