Alternative Sites - the official facts.

[Lord Bracknell]

Because we were united we've come a long way. Now however the game has changed, the debate has been re-opened so please feel free to suggest your alternative and why you think it would be better than Falmer.

The game hasn't changed. We have to prove that ALL of the alternative sites are unacceptable.

If we fail to do that, Prescott's decision will simply be a NO to Falmer. It won't be a YES to the alternative.

OK, we would no doubt be able to prepare and submit a planning application for the alternative site. But there would be a massive delay, while the plans were drawn up, grants were re-negotiated and all the necessary planning agreements (about land ownership, highway issues, transport plans, etc) took place.

And there would have to be an opportunity for any objectors to have their say.

I reckon it would be 2006 (or even 2007) before we got planning permission. Meanwhile, the Club's financial position would become more and more precarious.

We have to keep united. The campaign slogan has got to stay the same:-

THERE'S ONLY ONE SITE IN BRIGHTON!

 

[Lammy]

Does anyone honestly think that a viable alturnative to Falmer will come out of this Public Enquiry? I cannot think of ANY site that come close to Falmer!

 

[Harold]

c) Whether there are any other sites that could be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the above criteria.

So anything within the Brighton & Hove conurbation within the Football League limits could be included.

I do not know exactly what the Football League rules are: eight miles from where?

It has always been my understanding that it is 8 miles from the Royal Pavillion. I believe that to be the geographical marker denoting (for formal reasons like these at least) the centre of Brighton.

 

[London Calling]

It has always been my understanding that it is 8 miles from the Royal Pavillion. I believe that to be the geographical marker denoting (for formal reasons like these at least) the centre of Brighton.

Normally the "Main" Post Office or an alternative location if an area has a historic site. Eg in London Charing Cross

LC

 

[London Calling]

The game hasn't changed. We have to prove that ALL of the alternative sites are unacceptable.

If we fail to do that, Prescott's decision will simply be a NO to Falmer. It won't be a YES to the alternative.

OK, we would no doubt be able to prepare and submit a planning application for the alternative site. But there would be a massive delay, while the plans were drawn up, grants were re-negotiated and all the necessary planning agreements (about land ownership, highway issues, transport plans, etc) took place.

And there would have to be an opportunity for any objectors to have their say.

I reckon it would be 2006 (or even 2007) before we got planning permission. Meanwhile, the Club's financial position would become more and more precarious.

don't disagree with this or Lammy's post.

As I said earlier the alternatives need to be critique to dismiss them.

There is a whole lot of informed knowledge within the ranks of BHA supporters which still need to be scrutinised and utilised.

LC

We have to keep united. The campaign slogan has got to stay the same:-

THERE'S ONLY ONE SITE IN BRIGHTON!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I've edited the above post by London Calling only to make it clear which bits were his contribution and which were mine. No change in the content.

 

[Bromley shrimp]

No matter how hard and long we debate this one, as it stands Presser has raised a question mark which jolly well have to get on and deal with. Healthy debate is great, whilst in-fighting serves no useful purpose when we're all on the same side. If you're not with that basic concept put you're head above the parapet now.

Why the re-evaluation of alternative sites has been called for is an interesting one, given that you might be forgiven for thinking that this must have already been done to death in the original application.

The inspector's decisions have not helped our cause one iota and provide what may turn out to be the most giant of red herrings, given what I consider to be the utter perverseness of his conclusions.

If that is taken as a starting point, and even given that I am not a qualified DOE Inspector it would I suggest not be being wildly extravagent to give me the benefit of the doubt on just one of the options as being clearly unsuitable/unavailable.

What I am trying to say is that if there REALLY was a suitable option(s) then surely they might have given us a clue by pointing us in the right direction, rather than saying go re-visit ALL the options and any others you can dream up as an after thought. If, say, Brighton Station, which is clearly not available, needs to be re-examined couldn't it be that in actual fact all of the alternative sites up for re-consideration are to a greater or lesser extent for one reason or another similarly not nearly as suitable as the appeal site if at all?

I am presenting a positive hear in as much as to suggest that this line of thinking could provide us with a good inkling that the re-evaluation is a thinly veiled disguise to avoid the judicial hearing, which somebody else said could be the outcome if the ODPM were to ride rough shod over the inspector by granting Falmer without ado at this stage of the proceedings?

 

[balloonboy]

What I am trying to say is that if there REALLY was a suitable option(s) then surely they might have given us a clue by pointing us in the right direction, rather than saying go re-visit ALL the options and any others you can dream up as an after thought. If, say, Brighton Station, which is clearly not available, needs to be re-examined couldn't it be that in actual fact all of the alternative sites up for re-consideration are to a greater or lesser extent for one reason or another similarly not nearly as suitable as the appeal site if at all?

I am presenting a positive hear in as much as to suggest that this line of thinking could provide us with a good inkling that the re-evaluation is a thinly veiled disguise to avoid the judicial hearing, which somebody else said could be the outcome if the ODPM were to ride rough shod over the inspector by granting Falmer without ado at this stage of the proceedings?

I am of the same view. Even though mentioned as an alternative in the Public Inquiry, it is clearly no longer an option. To me, the fact that it was included puts a question mark over the genuineness of including any of the other sites. If one site is so flawed, the others are no doubt flawed too. If (say) the obviously ridiculous options had been excluded by the ODPM (the Station, Shoreham Power Station), then I'd be worried that the other sites might have something going for them. As it is, my take is that the ODPM has said "look, all seven are crap alternatives....let's keep them all in".

 

[BensGrandad]

It has always been my understanding that it is 8 miles from the Royal Pavillion. I believe that to be the geographical marker denoting (for formal reasons like these at least) the centre of Brighton.

This is now totally irrelevant as I have said many times that if I went to the Football League and said I have planning permission to build a ground and the money to build it but it is at e.g.. Shoreham Airport do you honestly think that they would refuse permission. Not in a million years hence MK Dons. This must be forgotten and efforts spent on persuading the NIMBYS of the other seven sites that they are not acceptable. A friend of mine lives in Woodingdean and I shall be pushing her and her husband to object to Sheepcote Valley.

Those residents already have the hump about the shutting of a junior school in Whitehawk and the pupils being sent to Woodingdean I am sure it won't take a lot to raise their wrath about a football stadium.

 

[m20gull]

The 8 mile limit might not be relevant with the Football League (hence MK Dons) but it is a restriction for the re-opened public enquiry.

Criterion (i) Is the site within the conurbation of Brighton and Hove?

 

[BUTTERBALL]

There is a need for a community stadium within the city boundary. That is the overriding theme.

 

[dougdeep]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Waterhall is landfill too.Surely this is another reason to rule it out.

 

[Curious Orange]

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Waterhall is landfill too.Surely this is another reason to rule it out.

But when was it last used as a landfill? Elsewhere it has been said that landfills shouldn't be built on for forty years, cetainly I can't remember Waterhall being used for that purpose in my lifetime, so that's at least twentynine years.

 

[sullyupthewing]

But when was it last used as a landfill? Elsewhere it has been said that landfills shouldn't be built on for forty years, cetainly I can't remember Waterhall being used for that purpose in my lifetime, so that's at least twentynine years.

#

Not 100% sure but I trink it stopped being used early to middle 60s

 

[Curious Orange]

#

Not 100% sure but I trink it stopped being used early to middle 60s

So that's that argument ruled out then, probably. However we should be quite comfortable with the AONB/proposed National Park, against local planning policy, visual and environmental impact, difficult transport solution, negligible socio-economic benefits arguments.

 

[BensGrandad]

Is it a case of us getting the backing of NIMBYs of all of the suggested alternative sites. Which combined should far outweigh the NIMBYs of Falmer.

Is this a route that we should look at taking?

 

[perseus]

Even if they are on your side, NIMBYs can be a bit of a pain.

Just get the local people to tell the truth. Exaggerations of the faults of alternative sites only lead to scepticism on the part of the neutrals.

This applies to the exaggerations of the benefits of Falmer as well. The promised 100 jobs (media release) was never believed in the first place.

PS: note the conservatism with my remarks; what I really mean to say that NIMBYs really are serious pain in the neck and are more trouble than they are worth, even if you oppose a scheme. They colour any serious debate with unfounded fears and stupid exaggerations, collective paranoia and general silliness.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The promised 100 jobs (media release) was never believed in the first place.

And your EVIDENCE for this is what?

SEEDA take a quite different view.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Ed

Keep up the superb work you and Roz have done on this. I wish I had the patience and diplomacy that you have, but as you know I don't !.

You will deserve a mighty slap on the back if we pull this one off.

GG

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Thanks for that.

Just don't put money on it, Gareth.