Alternative sites

[chips and gravy]

Ok - so we'll have another look at the sites. How do you think these will be assessed independently? We all know the arguments regarding each one. Some are financial, some are poor transport links, some are impractical because of size etc and some are because of countryside issues.

I know a lot of focus has been put on Sheepcote Valley as a result of the report, but at what point do sites such as Shoreham Harbour or Withdean start to become unsuitable? An independent report may rule that these are favourable sites if enough finance can be raised.

 

[Marc]

sticky at the top innit

 

[chips and gravy]

sticky at the top innit

Whoops! Didn't notice that! Ignore me - I'm still suffering from sleep deprivation

 

[007]

From Collyers Report (his own site visits):-

18.65 Shoreham Harbour: The harbour area generally is the subject of a major regeneration strategy. Although within this area 2 possible locations for a stadium have been identified in the past, at the inquiry little was said about the more central site which would involve the reclamation of land from the sea. The other option, at the eastern end of the harbour, was examined in some detail however; it is here that the strategy’s concept proposals envisage a media village which would include leisure development.
18.66 This is an urban site and there is no dispute that this area in general is much in need of regeneration. However it is also widely acknowledged that for this to take place very substantial costs would be involved, not least in terms of land reclamation and the provision of essential infrastructure. While some progress has been made on the formulation of the strategy, realising the vision for the regeneration of this area will clearly be a long-term process; up to 20 years according to the strategy document, with even the short-term programme (including the media village) taking up to 10 years. There is no evidence that a stadium could be incorporated into this vast project, and go ahead even as an initial phase, without first resolving such matters as infrastructure provision, reclamation, land assembly and relocation of existing businesses, and securing the funding therefor; the representations of the Shoreham Port Authority describe this in more detail. While it is evident that BHFC would only be required to contribute to such costs on a pro rata basis, the co-operation of many other stakeholders would need to be secured and this is a vital and unknown factor.
18.67 However I am not so convinced by the other arguments raised by the Applicants and BHCC against the Shoreham Harbour location. The identified site is within a relatively convenient walking distance of 2 railway stations and, being within an urban area with a busy main road alongside, it is reasonably well served by buses; I see no reason in principle why those services could not be improved as is the case at Falmer. It is also within reach, by pedestrians and cyclists, of an extensive urban area and in this respect would be a better location than Falmer. As for it being at the far western end of the urban area, exactly the same criticism can be made about Falmer which is at the far north-eastern end. On the question of car parking, since some such provision will undoubtedly be made in connection with the overall strategy it would seem that potentially an element of shared parking could be available. And regarding park-and-ride sites, I am unaware that there has been any detailed investigation which has demonstrated conclusively the complete absence of opportunities for providing such facilities. All those factors, coupled with the prospect of the sort of traffic management plan offered by the Applicants in the present case, should ensure that unacceptable levels of traffic congestion would not arise. In the foregoing respects this site would be suitable for a stadium development.
18.68 However 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 in the relative short-term. Even so, I do not dismiss this site entirely from my thoughts - I shall return to this matter when considering the Withdean Stadium site.

18.88 Withdean Stadium: This site, of course, is the present home of BHFC. 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 22000 capacity stadium.
18.89 It is claimed that a smaller stadium would not be viable; yet, as I have explained earlier [see paragraph 18.53], there is no compelling financial evidence to support that assertion. The point is also made that the existing stadium, with a capacity of 7000, is too small; that it is always virtually full and that the Club’s database of more than 20000 supporters demonstrates a need to accommodate that number. However permission has recently been granted to raise that capacity to 9000. This would provide a stadium which is able to accommodate the average crowds which attended BHFC’s matches during the last 10 seasons or so of their occupation of the Goldstone Ground; and it would exceed the figure for average attendances achieved in recent seasons by the majority of clubs in Division 2 (in which BHFC currently plays). As I understand it, the 20000+ database figure represents the number of people who have bought a ticket for at least one match; it is not therefore demonstrative of the number who will regularly attend matches. As for the FL requirements which BHFC say the present stadium fails to meet, these appear to be of a nature which are capable of resolution by means other than building a new stadium some 3 times the size of the existing capacity. At the inquiry the Applicants admitted that the FL minimum standards for clubs in each of its 3 divisions could, with planning permission for certain improvements, be met.
18.90 I acknowledge that the scope for even greater expansion (beyond the latest permission) of the existing stadium is constrained by the other sports/leisure facilities at this location. And I also accept the Applicants’ evidence about the need for, and the implications of, infrastructure improvements in the locality. But the evidence regarding those considerations is predicated on the claimed need for a 22000 capacity stadium; contrary to the Applicants’ assertion, to my mind there is no clear and convincing evidence that yet another modest incremental increase, not involving so much disturbance to other existing users or requiring such significant infrastructure improvements, would necessarily be wholly out of the question. Their argument seems to centre on the matter of cost; yet detailed information to support their claims is conspicuously absent. And I return to the point made earlier [see paragraph 18.46] that BHFC has now survived into its 7th season enduring limited or capped capacity crowds yet it appears to have enjoyed a noticeable measure of success in terms of managing its finances.
18.91 As for the Applicants’ concern about the impact on surrounding residents, they have already “lived with” the present football stadium since 1999 and BHCC has seen fit to allow a near 30% increase in its capacity for a further 2 year period; there is also a general park-and-ride site in front of this stadium. In these circumstances, I do not consider that a further increase would necessarily be likely to worsen significantly the standards of amenity which residents in an area like this might reasonably expect to enjoy.
18.92 Certainly a number of other factors point towards this being an appropriate location. It is a long-established sports/leisure site; it is within an urban area and therefore is easily accessible on foot and by cycle from over a wide area; there are nearby bus services and Preston Park railway station is quite close; park-and-ride facilities are in place on match days; and a TMS has been established which I anticipate could, given the Applicants’ enthusiastic approach to this initiative so far, be refined and improved to cater for larger crowds than the present 7000. Also, BHFC already operates from Withdean a community programme which is highly regarded [see paragraph 18.37] and which presumably would continue to provide city-wide economic and social benefits.
18.93 And if the Club were to continue to aspire to an even larger stadium, of the capacity currently proposed for Falmer, then in my judgement there is potentially a longer-term option in the form of the Shoreham Harbour site. As explained before, any such development in this location would necessarily have to be part of a comprehensive long-term programme [see paragraph 18.68]. But the continued occupation of a somewhat enlarged and improved Withdean Stadium for the time being would allow the opportunity to plan for the incorporation of a community stadium into the harbour strategy. Nothing in the evidence available suggests that this could not, in principle, be achieved and to my mind it represents a realistic, albeit a rather hybrid, alternative.

oops sorry!

Draw your own conclusions.