BBC Article on Falmer Deadline

[Drumstick]

This information should be in the public realm, shouldn't it?

I thought Black Rock (Capacity 10,000) had been delayed due to transport issues!

its 7,500 and can become 11,000 for concerts. Was approved but when they also approved the marina towers scheme the BIA wanted to link the two up with a bridge from the arm to increase acsess from the marina. So they withdrew there planning aplication and entered another one with a bridge which is expected to be approved in the next few months.

As I understand it

 

[The Large One]

Lord Bracknell's original post...

The soundbite that seems to be creeping into the media coverage about Falmer is that Ruth Kelly thinks there are "deficiencies in the evidence about Sheepcote Valley".

I've got the letter that Ms Kelly's department sent out to the interested parties earlier this week. Let's have a look at what that letter actually says:-

... The Secretary of State considers that more general information is required on how alternative sites were assessed, but that this should include a particular look at the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley. This latter point is particularly important because the second Inspector's Report (IR2) at IR 10,46 and IR 10.158 indicated deficiencies in the evidence on the accessibility of Sheepcote Valley. We also consider that extending the timetable to 15 February is reasonable to enable your Council (ie LDC) to instruct transport consultants to produce this evidence ...

The references are to two specific paragraphs in Inspector Brier's Report:-

10.46 I have some sympathy with LDC’s submissions regarding the difficulty inherent in
drawing firm conclusions about the impact of a major development such as a stadium
upon the highway network in the absence of a full traffic impact assessment. Indeed, I
can well understand the HA’s reservations about the wisdom of making a comparison
between Falmer and the other locations in the absence of the information that such an
exercise would produce. In cross examination CE/PI’s transport witness, who shared the
Club’s concerns about the effect upon the Woodingdean Crossroads, accepted that it may
not be necessary to access Sheepcote Valley by this route and expressed reservations about
the projected effects on some of other the junctions identified in the Club’s assessment.
However none of this was backed up by any detailed quantitative analysis of the undertaken
by the Club. In the light of this, I am not satisfied that the Club’s assessment has
exaggerated the likely impact of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley. [4.78, 4.81, 6.53, 8.97]

Note - "CE/PI's transport witness" is a reference to the transport consultant employed by the Cook Estates/Pecla Investments, the owners of Toads Hole Valley.

10.158 The foregoing factors, not least the fact that Sheepcote Valley is not in the AONB,
offer persuasive reasons for preferring this location to Falmer. However, accessibility is its
Achilles heel. Despite the relative abundance of bus services serving the area and the
prospect that these may be augmented, capacity is lacking and there is no convenient
railway station. The evidence also points to the likelihood of serious traffic congestion
occurring when a capacity event occurs. It has not been demonstrated how this can be
overcome. For this reason therefore, I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect
that planning permission would be forthcoming.

So what does this mean?

As far as I can see, it means that Inspector Brier was convinced that the transport evidence against Sheepcote Valley was overwhelming, enough to rule it out as an option.

However, one consultant questioned the evidence about the traffic impact of a stadium at Sheepcote Valley on the grounds that the club might have got its predictions wrong about the routes that people might take to travel to matches. Hence the suggestion that the evidence might be "deficient".

What seems to have escaped Ruth Kelly's civil servants is that the consultant mentioned in paragraph 10.46 had been engaged by the promoters of an alternative site, who had a vested interest in rubbishing the expertise of the Club's transport consultant and the City Council's transport consultant, not because of anything they had to say about Sheepcote Valley or Falmer, but because they had concluded that Toads Hole Valley was unsuitable on traffic grounds. Why on earth his opinion should be given any weight at all escapes me completely - particularly since his performance at the Inquiry was, quite frankly, pathetic.

More importantly ... no convincing evidence was produced by Lewes District Council to counter the transport evidence of the Club or the City Council. Para 10.158 of Brier's Report makes this very clear.

None of this seriously questions the quality of the Club's case against Sheepcote Valley. All that LDC are being invited to show now is that serious traffic congestion associated with a stadium at Sheepcote Valley CAN be overcome.

They'll have a hell of a job doing that, in my opinion.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

its 7,500 and can become 11,000 for concerts. Was approved but when they also approved the marina towers scheme the BIA wanted to link the two up with a bridge from the arm to increase acsess from the marina. So they withdrew there planning aplication and entered another one with a bridge which is expected to be approved in the next few months.

As I understand it

Excellent. Thank you , Mr Drumstick.

Are we the slowest moving, 'city on the move' in the whole world!?

 

[Caveman]

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

The Chuckle Brothers could do a play based on the Falmer process

to me, to you, to me , to you , to me , to you, to me, to you , to me , to you, ad infinitum

Isn't that the f*cking truth! They'd do a far better job as well.

 

[The Large One]

i am sorry Alan...why are we asking these questions now. This should have been something that was cleared up at the 3rd/4th Enquiry shouldnt it?

The short answer is... I don't know.

But looking at LB's post from November (above), it seems to me that Inspector Brier (the second planning inspector) did take it on board, but didn't give Cook Estates' "consultant's" evidence much weight - nor did Prescott.

Ruth Kelly, on the other hand, does seem to want to. At least, she wants further clarification. Why, when Prescott nor Brier didn't? I don't know. Nor does Lord Bracknell, it appears, especially when he called their performance and behaviour 'pathetic'.

 

[portlock seagull]

Sounds like Toads Hall Valley consortium have about as much grounds for requesting a deficiency as anybody else with a passing interest or seeking to delay matters.

Can 'we' the fans therefore just similarly intervene with claims that it should be built at Falmer by now and therefore that's the end of it? How are our rights to speed things up (lose term) not held in equal measure as those deliberately delaying things with 'new evidence'. The whole saga and planning process is beyond a joke. We've spent great chunks of our lives trying to get this built - it's like some 14th Cathedral being built. Takes centuries but will be beautiful. Trouble is I WANT IT IN MY LIFETIME FFS

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

" build it and they will come "

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

" build it and they will come "

"plan to build it and they will object"

 

[Barrel of Fun]

"Host Crewe in it and we will lose"

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The whole thing is quite farcical now. Were not trying to build a huge disco which doubles as a massive 1000 seater pub with strippers and en suite brothels to cater for stag parties , we are trying to build a much needed sporting complex for Sussex and a home for the team that has represented that county in the football league for over 100 years in a brown field by the side of a 50 meter wide double dual carriageway with 65000 vehicles daily , 2 huge university complexes and Moulescoomb North Brighton edge less than a mile away, you just have to laugh at it all now as if you took it seriously you would be sharing a cup of coffee and a red bull with Robbie Williams.

 

[The Large One]

The whole thing is quite farcical now. Were not trying to build a huge disco which doubles as a massive 1000 seater pub with strippers and en suite brothels to cater for stag parties...

We're not? I could have sworn the plans for the facilities under the East Stand featured just that.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

"plan to build it and they will object"

Lewes District Council proudly presents

" Build it and Leeds fans will be urinating in the Falmer pond "

A heroic tale of a little councils fight to prevent thousands of football hooligans ruining the peaceful world of 100 people who pretend they are living in the middle of the Lake District with their own Windermere " the beautiful Falmer Pond ".

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

We're not? I could have sworn the plans for the facilities under the East Stand featured just that.

Alan, schhhh, don't tell David Neighbour

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Lewes District Council proudly presents

" Build it and Leeds fans will be urinating in the Falmer pond "

A heroic tale of a little councils fight to prevent thousands of football hooligans ruining the peaceful world of 100 people who pretend they are living in the middle of the Lake District with their own Windermere " the beautiful Falmer Pond ".

"Edward, they covet the precious things of The Pond"

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

thats De Vecchi on the left is that Neighbour on the right

 

[tedebear]

The BBC have just dug up some old info. to warm up the viewers/readers in preparation for Thursdays deadline I reckon....Just incase its a big story and they can say you heard it here!!

 

[Drumstick]

Lewes District Council proudly presents

" Build it and Leeds fans will be urinating in the Falmer pond "

If they dont build it, i'll piss in there presious pond!

 

[Napper]

The short answer is... I don't know.

But looking at LB's post from November (above), it seems to me that Inspector Brier (the second planning inspector) did take it on board, but didn't give Cook Estates' "consultant's" evidence much weight - nor did Prescott.

Ruth Kelly, on the other hand, does seem to want to. At least, she wants further clarification. Why, when Prescott nor Brier didn't? I don't know. Nor does Lord Bracknell, it appears, especially when he called their performance and behaviour 'pathetic'.

This is the thing that concerns me . The question why Ruth Kelly wants further clarification does suggest she is looking for a reason to side with LDC.

Maybe I'm to cynical but since she has come in the vibes seem to of got worse (to me anyway)

 

[tedebear]

This is the thing that concerns me . The question why Ruth Kelly wants further clarification does suggest she is looking for a reason to side with LDC.

Maybe I'm to cynical but since she has come in the vibes seem to of got worse (to me anyway)

I've not read it that way - I've always thought she was ensuring that no further legal wrangling would be possible - ie she's crossing all t's and dotting all i's...so this decision (and I f**king well hope its the right one) will be the final decision...

 

[Napper]

I've not read it that way - I've always thought she was ensuring that no further legal wrangling would be possible - ie she's crossing all t's and dotting all i's...so this decision (and I f**king well hope its the right one) will be the final decision...

yeah must be me then , I'm an optimistic guy but the falmer thing I'm def a half empty kinda bloke

Hope to God you are right