Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

I might be thick but....



Sergi Gotsmanov

New member
Feb 23, 2004
445
West of Palookaville
........tell me why isn't Toads Hole valley any good.

I can t se that the transport problem is an issue.
Access from A27 is good.
Train station not that far away when you look at some grounds (colchester for one)

Don't get me wrong. I want Falmer but this site worries me.
 




Wardy

NSC's Benefits Guru
Oct 9, 2003
11,219
In front of the PC
It is owned by a company that do not want to sell it to us.
 


Rangdo

Registered Cider Drinker
Apr 21, 2004
4,779
Cider Country
And if they did it would be for a hell of a lot of money which would make development costs unacceptable.
 


harry_h

New member
Dec 30, 2003
741
Hove
Toad's Hole Valley
- there is no rail access to this site
- Providing necessary additions to public transport infrastructure is not possible
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.
 


Rangdo

Registered Cider Drinker
Apr 21, 2004
4,779
Cider Country
I've read a few posts where people have said that Sheepcote Valley can't be used because it used to be landfill and is unsafe. Is this true and if so how could the inspector have suggested it as an alternative to Falmer
 




sullyupthewing

New member
Jul 5, 2003
1,644
brighton and worthing
Because the wanker never done his homework and studied the survey report that was carried out by the council nothing to do with the Albion, shows how much of a dipstick he is.
 


007

New member
May 29, 2004
170
Lancing
Rangdo said:
I've read a few posts where people have said that Sheepcote Valley can't be used because it used to be landfill and is unsafe. Is this true and if so how could the inspector have suggested it as an alternative to Falmer
Cos he visited all sites and got dosed up on methane! :lolol:
 


Sergi Gotsmanov

New member
Feb 23, 2004
445
West of Palookaville
harry_h said:
Toad's Hole Valley
- there is no rail access to this site
- Providing necessary additions to public transport infrastructure is not possible
- there is no sustainable transport solution to this site
A planning application for a stadium on this site will fail because it cannot meet Government Planning Policy Guidelines.


I'm sorry I just don't see these reasons being that clear cut.

as I say I want falmer but I'm worried that this site could be an easy cop out for prezza.

I really think that this is danger site as far as Falmer is concerned.
 




harry_h

New member
Dec 30, 2003
741
Hove
Sergi Gotsmanov said:

I really think that this is danger site as far as Falmer is concerned.

I do too.

IF Falmer is NO because of this, how easy will it be for the club to build their stadium at Toads Hole?
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,346
Location Location
Sergi Gotsmanov said:
I really think that this is danger site as far as Falmer is concerned.
It has to be proved that Toads Hole Valley is a superior site to Falmer. It has to meet each and every Government requirement that Falmer has already met, and more than that, it has to be proved to be a better site.

IF it is found that Toads Hall Valley IS superior to Falmer, then the ODPM would grant planning permission for the stadium to be built there. No Inquiry, no planning permission from the council, the governent would say "scrub Falmer, build it there".

However, the fact that it is privately owned land basically rules it out anyway - if they ain't gonna sell, then it'll have to be crossed off the list, end of story.
 


Sergi Gotsmanov said:
I really think that this is danger site as far as Falmer is concerned.

That's a fair call, and Sheepcote will be a danger too if we can't nail down the contimination issue.

Remember that even Collyer has downplayed the chances of Toad's Hole because of the environmental impact - indeed, many of the things he criticises the Falmer application for would also be problems at Toads Hole in terms of affecting local residents. The planning inspectors may have hoisted themselves with their own petard with Toad's Hole.

Sheepcote is Collyer and Hoile's favoured location so perhaps that must be the real danger. I've absolutely no doubt it's because they think council estate residents have no amenity to be spoiled.
 
Last edited:




The Magician

New member
Jul 28, 2004
43
The Land of Magic
Toads Hole also worried me, suppose the private owners suddenly change their minds and sell the land? Could happen. It won't, but it could.

So it's absolutely certain the ODPM would grant planning permission to build there, not even taking into account the NIMBYs etc?
 


The Magician

New member
Jul 28, 2004
43
The Land of Magic
Sheepcote is the real danger.

I hope it can be shown how many rare species of birds and animals live there.

It could be shown that if the land is bigger, a car park could be built, negating the need for huge numbers of buses to go up there?
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,346
Location Location
The Magician said:
Toads Hole also worried me, suppose the private owners suddenly change their minds and sell the land? Could happen. It won't, but it could.

So it's absolutely certain the ODPM would grant planning permission to build there, not even taking into account the NIMBYs etc?
The ODPM have specifically listed Toads Hole Valley (along with 6 other sites) as a potential alternative to Falmer. If it IS then proved to be a preferable site to Falmer, then why would they then turn it down ?

Bear in mind, Falmer has now already met ALL the Governments other requirements - they have NOT come back and said "Falmer is unsuitable because of x, y and z". They have come back and said "first, prove that one or more of these other sites is NOT better than Falmer."

Now that the ODPM has nominated those other sites for investigation, it goes beyond local authority backing for planning permission.

Why would the ODPM list an alternate site for investigation to find out if its better than Falmer, then (in the unlikely event) agree that one of them is indeed preferable to Falmer, but then turn down the planning permission for it anyway ?

It all leads to the same answer that we already know anyway. Falmer is the BEST site for this stadium, and once these other sites have been proved to be inferior, then there really is only on decision left to make.
 




Wardy

NSC's Benefits Guru
Oct 9, 2003
11,219
In front of the PC
Rangdo said:
I've read a few posts where people have said that Sheepcote Valley can't be used because it used to be landfill and is unsafe. Is this true and if so how could the inspector have suggested it as an alternative to Falmer

It is possible to build on one, Reading have proved it. But it is very expensive and one of the things the inquiry has to look at is that there is no expensive work needed to be done to get it up to standard.
 


jmsc

New member
Jul 19, 2003
647
Old Shoreham Road :o(
Sergi Gotsmanov said:
........tell me why isn't Toads Hole valley any good.

I can t se that the transport problem is an issue.
Access from A27 is good.
Train station not that far away when you look at some grounds (colchester for one)

Don't get me wrong. I want Falmer but this site worries me.

So just where is this train station that's not that far away?
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here