Open question for Lord B (if you don't mind).

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



Sheepcote Valley is also much further away from the planned park & ride sites at Mill Road and Mithras House. To maintain the same level of bus service as would be needed at Falmer (and it has to be a frequent service or people won't use it), the extra travelling time would mean that more buses would be needed for p&r. Again, where are the vehicles? Where are the drivers?

I expect there would also need to be a park & ride based at Sussex University - with yet more buses and drivers.

Unless Prescott would be happy with the whole of Whitehawk turning into an on-street car park?

The more I think about Sheepcote Valley, the more I think it's totally unacceptable as a site for a major sporting venue.
 




Perseus -

I'll do my best to answer your question (although I'm inclined to agree with DKM's comment that there is quite a lot that is indecipherable in there).

Falmer is severely congested at travel to work times and other peak periods. The Club's plans to improve access to Village Way from the Falmer-Woodingdean road not only improve access on matchdays. They also assist with traffic management for the rest of the week. Which is why they have the support of East Sussex County Council, in its capacity as highway authority for that road.

If the stadium was to be built at Sheepcote Valley and it was impossible to provide good public transport access (see my earlier posts), the effect would be that more supporters would travel by car. This would increase traffic on the A259 coast road (totally unacceptable) and also on the A27 and its feeder road between Falmer and Woodingdean.

As far as Falmer Parish Council is concerned, I am fairly certain that even they can work out that a stadium at Sheepcote Valley would INCREASE traffic through Falmer enormously (unlike a stadium at Falmer itself, which would have traffic arrangements that ensured that almost ALL cars would park a considerable distance away from their precious village).
 
Last edited:


perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,467
Sūþseaxna
Travel to work Sussex figures from the 1991 Census:

65% by car
5% by bus
6% by train
14% walking
3% cycling

Exactly how comparable these are to football crowds, I am not sure.

I think the Albion stated that something like 14% travel by train to Preston Park for Withdean.
I think that 19% could be a reasonable figure to use Falmer station.

This would be an extra 3,400 supporters in a 18,000 crowd that would have to find an alternative public transport method of transport to a site without a railway station. The lower figure of 14% would be 2,500.

These would be additional buses and drivers in addition to any park 'n ride.
 
Last edited:


Dave the OAP

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
47,052
at home
lB

what about my ramblings mate?
 


Bloody hell, perseus!

Your guesstimate of figures for rail travel to Falmer aren't a million miles away from the figures presented at the Public Inquiry.

Travel to work statistics for "Sussex", though, aren't relevant. Brighton & Hove is so very different from the rest of Sussex that the overall numbers make no sense at all.
 




Hunting 784561

New member
Jul 8, 2003
3,651
Lord B - simple question, how important is "precedent" in a planning issue like this ?

In other words what was the previous outcome, in similar sized towns or cities to ours, on applications for new stadia in the south east ?

From what I've seen, its the brownfield site that currently seems to win the day, even with less than perfect transport links , ie, Wycombe, Southampton/St Marys, and Arsenal/Ashburton Grove.

If *precedent* doesnt actually count for anything with these inspectors, then fantastic, Falmer it is...



PS - Percy, please dont bother sticking your own unintelligble two pennorth worth of mad ramblings in on this.... there's a good lad.
 


perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,467
Sūþseaxna
The only precedents I could find where a holiday village (somewhere near SE London or Kent) where Planning Permission was given for a site well within an AONB by any stretch of the imagination. It did not go ahead for financial reasons.

The other precedent was the Wycombe Wanderers football ground (hardly a stadium) where it seems to have been accepted because the Council opposing the scheme could not come up with an alternative.

The precedents for refusal are Portosmello, where the development was veteoed without an alternative proposal.

And there was a mixed development somewhere in the Thames corridor where despite backing from the Council and without any NIMBYs the scheme was turned down and the Councillors were last seen chasing after Prescott demanding to know the reason why. Political numbers did not seem to matter even with a Labour marginal Council.

Relevant possibly is the sequential process in how alternative sites should be chosen.

Some new thinking on this from the Town and Planning Institute is at:

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/consultation_files/Responses 2004/PPS6 (final%20220304).htm

You will have to cut and paste this one, as clicking on the text doesn't work.

PS: Southampton appeared to be a straight choice between the greenfield Stonehaven and the brownfield St. Mary's.
 
Last edited:








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top