Public consultation in Lancing about the proposed new training ground

[B.W.]

It is undeniable that people have genuine greivances.

At the moment the site is scrubland people use for dog walking, it has permission to be used for sports pitches and open space, an informal use for local people.

The Club want to make it a training facility with some but limited public use, and there are likely to be a increase in traffic movements past peoples houses along with some noise and disturbance from training. Although I do understand most training occurs during the day but there must be some ocurrences when it runs into the evening. People will also lose any views out of their property.

So just laughing off complaints of local people isn't fair as some of them are valid concerns, BHAFC just have to demonstrate the positives outweigh the negatives which I'm sure they will.

Seriously, they need to nwake up and smell the coffee... the likely alternatives are far, far worse...

 

[Storer 68]

No sorry I've had enough of NIMBYs. I'm not doubting the genuinessness of the grievance but really!!!!!

There will be a negligible increase in traffic (and its the A27 we're talking about here - a major trunk route) and they are concerned about someone shouting in a field. At the moment the site is scrubland but EARMARKED for devleopment. So something will be built on it, and personally having seen the plans there is a lot more open space in what BHA are proposing than if say it was earmarked for light industrial units or housing.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

No sorry I've had enough of NIMBYs. I'm not doubting the genuinessness of the grievance but really!!!!!

There will be a negligible increase in traffic (and its the A27 we're talking about here - a major trunk route) and they are concerned about someone shouting in a field. At the moment the site is scrubland but EARMARKED for devleopment. So something will be built on it, and personally having seen the plans there is a lot more open space in what BHA are proposing than if say it was earmarked for light industrial units or housing.

What transport assessment have you seen that says its negligible at the moment to property owners of Mash Barn Lane? Where is the land ear marked for other development, in which Council documents does it say this?

Jumping down residents necks isn't going to help anyone as frankly some people are coming across as idtiots which is what a lot of people who don't like football assum them to be.

 

[CP 0 3 BHA]

I was in the area so went along to the club's exhibition of its plans for the new training ground in Lancing yesterday and I have to report that many of the locals seemed pretty hostile.

A few spoke out of ignorance - one bloke seemed to think that the first team would be training under lights every evening, when most people know that players do the minimum training they can get away with and see any sessions after 1pm as an infringement of their basic human rights - but there were a number of gripes that kept coming up.

Increased traffic caused by the arrival en masse at 9.30 of our vast squad was one. Then the fact that one all-weather pitch will be floodlit, and available for community use, which will mean noise in the evenings (yes, they complained even though there was local community benefit). And some deer will be deprived of their habitat (which reminded me of the fabled Falmer bats).

But apart from the specifics, the general feeling was that the council had landed this all on them without much notice, and it sounded as if it wasn't the first time. Whether this general dissatisfaction with Adur District ends up delaying the Albion's plans, who knows?

Martin Perry's usual sweet reasonableness was turned up to 11, and he repeatedly made the point that I would have considered most important if I were a resident - that the development guaranteed that the area would remain green, open space rather than becoming housing or light industry. But I got the impression that a few weren't listening.

Of course, the people most likely to object are the ones who turn up at these events and make the most noise, so it may well be that the silent majority will welcome the club with open arms, but we may need to be prepared for another letter-writing campaign...

Roughly what was the turnout like and, of them, how many were Anti?

 

[strings]

I have to agree with [MENTION=20940]deletebeepbeep[/MENTION] - any development will always have its opponents. It is the clubs job to demonstrate that the benefits far outweigh any negatives. I have every faith that the club will do this, and the residents fears will prove to be wrong.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

Like so many developments, you will always have a noisy minority of NIMBY's kicking up a stink & more often than not, making outrageous claims & using scare tactics. Everything from people urinating in the duck pond to one Withdean Councillor claiming that 'Ladies hair do's' would be ruined at Withdean due to the atmospheric pressure within the surrounds of the stadium!

We've seen it all before with Withdean & Falmer & this development will be no different. The main difference being, the present objectors case is much much weaker than the previous two.

 

[AMEXican Wave]

I know it's a pain, but at the end of the day if we don't get permission, we'll just have to go for another site, delaying the project a year or so. It's not like the stadium where there were no ( except for secret plan B ?) alternatives.

 

[British Bulldog]

It is undeniable that people have genuine greivances.

At the moment the site is scrubland people use for dog walking, it has permission to be used for sports pitches and open space, an informal use for local people.

The Club want to make it a training facility with some but limited public use, and there are likely to be a increase in traffic movements past peoples houses along with some noise and disturbance from training. Although I do understand most training occurs during the day but there must be some ocurrences when it runs into the evening. People will also lose any views out of their property.

So just laughing off complaints of local people isn't fair as some of them are valid concerns, BHAFC just have to demonstrate the positives outweigh the negatives which I'm sure they will.

There's not many properties in the area that has views across the field a lot of the houses are side on, And it's not as if the accademy building is going to be right next the people's houses either. Yes there will be a bit of extra traffic once it's up and running but the route in and out of the complex uses a very minor part of the of the housing estate next to the complex so the impact will be minimal.
The most genuine concern that I've heard so far is that once the complex is built will it open the floodgates for the rest of the land to be developed? Having spoken to a few of the nimby's they dont really care about the accademy as such and they know they wont get it stopped anyway they're just fighting to protect what they call the "strategic gap" from being fully developed.

 

[empire]

I'll be surprised if it's even delayed as there's very little to fight the plans with.

this

 

[perseus]

I was in the area so went along to the club's exhibition of its plans for the new training ground in Lancing yesterday and I have to report that many of the locals seemed pretty hostile.

A few spoke out of ignorance - one bloke seemed to think that the first team would be training under lights every evening, when most people know that players do the minimum training they can get away with and see any sessions after 1pm as an infringement of their basic human rights - but there were a number of gripes that kept coming up.

Increased traffic caused by the arrival en masse at 9.30 of our vast squad was one. Then the fact that one all-weather pitch will be floodlit, and available for community use, which will mean noise in the evenings (yes, they complained even though there was local community benefit). And some deer will be deprived of their habitat (which reminded me of the fabled Falmer bats).

But apart from the specifics, the general feeling was that the council had landed this all on them without much notice, and it sounded as if it wasn't the first time. Whether this general dissatisfaction with Adur District ends up delaying the Albion's plans, who knows?

Martin Perry's usual sweet reasonableness was turned up to 11, and he repeatedly made the point that I would have considered most important if I were a resident - that the development guaranteed that the area would remain green, open space rather than becoming housing or light industry. But I got the impression that a few weren't listening.

Of course, the people most likely to object are the ones who turn up at these events and make the most noise, so it may well be that the silent majority will welcome the club with open arms, but we may need to be prepared for another letter-writing campaign...

The bold print is the rational view. This is the view of the environmental stakeholder forum at Adur District Council. The motion at the consultation Committee was to keep the area zoned for sports and recreation and this includes sports facilities. Lancing College has new and extensive sports facilities north of the A27 without raising any objections.



Access through the Marsh Barn estate is a genuine (if minor) gripe. This is a problem that the plan will have to overcome somehow. The main nuisance (not a problem) is cars leaving the estate in the morning, not entering.

The dissatisfaction with the Council is the general feeling. This is not the first time. Well spotted.

The Deer are real, but they occur all over the levels and downs and are a traffic hazard.

The concept of Strategic Gap is not valid any more (planning precedent on the Isle of Wight). One popular view is of a strategic link via cyclepath across the land would be a planning gain to connect Lancing with Shoreham off-road.

The residents have no rights to use the land. It is private property.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

There's not many properties in the area that has views across the field a lot of the houses are side on, And it's not as if the accademy building is going to be right next the people's houses either. Yes there will be a bit of extra traffic once it's up and running but the route in and out of the complex uses a very minor part of the of the housing estate next to the complex so the impact will be minimal.
The most genuine concern that I've heard so far is that once the complex is built will it open the floodgates for the rest of the land to be developed? Having spoken to a few of the nimby's they dont really care about the accademy as such and they know they wont get it stopped anyway they're just fighting to protect what they call the "strategic gap" from being fully developed.

True enough but the Council can only consider what is put in front of it. Whether or not there is a perception that this development open up other land for development is immaterial and not a sound planning objection. Any further developments will be subject of their own planning applications.

 

[CP 0 3 BHA]

There's not many properties in the area that has views across the field a lot of the houses are side on, And it's not as if the accademy building is going to be right next the people's houses either. Yes there will be a bit of extra traffic once it's up and running but the route in and out of the complex uses a very minor part of the of the housing estate next to the complex so the impact will be minimal.
The most genuine concern that I've heard so far is that once the complex is built will it open the floodgates for the rest of the land to be developed? Having spoken to a few of the nimby's they dont really care about the accademy as such and they know they wont get it stopped anyway they're just fighting to protect what they call the "strategic gap" from being fully developed.

I don't think anyone is entitled to a view in planning law so this would be a non-issue. I really can't see there being a major problem getting planning for this - particularly as Adur are clearly well on-side.

 

[Birdie Boy]

I think they should make sure they implement a few thousand car park spaces when they build the facility. This is a perfect site for park and ride, buses go straight over the A27 within 10 minutes they at the ground. There should only be minimal traffic increase on Saturday afternoons and the occasional evening game..

 

[Basil Fawlty]

I think we'll be doing some letter writing in the months to come. With developments like this and other future developments round the country, you do get opponents blocking these type of things. Bristol City are going have to go to a Judical Review soon about their new stadium.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Thought I'd add the thread from the Shorehambysea.com forum about the proposal. I would assume there'll also be one on the Lancing forum site too - probably more vociferous.

http://www.shorehambysea.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4022&st=0

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Roughly what was the turnout like and, of them, how many were Anti?

I was there for about half an hour around 4pmn, but it was going on from 2 to 10, with people dropping in and looking at plans and a model (of the site, of course), so no idea how many attended over the day. Around 50 would have passed through while I was there, of whom around 15 sounded anti.

On another point, the entrance will not be off the A27, but Grinstead Lane, via Mash Barn Lane.

I agree with [MENTION=20940]del[/MENTION]etebeepbeep and strings - people have legitimate concerns and even fears, which I'm sure the club will address. There are people who know nothing about football (and only some of them are football writers) and may be alarmed to find a training ground being planned for land just over their back fence.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I think we'll be doing some letter writing in the months to come. With developments like this and other future developments round the country, you do get opponents blocking these type of things. Bristol City are going have to go to a Judical Review soon about their new stadium.

It's not Bristol City FC but the City's Council that is subject to the JR.

 

[perseus]

Albion plans on show From The Argus)

Argus page with comments. Rational low-key is best.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Albion plans on show From The Argus)

Argus page with comments. Rational low-key is best.

Wow. Some of the comments on the Argus site make NSC seem like the Oxford Union.

 

[B.W.]

What transport assessment have you seen that says its negligible at the moment to property owners of Mash Barn Lane? Where is the land ear marked for other development, in which Council documents does it say this?

Jumping down residents necks isn't going to help anyone as frankly some people are coming across as idtiots which is what a lot of people who don't like football assum them to be.

OK... why would you think there would be a big transport issues from a few players and coached heading to the training ground? (genuine question)

I recall the Argus saying something along the lines that the land was earmarked for development... I haven't checked this!

Moaning about extra noise is simply ridiculous...

What is your beef?