Lord Bracknell
On fire
This is the section of the Inspector's Report on the Draft Local Plan that deals with POLICY SR25 - COMMUNITY STADIUM
The whole of the Report can be found on the City Council's website
SUMMARY
(From the Inspector's covering letter to the Chief Executive of the City Council)
The Community Stadium
15. My accompanying report is submitted separately from that of my colleague dealing with the
four planning applications by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd: for a
"Community Stadium", with accommodation for Class B1 business, and other
development elements, a coach and bus interchange in Lewes District, and a partial
widening of Village Way. My findings concern the type of development described in the
words of policy SR25 and its supporting text, not the particular proposals in the planning
applications.
16. For reasons fully discussed in my report, I conclude that the Falmer site in policy SR25 is
unsuitable for what is proposed in the draft Local Plan. My conclusions take account of the
limited scope for specific development on the site allowed by policy EP.7 in the 1995
Brighton Borough Local Plan, and the thinking - at present - that has led the Countryside
Agency to countenance the land being excluded from a future National Park. I have found
that the limited development in the 1995 Brighton Local Plan is the most that could be
contemplated without great damage to an area of open downland separating two distinct
settlements. I do not think the SR25 allocation sufficiently big to accommodate all the
elements set out in the policy. Thus, I consider there would be an inevitable spread on to
other downland that is now in the AONB and almost certain to be included in a future
National Park. Looking forward in time, I also foresee the likelihood of future proposals for
supposedly complementary development as an inevitable consequence of any achieved
SR25-type development. Such proposals could be supported by one of two arguments: that
more development was imperative to assist the viability problems of a large stadium, or that
a large attraction which had proved a mass draw already existed in a formerly rural area.
MAIN REPORT
Appraisal
Background
7.68 This appraisal benefits from my having attended all but a very few days of the 2003 call-in
Inquiry into applications for development on the SR25 site and land immediately to the
east of that allocation, held by my colleague, Mr J R Collyer. The appraisal takes fully into
account the written and spoken evidence to that Inquiry concerning planning policy at
national, regional, structure plan, and district plan level as it affects a football/community
stadium in this location. However, my findings here concern the type of development
described in the words of policy SR25 and its supporting text. They are not coloured by
the particular nature and design details of the proposals put forward to the call-in Inquiry
by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Limited.
7.69 To facilitate working arrangements between us, Mr Collyer was appointed in May 2003 to
act as an Assistant Inspector to me for the Local Plan Inquiry, although he has not been
concerned with anything more than consideration of the Second Deposit Draft Local Plan
policies relevant to his call-in Inquiry.
National and Local Planning Policy Considerations
7.70 The SR25 allocation lies within the Sussex Downs AONB, as does the contiguous open
land to the east on the north side of Village Way. In an AONB, national policy guidance in
PPG7 is that conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside, its wildlife and cultural
heritage should be given great weight in planning policies and development control
decisions. Major development should not take place there save in exceptional
circumstances. When proposals are considered, relevant factors include: need in terms of
national considerations; the impact of a decision on the local economy; the cost and scope
of developing elsewhere or meeting need in another way; also, the detrimental impact on
the environment and the landscape, and the extent to which that should be moderated.
7.71 In the adopted Structure Plan, policies EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN5 all deal with AONB
issues in accordance with national policy guidance as it stood at the date of adoption in
December 1999, countenancing the possibility of major development “if justified by
proven national interest and a lack of alternative sites”. Other policies and statements in
the adopted Structure Plan appear to me to give no real, positive support to SR25 on its
extra-urban site, as my ensuing summary of its relevant policies shows.
7.72 Structure Plan Policy EN9 concerning extensive and noisy activities in the countryside
would be breached, the allocation being unspoiled landscape, outside the adopted Local
Plan’s defined built-up area. Policy S1(k) stresses the criterion of preventing development,
which would reduce strategic and other important gaps of valued countryside between
settlements. Policy S13 states that no further outward expansion of Brighton and Hove will
be allowed beyond the limits of the built-up area, save for commitments in already adopted
Local Plans and – the sole new exception category – land for “high quality business
development” which needs early release in terns of policy E10 to combat severe economic
difficulties. Even this category of development has to be backed by further studies to
examine feasibility and establish economic benefit. Support for leisure and tourism
development in policies LT1 and LT2 is tempered by the need for them to conserve the
environment and distinctive local character, retain natural landscape and avoid damage to
sites of designated natural interest. Policy LT14 which, relevantly, deals with the possible
relocation of a major sporting venue that cannot be adequate improved on-site, still
requires compliance with other relevant policies, a demonstration that there are no
alternative sites available, and a compelling justification to warrant overriding other
policies.
7.73 The definitive status of the SR25 site as AONB is affected by considerations that will not
be decided until a date in 2005 at the earliest, after a public Inquiry starting in November
2003. No evidence at either Inquiry I attended seriously doubts that there will be a new
South Downs National Park, that the existing AONB will consequently disappear as an
entity, and that any areas of the AONB not included within the National Park will revert to
an open countryside status. I cannot foretell what the decision will be on National Park
boundaries locally; the current thinking (CD 9.10) of the Countryside Agency prior to the
National Park Inquiry is that land north of Village Way identified in the Brighton Borough
Local Plan 1995 policy EP.7 (described in paragraphs. 7.79-7.80 below), should be outside
the National Park because it comprises an allocation, despite that policy’s severe provisos. I
know that this thinking will be challenged at the Inquiry by Lewes District Council and other
parties. It is significant that the Countryside Agency’s pre-Inquiry view is not prompted by
any consideration that the site is intrinsically unworthy of location within a National Park on
grounds to do with natural beauty or recreational opportunities.
7.74 I turn to the Second Deposit Draft Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2001. As a general
comment, that document flags up the new SR25 allocation as a justified exception, in a
planning context where unallocated planning proposals would fall foul of particular
policies. Hence, it would not be surprising to find that the contents of policy SR25 were
out of kilter with some other draft Plan policies. There is no intrinsic breach of the Local
Plan’s transport policies TR1, TR2, TR4, TR5, TR6, TR12 or TR13. However, whether
this location is less bad than others depends on an assessment of what else is feasible. I
return to that matter later.
7.75 I think it inevitable that any SR25-type development scheme would increase noise levels to
an extent where they had an adverse impact on some, if not all, residents of Falmer Village
south of the A27. Thus there would be a breach of policy SU10 – “Noise Nuisance”. I
consider that the large man-made structures inherent in SR25-type development would
have a detrimental impact on views across, to and from the Downs; they would thus go
against the intentions of policy QD4 – “Design - strategic impact”. Similarly, given the
undeveloped AONB location, I find it impossible to see how it could be argued that SR25
development could “make a positive contribution to the visual quality of the environment”;
it would thus not satisfy policy QD1 – “Design - quality of development and design
statements”.
7.76 Falmer Village, albeit just outside Brighton and Hove, could not but have the open
downland setting of its substantial Village Conservation Area adversely affected by largescale
development on the allocation site, even if a community stadium could be designed
not to be visible from most viewpoints within the village. Thus a breach of Local Plan
policy HE6 appears inevitable. Also, from mid-afternoon onwards, floodlighting and
substantial illumination of the stadium and areas around it would be inevitable for long
periods of the year. Consequently, in this very sensitive AONB context, so near a
conservation area, it could be impossible to meet the policy provisions of Local Plan policy
QD26, and avoid an element of “significant illumination beyond those areas requiring
illumination”, causing “detriment to amenity or to sensitive areas and their settings”.
7.77 Policy NC7 – “Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”, dealing with
development within or adjacent to the AONB, would be breached for some of the same
reasons. Of the stated exceptions to the presumption against development, SR25-type
development would not conserve or enhance the AONB’s visual or landscape quality or
character; there would necessarily be a significant adverse effect. Insofar as NC7 reflects
PPG7 tests about national interest and the lack of alternative locations, I consider that
matter further below.
7.78 Evidence to the call-in Inquiry revealed that most farm land in that scheme was graded 2 or
3a in quality, so there would be have to be overriding need for a scheme on the SR25
allocation if it were to satisfy policy NC12 – High Grade Agricultural Land.
7.79 The allocation site is virtually identical with the policy EP.7 designation in the adopted
Brighton Borough Local Plan of 1995. This says that only in very exceptional circumstances
will the land be considered for development. The criteria against which its release would be
considered are, in broad terms: (i) any planned expansion of the higher education
campuses, but excluding any uses which are not related to those establishments, (ii) any
such development not being able to be satisfactorily accommodated within the existing
campuses, (iii) the design, massing, layout and landscaping of any such development
respecting and enhancing the sensitive downland location and setting of Falmer
Conservation Area and, (iv) no permission for development generating traffic of a type and
quantity alien to the rural location and materially damaging the amenities of Falmer
village.
7.80 Policy EP.7 is unusual. In the Brighton Plan it comes within a Chapter section headed
“Special Contingencies”. The relevant text makes clear that the allocation of the land is
restricted to the needs of higher education. The land is, in effect, kept in reserve for possible
expansion should existing campuses be unable to accommodate all the requirements necessary
to sustain their future activities. Thus, it is a site of last resort for the Universities. It is also
effectively allocated as an area in which conservation policies apply.
7.81 The Second Deposit Draft policy SR25 is very different from EP.7. Depressingly, the careful
environmental constraints within EP.7 that made it a reasoned variant of AONB policies are
effectively jettisoned. This is despite the fact that neither the Local Plan Inquiry nor the callin
Inquiry heard evidence from either University that such development is planned or
envisaged on the EP.7/SR25 site in the foreseeable future. In contrast, SR25 seeks a new
football/community stadium and multi-purpose sports hall, together with sports science/sports
medicine facilities linked to the University of Brighton. In the event that the SR25 site proves
unsuitable for a stadium, it is to be allocated for Class B1 research and development use, but
only as a planned expansion of higher educational establishments not able to locate within the
existing campuses.
7.82 Policy SR25 is set in the context of one certain occupier, Brighton and Hove Albion. They
are named, and the deficient nature of their present accommodation at Withdean Stadium is
mentioned, in supporting text paragraph 6.104. The same supporting text also says that the
Falmer site has been “proposed following a sequential approach to site selection”, other (unnamed)
sites having been found unsuitable. Thus, the development elements are: a
provincial city’s professional football club which operates within a national league
framework, community facilities serving that area, and an off-shoot of sports
medicine/science, which may be of significance to the operation of the University of
Brighton, an institution with a national reputation. These development elements do not
appear to me to add up to material “need in terms of national considerations”, to quote the
words in PPG7 concerning development in an AONB.
7.83 As to PPG7’s other AONB test about “the cost and scope of developing elsewhere or
meeting need in another way”, the essential evidence was considered at the concurrent callin
Inquiry. All the following sites within the administrative area of the City were
canvassed, researched or discussed in greater or lesser detail: Brighton Station, Withdean
Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Sheepcote Valley, Toad’s Hole Valley, Waterhall, The
Coral’s Greyhound Stadium, Brighton General Hospital, the King Alfred Leisure Centre,
and Black Rock.
7.84 I agree that the following alternatives are not feasible: the Coral’s Greyhound Stadium
(too small); Shoreham Harbour (too uncertain in the foreseeable future, with no clear
feasible scheme for very expensive access roads and other essential infrastructure); and
Waterhall (overwhelming AONB objections on a site north of the A27). There is also no
cause to discuss the even more fanciful sites of Brighton General Hospital, the King
Alfred Leisure Centre, and Black Rock.
7.85 The remaining suggestions which warrant more credence are: the Brighton Station site,
Withdean Stadium, Toad’s Hole Valley and Sheepcote Valley. I mention here only certain
factors that I consider important from the specific Local Plan perspective.
(i) Brighton Station
This I addressed in my Chapter Six paragraphs 6.67-6.69. The Station site now
has an outline planning permission, and the feasibility of a Stadium use here only
arises if this multi-element scheme given planning permission collapses during or
at the end of its 5-year life. Effectively, no new plan-led proposal incorporating a
Stadium here can be worked on for most of the life of the emerging Local Plan.
(ii) Withdean Stadium
This appears the only real alternative within the City’s built-up area. It could only
be proposed if Brighton and Hove Albion, present tenants of the City Council as
freeholders, can come to terms with the implications of any refusal of planning
permission for the Falmer scheme that may issue from central government. Any
full or partial redevelopment that achieved the development mix described in
SR25 might have to be for an appreciably smaller capacity of spectators than the
22,000 proposed in the 2003 Falmer call-in application, respecting the amenities
and quality of life in this residential area.
I find it hard to see the realities of a long-term and not inexpensive solution at
Withdean being accepted easily or soon by Brighton and Hove Albion or the
Council. If I am right, a rebuilt Withdean would not feature until the next round
of plan making, if then. However, the facts are that the Club is able to exist and
function there at present, in a less than ideal fashion. Also, it is has been possible
to make incremental improvements to address the most outstanding difficulties,
principally spectator numbers. It is hard to see realistic circumstances in which
the Club would be forced to leave Withdean Stadium against its will in the
foreseeable future, if it complies with the terms of temporary planning
permissions for incremental improvement granted since it found shelter there in
1999.
(iii) Toad’s Hole Valley
I deal with this site in my Chapter Six, in paragraphs 6.82-6.93. There I find that
the Valley has longer term possibilities for development. There would be no case
for allocation of all or part of the land until a new National Park boundary was
established, effectively after 2005 at the earliest, ruling out inclusion in the
adopted Local Plan. A greenfield site immediately south of the A27, with good
connections to the national road system and capable of release for development
without great environmental loss, is an important asset to the City. However, it
would be imperative to see that it was only developed for the most urgent City
needs, taking the longest view ahead possible. My own conclusion is that only the
kind of use favoured by Structure Plan policy E10(a) should be contemplated:
“new high quality business development”. Even that may be found to be an
environmental price that is too high to pay, but it appears to me to have much
greater claims than any SR25-type development. It is distinctly less well related
in terms of rail-based public transport potential than either SR25 or Withdean.
(iv) Sheepcote Valley
In terms of environmental quality, this site does not possess the appearance of
open countryside and has no particular landscape qualities. Most of its southern
part is in leisure/recreational use. It does not lie within the AONB, and could not
conceivably be included in a future National Park. The presence of a valley floor
on the site would help the semi-concealment of a large stadium. There are
problems with such a site but they do not appear inherently insoluble, and a full
and objective investigation of reclamation and contamination costs was not before
us at the call-in Inquiry. As a location, I have no doubt that Sheepcote Valley has
far fewer planning disadvantages than Falmer, even taking account of present
transport deficiencies.
The Site and its Environmental Context
7.86 The site of the SR25 allocation is now open farmland. It lies directly at the north-east edge
of the Brighton and Hove conurbation. Together with contiguous farmland immediately to
the east, it separates that urban edge from the part of Falmer village lying south of the A27
bypass, and immediately east of the B2123. To the north the allocation is bounded by the
Brighton to Lewes railway line running in cutting, with the A27 directly beyond. Falmer
Station is conveniently close to the allocation site. The southern boundary is a single
carriageway road called Village Way some 6 m wide. From a junction with the B2123 to
the east, this road serves the University of Brighton’s Falmer campus and the Invicta Sports
club. The allocation land undulates, sloping down northwards towards the A27
7.87 The SR25 land is undoubtedly open countryside. It is indubitably a greenfield site beyond
the recognisable physical boundary of the City. The fact that it buts against the
railway/A27 to the north and the relatively urban University of Brighton to the west does
not diminish its downland qualities. Open countryside always has to terminate somewhere,
and against some sort of man-made or natural barrier; that does not mean that it is justified
to consider those parts close to such an edge as of intrinsically lesser account than parts
further away.
7.88 The SR25 land constitutes a sensitive site, with very restrictive environmental constraints,
as the Local Plan Inspector who conducted the 1991 Inquiry into the draft Brighton
Borough Local Plan acknowledged (CD 5.84, paras. 5.84-5.86). He went on to say
something else with which I fully agree. This is that from the higher ground of Falmer Hill
to the south, building on the site would be clearly seen and difficult to screen, making the
impact on landscape an important consideration there. I see the SR25 land as part of a
continuum of open downland flowing south from the line of the A27 hereabouts.
7.89 If developed, the gap between Falmer and the encroaching conurbation would be halved.
There would be less than 200 m distance from the eastern edge of the allocation to the
B2123. A separation of this amount verges on the tokenistic. It would conflict with the
tenor of policies in the adopted Lewes District Local Plan; therein, policy CT1 seeks to
retain the open character of the countryside outside settlements or sites within Planning
Boundaries, and policy CT2 guards against development adversely affecting the AONB. Any
stadium design on the SR25 land, however well landscaped on this undulating site, would
be a solid and high structure. Its bulk, however well-designed, could never be more than
semi-softened by boundary landscaping, and then only its lower portions. It would be
visible as a very large structure from many higher vantage points on footways and
bridleways in the AONB/future National Park.
7.90 More disquietingly, the size of the SR25 allocation appears to me to have been designated
either with little thought to the realities of development or, at worst, disingenuously. A
football pitch has a length of some 110 m. This entire allocation on the Proposals Map’s
O.S. base measures about 240 m north-south, and about 160 m for most of its length eastwest.
The policy’s intended contents for this site include: a stadium for the City’s
Football League Club, a multi-purpose sports hall and sports science/sports medicine
facilities.
7.91 The non-stadium facilities alone would be hard to accommodate on the site, unless the
stadium were raised to accommodate them underneath its spectator seating. That still
leaves a need for the provision of the following elements: developed areas in which
visitors could congregate before and after events, an area for an irreducible minimum of
private motor vehicles and service traffic (not including parking for the general public at
events), and necessarily extensive areas to provide setting down and picking up facilities
from buses and coaches. Notwithstanding the particular scheme presented to the 2003 callin
Inquiry, any scheme seeking to achieve what SR25 envisages would have to encroach on
considerably more land adjoining the allocation site. That encroachment could only be on
AONB land of great visual significance – land that seems very likely to be included within
any future National Park.
7.92 There is also the threat of other possible adverse factors, which must occur to any
responsible local plan Inspector who looks ahead to consider what longer-term
consequences could stem from an allocation like this. Policy SR25 requires a business plan
to be prepared alongside development proposals – something that was missing in the call-in
proposals considered in 2003. The finances of professional football in England are mostly
problematic, to put it charitably. If the economics of a community stadium, and the
policy’s suggested ancillary activities, are unsound, I see the likelihood that other revenue
generating enterprises would be sought in future, either within the site or in other
development physically related to it. Neither outcome would be desirable in planning
terms in such a sensitive location. Conversely, economic success too would be likely over
time to attract more and more proposals for supposedly ancillary or complementary
activities to a formerly rural site that had proved a successful mass draw for the public.
7.93 All the foregoing convinces me that the SR25 Falmer site is unsuitable for what is
proposed in the draft Local Plan.
7.94 Should the current Falmer Community Stadium proposals be rejected, the basis of future
thinking on the Village Way North site would have to be recast. Policy EP.7 in the 1995
adopted Brighton Borough Local Plan stands as an established and comprehensible minimalist
approach to development of this site “in very exceptional circumstances”, to quote its words.
7.95 In such circumstances, I conclude that the words of Brighton Borough Local Plan policy EP.7
should find their way into the Brighton and Hove Local Plan, as a new and separate policy,
with appropriate revised supporting text. As worded in EP.7, the kind of uses favoured would
have to be related to the higher educational establishments. Because the uses are of a
specialised and exceptional nature, the entry in the Table in the policy text of EM2 for Village
Way North should be removed entirely. Also, despite the site having a Plan allocation, it
would be appropriate for the boundary of the built-up area on the Proposals Map to exclude
the site. It would then be subject to the provisions and disciplines of policies NC5 and NC6,
in particular the latter’s criterion (a).
7.96 Finally, to clear up one point about the location of the Stadium, the policy wording of SR25
refers only to a site north of Village Way. The Second Deposit Draft has a final added
paragraph of supporting text – 6.108a. The latter reflects an uncertainty at the time of its
drafting about the Football Club’s intentions as to an exact location. It says that if the club
were to favour a site south rather than north of Village Way, “further consideration could be
given to alternative sites”. Clearly such an alternative site has not been pursued as yet. My
adverse findings about policy SR25 would also apply to any variant of this kind. The
incursion into AONB land would be as undesirable as that of the SR25 site. There would be a
similarly undesirable closing of the gap between the urban extent of Brighton and Falmer
Village, albeit it on a different axis.
Implications of the deletion of policy SR25 for the emerging Local Plan and future plan-making
7.97 In my consideration so far of this draft policy, I have been at pains to consider the text of
SR25 as written, only introducing matters learned from the call-in Inquiry where they are
relevant to the former. If the First Secretary of State refuses permission for the call-in
planning applications, in relation to matters of principle the Council will no doubt wish to
delete SR25 from its adopted Local Plan. I have indicated at paragraph 7.95 my conclusions
on what should be substituted in the local plan for the Falmer land. However, even if the
scheme is allowed, the possibility exists that it may never be built, or that some variant
may subsequently applied for, prompted by viability problems or changing requirements.
All these factors prompt me to make some necessarily tentative remarks on possible
alternative sites for the mixture of uses envisaged in SR25, even if SR25 or some
modification thereof is initially included in the adopted Local Plan to reflect a decision of
the Secretary of State.
7.98 The intentions of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club will be the key elements. If
planning permission is refused, the amount of rethinking and re-appraisal of club finances
after a long and expensive Inquiry would almost certainly delay the inception of a further
search for premises other than Withdean Stadium for some time. That would probably
mean the Council adopting the Local Plan without mention of any specific relocation site
for an SR25-type set of proposals. New thinking would need to take account of the
outcome of the National Park Public Inquiry, which would not be known until 2005 or
later.
7.99 Such a delay may be sufficient to enable the Council to consider whether progress with the
Shoreham Harbour Regeneration Strategy, especially, its huge funding requirements,
clarify the realities of a possible Stadium location within that part of the urban area – albeit
possibly in Adur District rather than Brighton and Hove. The realities of achieving
development on the Brighton Station site after the 2003 planning permission should be
known by that time as well. As to the less desirable option of developing a greenfield
location, only option outside the new boundaries of a Sussex Downs National Park would
be thinkable. If Toad’s Hole Valley were to be excluded from any national countryside
designation, and if the Council could bring itself to justify development on either that site
or Sheepcote Valley in what would technically be open countryside outside the built-up
area boundary, then I consider that Sheepcote Valley might emerge as the least
objectionable option within the District.
7.100 Of course, other options may emerge. In any event, a new and open assessment of
alternative sites would be needed. This would need to address exhaustively the access,
economic, environmental and other factors that I cannot begin to embark on in this Local
Plan report.
Recommendation
7.101 I recommend that this policy be omitted from the adopted Local Plan. I further recommend
that the Local Plan be modified to incorporate altered wording as suggested in my
paragraph 7.95 above, but that no other modification be made to the Second Deposit Draft
of the Local Plan in respect of these objections.
*********************************
The whole of the Report can be found on the City Council's website
SUMMARY
(From the Inspector's covering letter to the Chief Executive of the City Council)
The Community Stadium
15. My accompanying report is submitted separately from that of my colleague dealing with the
four planning applications by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd: for a
"Community Stadium", with accommodation for Class B1 business, and other
development elements, a coach and bus interchange in Lewes District, and a partial
widening of Village Way. My findings concern the type of development described in the
words of policy SR25 and its supporting text, not the particular proposals in the planning
applications.
16. For reasons fully discussed in my report, I conclude that the Falmer site in policy SR25 is
unsuitable for what is proposed in the draft Local Plan. My conclusions take account of the
limited scope for specific development on the site allowed by policy EP.7 in the 1995
Brighton Borough Local Plan, and the thinking - at present - that has led the Countryside
Agency to countenance the land being excluded from a future National Park. I have found
that the limited development in the 1995 Brighton Local Plan is the most that could be
contemplated without great damage to an area of open downland separating two distinct
settlements. I do not think the SR25 allocation sufficiently big to accommodate all the
elements set out in the policy. Thus, I consider there would be an inevitable spread on to
other downland that is now in the AONB and almost certain to be included in a future
National Park. Looking forward in time, I also foresee the likelihood of future proposals for
supposedly complementary development as an inevitable consequence of any achieved
SR25-type development. Such proposals could be supported by one of two arguments: that
more development was imperative to assist the viability problems of a large stadium, or that
a large attraction which had proved a mass draw already existed in a formerly rural area.
MAIN REPORT
Appraisal
Background
7.68 This appraisal benefits from my having attended all but a very few days of the 2003 call-in
Inquiry into applications for development on the SR25 site and land immediately to the
east of that allocation, held by my colleague, Mr J R Collyer. The appraisal takes fully into
account the written and spoken evidence to that Inquiry concerning planning policy at
national, regional, structure plan, and district plan level as it affects a football/community
stadium in this location. However, my findings here concern the type of development
described in the words of policy SR25 and its supporting text. They are not coloured by
the particular nature and design details of the proposals put forward to the call-in Inquiry
by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Limited.
7.69 To facilitate working arrangements between us, Mr Collyer was appointed in May 2003 to
act as an Assistant Inspector to me for the Local Plan Inquiry, although he has not been
concerned with anything more than consideration of the Second Deposit Draft Local Plan
policies relevant to his call-in Inquiry.
National and Local Planning Policy Considerations
7.70 The SR25 allocation lies within the Sussex Downs AONB, as does the contiguous open
land to the east on the north side of Village Way. In an AONB, national policy guidance in
PPG7 is that conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside, its wildlife and cultural
heritage should be given great weight in planning policies and development control
decisions. Major development should not take place there save in exceptional
circumstances. When proposals are considered, relevant factors include: need in terms of
national considerations; the impact of a decision on the local economy; the cost and scope
of developing elsewhere or meeting need in another way; also, the detrimental impact on
the environment and the landscape, and the extent to which that should be moderated.
7.71 In the adopted Structure Plan, policies EN2, EN3, EN4 and EN5 all deal with AONB
issues in accordance with national policy guidance as it stood at the date of adoption in
December 1999, countenancing the possibility of major development “if justified by
proven national interest and a lack of alternative sites”. Other policies and statements in
the adopted Structure Plan appear to me to give no real, positive support to SR25 on its
extra-urban site, as my ensuing summary of its relevant policies shows.
7.72 Structure Plan Policy EN9 concerning extensive and noisy activities in the countryside
would be breached, the allocation being unspoiled landscape, outside the adopted Local
Plan’s defined built-up area. Policy S1(k) stresses the criterion of preventing development,
which would reduce strategic and other important gaps of valued countryside between
settlements. Policy S13 states that no further outward expansion of Brighton and Hove will
be allowed beyond the limits of the built-up area, save for commitments in already adopted
Local Plans and – the sole new exception category – land for “high quality business
development” which needs early release in terns of policy E10 to combat severe economic
difficulties. Even this category of development has to be backed by further studies to
examine feasibility and establish economic benefit. Support for leisure and tourism
development in policies LT1 and LT2 is tempered by the need for them to conserve the
environment and distinctive local character, retain natural landscape and avoid damage to
sites of designated natural interest. Policy LT14 which, relevantly, deals with the possible
relocation of a major sporting venue that cannot be adequate improved on-site, still
requires compliance with other relevant policies, a demonstration that there are no
alternative sites available, and a compelling justification to warrant overriding other
policies.
7.73 The definitive status of the SR25 site as AONB is affected by considerations that will not
be decided until a date in 2005 at the earliest, after a public Inquiry starting in November
2003. No evidence at either Inquiry I attended seriously doubts that there will be a new
South Downs National Park, that the existing AONB will consequently disappear as an
entity, and that any areas of the AONB not included within the National Park will revert to
an open countryside status. I cannot foretell what the decision will be on National Park
boundaries locally; the current thinking (CD 9.10) of the Countryside Agency prior to the
National Park Inquiry is that land north of Village Way identified in the Brighton Borough
Local Plan 1995 policy EP.7 (described in paragraphs. 7.79-7.80 below), should be outside
the National Park because it comprises an allocation, despite that policy’s severe provisos. I
know that this thinking will be challenged at the Inquiry by Lewes District Council and other
parties. It is significant that the Countryside Agency’s pre-Inquiry view is not prompted by
any consideration that the site is intrinsically unworthy of location within a National Park on
grounds to do with natural beauty or recreational opportunities.
7.74 I turn to the Second Deposit Draft Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2001. As a general
comment, that document flags up the new SR25 allocation as a justified exception, in a
planning context where unallocated planning proposals would fall foul of particular
policies. Hence, it would not be surprising to find that the contents of policy SR25 were
out of kilter with some other draft Plan policies. There is no intrinsic breach of the Local
Plan’s transport policies TR1, TR2, TR4, TR5, TR6, TR12 or TR13. However, whether
this location is less bad than others depends on an assessment of what else is feasible. I
return to that matter later.
7.75 I think it inevitable that any SR25-type development scheme would increase noise levels to
an extent where they had an adverse impact on some, if not all, residents of Falmer Village
south of the A27. Thus there would be a breach of policy SU10 – “Noise Nuisance”. I
consider that the large man-made structures inherent in SR25-type development would
have a detrimental impact on views across, to and from the Downs; they would thus go
against the intentions of policy QD4 – “Design - strategic impact”. Similarly, given the
undeveloped AONB location, I find it impossible to see how it could be argued that SR25
development could “make a positive contribution to the visual quality of the environment”;
it would thus not satisfy policy QD1 – “Design - quality of development and design
statements”.
7.76 Falmer Village, albeit just outside Brighton and Hove, could not but have the open
downland setting of its substantial Village Conservation Area adversely affected by largescale
development on the allocation site, even if a community stadium could be designed
not to be visible from most viewpoints within the village. Thus a breach of Local Plan
policy HE6 appears inevitable. Also, from mid-afternoon onwards, floodlighting and
substantial illumination of the stadium and areas around it would be inevitable for long
periods of the year. Consequently, in this very sensitive AONB context, so near a
conservation area, it could be impossible to meet the policy provisions of Local Plan policy
QD26, and avoid an element of “significant illumination beyond those areas requiring
illumination”, causing “detriment to amenity or to sensitive areas and their settings”.
7.77 Policy NC7 – “Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”, dealing with
development within or adjacent to the AONB, would be breached for some of the same
reasons. Of the stated exceptions to the presumption against development, SR25-type
development would not conserve or enhance the AONB’s visual or landscape quality or
character; there would necessarily be a significant adverse effect. Insofar as NC7 reflects
PPG7 tests about national interest and the lack of alternative locations, I consider that
matter further below.
7.78 Evidence to the call-in Inquiry revealed that most farm land in that scheme was graded 2 or
3a in quality, so there would be have to be overriding need for a scheme on the SR25
allocation if it were to satisfy policy NC12 – High Grade Agricultural Land.
7.79 The allocation site is virtually identical with the policy EP.7 designation in the adopted
Brighton Borough Local Plan of 1995. This says that only in very exceptional circumstances
will the land be considered for development. The criteria against which its release would be
considered are, in broad terms: (i) any planned expansion of the higher education
campuses, but excluding any uses which are not related to those establishments, (ii) any
such development not being able to be satisfactorily accommodated within the existing
campuses, (iii) the design, massing, layout and landscaping of any such development
respecting and enhancing the sensitive downland location and setting of Falmer
Conservation Area and, (iv) no permission for development generating traffic of a type and
quantity alien to the rural location and materially damaging the amenities of Falmer
village.
7.80 Policy EP.7 is unusual. In the Brighton Plan it comes within a Chapter section headed
“Special Contingencies”. The relevant text makes clear that the allocation of the land is
restricted to the needs of higher education. The land is, in effect, kept in reserve for possible
expansion should existing campuses be unable to accommodate all the requirements necessary
to sustain their future activities. Thus, it is a site of last resort for the Universities. It is also
effectively allocated as an area in which conservation policies apply.
7.81 The Second Deposit Draft policy SR25 is very different from EP.7. Depressingly, the careful
environmental constraints within EP.7 that made it a reasoned variant of AONB policies are
effectively jettisoned. This is despite the fact that neither the Local Plan Inquiry nor the callin
Inquiry heard evidence from either University that such development is planned or
envisaged on the EP.7/SR25 site in the foreseeable future. In contrast, SR25 seeks a new
football/community stadium and multi-purpose sports hall, together with sports science/sports
medicine facilities linked to the University of Brighton. In the event that the SR25 site proves
unsuitable for a stadium, it is to be allocated for Class B1 research and development use, but
only as a planned expansion of higher educational establishments not able to locate within the
existing campuses.
7.82 Policy SR25 is set in the context of one certain occupier, Brighton and Hove Albion. They
are named, and the deficient nature of their present accommodation at Withdean Stadium is
mentioned, in supporting text paragraph 6.104. The same supporting text also says that the
Falmer site has been “proposed following a sequential approach to site selection”, other (unnamed)
sites having been found unsuitable. Thus, the development elements are: a
provincial city’s professional football club which operates within a national league
framework, community facilities serving that area, and an off-shoot of sports
medicine/science, which may be of significance to the operation of the University of
Brighton, an institution with a national reputation. These development elements do not
appear to me to add up to material “need in terms of national considerations”, to quote the
words in PPG7 concerning development in an AONB.
7.83 As to PPG7’s other AONB test about “the cost and scope of developing elsewhere or
meeting need in another way”, the essential evidence was considered at the concurrent callin
Inquiry. All the following sites within the administrative area of the City were
canvassed, researched or discussed in greater or lesser detail: Brighton Station, Withdean
Stadium, Shoreham Harbour, Sheepcote Valley, Toad’s Hole Valley, Waterhall, The
Coral’s Greyhound Stadium, Brighton General Hospital, the King Alfred Leisure Centre,
and Black Rock.
7.84 I agree that the following alternatives are not feasible: the Coral’s Greyhound Stadium
(too small); Shoreham Harbour (too uncertain in the foreseeable future, with no clear
feasible scheme for very expensive access roads and other essential infrastructure); and
Waterhall (overwhelming AONB objections on a site north of the A27). There is also no
cause to discuss the even more fanciful sites of Brighton General Hospital, the King
Alfred Leisure Centre, and Black Rock.
7.85 The remaining suggestions which warrant more credence are: the Brighton Station site,
Withdean Stadium, Toad’s Hole Valley and Sheepcote Valley. I mention here only certain
factors that I consider important from the specific Local Plan perspective.
(i) Brighton Station
This I addressed in my Chapter Six paragraphs 6.67-6.69. The Station site now
has an outline planning permission, and the feasibility of a Stadium use here only
arises if this multi-element scheme given planning permission collapses during or
at the end of its 5-year life. Effectively, no new plan-led proposal incorporating a
Stadium here can be worked on for most of the life of the emerging Local Plan.
(ii) Withdean Stadium
This appears the only real alternative within the City’s built-up area. It could only
be proposed if Brighton and Hove Albion, present tenants of the City Council as
freeholders, can come to terms with the implications of any refusal of planning
permission for the Falmer scheme that may issue from central government. Any
full or partial redevelopment that achieved the development mix described in
SR25 might have to be for an appreciably smaller capacity of spectators than the
22,000 proposed in the 2003 Falmer call-in application, respecting the amenities
and quality of life in this residential area.
I find it hard to see the realities of a long-term and not inexpensive solution at
Withdean being accepted easily or soon by Brighton and Hove Albion or the
Council. If I am right, a rebuilt Withdean would not feature until the next round
of plan making, if then. However, the facts are that the Club is able to exist and
function there at present, in a less than ideal fashion. Also, it is has been possible
to make incremental improvements to address the most outstanding difficulties,
principally spectator numbers. It is hard to see realistic circumstances in which
the Club would be forced to leave Withdean Stadium against its will in the
foreseeable future, if it complies with the terms of temporary planning
permissions for incremental improvement granted since it found shelter there in
1999.
(iii) Toad’s Hole Valley
I deal with this site in my Chapter Six, in paragraphs 6.82-6.93. There I find that
the Valley has longer term possibilities for development. There would be no case
for allocation of all or part of the land until a new National Park boundary was
established, effectively after 2005 at the earliest, ruling out inclusion in the
adopted Local Plan. A greenfield site immediately south of the A27, with good
connections to the national road system and capable of release for development
without great environmental loss, is an important asset to the City. However, it
would be imperative to see that it was only developed for the most urgent City
needs, taking the longest view ahead possible. My own conclusion is that only the
kind of use favoured by Structure Plan policy E10(a) should be contemplated:
“new high quality business development”. Even that may be found to be an
environmental price that is too high to pay, but it appears to me to have much
greater claims than any SR25-type development. It is distinctly less well related
in terms of rail-based public transport potential than either SR25 or Withdean.
(iv) Sheepcote Valley
In terms of environmental quality, this site does not possess the appearance of
open countryside and has no particular landscape qualities. Most of its southern
part is in leisure/recreational use. It does not lie within the AONB, and could not
conceivably be included in a future National Park. The presence of a valley floor
on the site would help the semi-concealment of a large stadium. There are
problems with such a site but they do not appear inherently insoluble, and a full
and objective investigation of reclamation and contamination costs was not before
us at the call-in Inquiry. As a location, I have no doubt that Sheepcote Valley has
far fewer planning disadvantages than Falmer, even taking account of present
transport deficiencies.
The Site and its Environmental Context
7.86 The site of the SR25 allocation is now open farmland. It lies directly at the north-east edge
of the Brighton and Hove conurbation. Together with contiguous farmland immediately to
the east, it separates that urban edge from the part of Falmer village lying south of the A27
bypass, and immediately east of the B2123. To the north the allocation is bounded by the
Brighton to Lewes railway line running in cutting, with the A27 directly beyond. Falmer
Station is conveniently close to the allocation site. The southern boundary is a single
carriageway road called Village Way some 6 m wide. From a junction with the B2123 to
the east, this road serves the University of Brighton’s Falmer campus and the Invicta Sports
club. The allocation land undulates, sloping down northwards towards the A27
7.87 The SR25 land is undoubtedly open countryside. It is indubitably a greenfield site beyond
the recognisable physical boundary of the City. The fact that it buts against the
railway/A27 to the north and the relatively urban University of Brighton to the west does
not diminish its downland qualities. Open countryside always has to terminate somewhere,
and against some sort of man-made or natural barrier; that does not mean that it is justified
to consider those parts close to such an edge as of intrinsically lesser account than parts
further away.
7.88 The SR25 land constitutes a sensitive site, with very restrictive environmental constraints,
as the Local Plan Inspector who conducted the 1991 Inquiry into the draft Brighton
Borough Local Plan acknowledged (CD 5.84, paras. 5.84-5.86). He went on to say
something else with which I fully agree. This is that from the higher ground of Falmer Hill
to the south, building on the site would be clearly seen and difficult to screen, making the
impact on landscape an important consideration there. I see the SR25 land as part of a
continuum of open downland flowing south from the line of the A27 hereabouts.
7.89 If developed, the gap between Falmer and the encroaching conurbation would be halved.
There would be less than 200 m distance from the eastern edge of the allocation to the
B2123. A separation of this amount verges on the tokenistic. It would conflict with the
tenor of policies in the adopted Lewes District Local Plan; therein, policy CT1 seeks to
retain the open character of the countryside outside settlements or sites within Planning
Boundaries, and policy CT2 guards against development adversely affecting the AONB. Any
stadium design on the SR25 land, however well landscaped on this undulating site, would
be a solid and high structure. Its bulk, however well-designed, could never be more than
semi-softened by boundary landscaping, and then only its lower portions. It would be
visible as a very large structure from many higher vantage points on footways and
bridleways in the AONB/future National Park.
7.90 More disquietingly, the size of the SR25 allocation appears to me to have been designated
either with little thought to the realities of development or, at worst, disingenuously. A
football pitch has a length of some 110 m. This entire allocation on the Proposals Map’s
O.S. base measures about 240 m north-south, and about 160 m for most of its length eastwest.
The policy’s intended contents for this site include: a stadium for the City’s
Football League Club, a multi-purpose sports hall and sports science/sports medicine
facilities.
7.91 The non-stadium facilities alone would be hard to accommodate on the site, unless the
stadium were raised to accommodate them underneath its spectator seating. That still
leaves a need for the provision of the following elements: developed areas in which
visitors could congregate before and after events, an area for an irreducible minimum of
private motor vehicles and service traffic (not including parking for the general public at
events), and necessarily extensive areas to provide setting down and picking up facilities
from buses and coaches. Notwithstanding the particular scheme presented to the 2003 callin
Inquiry, any scheme seeking to achieve what SR25 envisages would have to encroach on
considerably more land adjoining the allocation site. That encroachment could only be on
AONB land of great visual significance – land that seems very likely to be included within
any future National Park.
7.92 There is also the threat of other possible adverse factors, which must occur to any
responsible local plan Inspector who looks ahead to consider what longer-term
consequences could stem from an allocation like this. Policy SR25 requires a business plan
to be prepared alongside development proposals – something that was missing in the call-in
proposals considered in 2003. The finances of professional football in England are mostly
problematic, to put it charitably. If the economics of a community stadium, and the
policy’s suggested ancillary activities, are unsound, I see the likelihood that other revenue
generating enterprises would be sought in future, either within the site or in other
development physically related to it. Neither outcome would be desirable in planning
terms in such a sensitive location. Conversely, economic success too would be likely over
time to attract more and more proposals for supposedly ancillary or complementary
activities to a formerly rural site that had proved a successful mass draw for the public.
7.93 All the foregoing convinces me that the SR25 Falmer site is unsuitable for what is
proposed in the draft Local Plan.
7.94 Should the current Falmer Community Stadium proposals be rejected, the basis of future
thinking on the Village Way North site would have to be recast. Policy EP.7 in the 1995
adopted Brighton Borough Local Plan stands as an established and comprehensible minimalist
approach to development of this site “in very exceptional circumstances”, to quote its words.
7.95 In such circumstances, I conclude that the words of Brighton Borough Local Plan policy EP.7
should find their way into the Brighton and Hove Local Plan, as a new and separate policy,
with appropriate revised supporting text. As worded in EP.7, the kind of uses favoured would
have to be related to the higher educational establishments. Because the uses are of a
specialised and exceptional nature, the entry in the Table in the policy text of EM2 for Village
Way North should be removed entirely. Also, despite the site having a Plan allocation, it
would be appropriate for the boundary of the built-up area on the Proposals Map to exclude
the site. It would then be subject to the provisions and disciplines of policies NC5 and NC6,
in particular the latter’s criterion (a).
7.96 Finally, to clear up one point about the location of the Stadium, the policy wording of SR25
refers only to a site north of Village Way. The Second Deposit Draft has a final added
paragraph of supporting text – 6.108a. The latter reflects an uncertainty at the time of its
drafting about the Football Club’s intentions as to an exact location. It says that if the club
were to favour a site south rather than north of Village Way, “further consideration could be
given to alternative sites”. Clearly such an alternative site has not been pursued as yet. My
adverse findings about policy SR25 would also apply to any variant of this kind. The
incursion into AONB land would be as undesirable as that of the SR25 site. There would be a
similarly undesirable closing of the gap between the urban extent of Brighton and Falmer
Village, albeit it on a different axis.
Implications of the deletion of policy SR25 for the emerging Local Plan and future plan-making
7.97 In my consideration so far of this draft policy, I have been at pains to consider the text of
SR25 as written, only introducing matters learned from the call-in Inquiry where they are
relevant to the former. If the First Secretary of State refuses permission for the call-in
planning applications, in relation to matters of principle the Council will no doubt wish to
delete SR25 from its adopted Local Plan. I have indicated at paragraph 7.95 my conclusions
on what should be substituted in the local plan for the Falmer land. However, even if the
scheme is allowed, the possibility exists that it may never be built, or that some variant
may subsequently applied for, prompted by viability problems or changing requirements.
All these factors prompt me to make some necessarily tentative remarks on possible
alternative sites for the mixture of uses envisaged in SR25, even if SR25 or some
modification thereof is initially included in the adopted Local Plan to reflect a decision of
the Secretary of State.
7.98 The intentions of Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club will be the key elements. If
planning permission is refused, the amount of rethinking and re-appraisal of club finances
after a long and expensive Inquiry would almost certainly delay the inception of a further
search for premises other than Withdean Stadium for some time. That would probably
mean the Council adopting the Local Plan without mention of any specific relocation site
for an SR25-type set of proposals. New thinking would need to take account of the
outcome of the National Park Public Inquiry, which would not be known until 2005 or
later.
7.99 Such a delay may be sufficient to enable the Council to consider whether progress with the
Shoreham Harbour Regeneration Strategy, especially, its huge funding requirements,
clarify the realities of a possible Stadium location within that part of the urban area – albeit
possibly in Adur District rather than Brighton and Hove. The realities of achieving
development on the Brighton Station site after the 2003 planning permission should be
known by that time as well. As to the less desirable option of developing a greenfield
location, only option outside the new boundaries of a Sussex Downs National Park would
be thinkable. If Toad’s Hole Valley were to be excluded from any national countryside
designation, and if the Council could bring itself to justify development on either that site
or Sheepcote Valley in what would technically be open countryside outside the built-up
area boundary, then I consider that Sheepcote Valley might emerge as the least
objectionable option within the District.
7.100 Of course, other options may emerge. In any event, a new and open assessment of
alternative sites would be needed. This would need to address exhaustively the access,
economic, environmental and other factors that I cannot begin to embark on in this Local
Plan report.
Recommendation
7.101 I recommend that this policy be omitted from the adopted Local Plan. I further recommend
that the Local Plan be modified to incorporate altered wording as suggested in my
paragraph 7.95 above, but that no other modification be made to the Second Deposit Draft
of the Local Plan in respect of these objections.
*********************************
Last edited:
