TWO MORE SITES added to the list of alternatives to Falmer

[perseus]

Dave the Gaffer. I accept your apology.

You will aware that some decisions are made in smoke filled rooms outside of the public domain and that what we hear may just be a front.

I have always thought that the planning game was a bit like that. All that really matters is do the figures stack up. Is it economically feasible?

 

[London Irish]

Exactly, the roads around Pende would need more than double the work than the Sliproad at Falmer. Falmer has the advantage of the A27 dual carriage way right on the doorstep. Pende has the northern A27 but once you hit lancing its a Town area and nothing can be done, the roads to the South are clearly not suitable and no amount of work there could be done (within reasonable cash wise) to make it safe for football traffic.

These have been excellent, informative posts by Crabbers on Pende/Monks Farm.

From now on I shall think of him as the NSP version of Lord Bracknell

 

[Yoda]

Is it economically feasible?

And surley the answer to both sites is 'no'.

 

[The Large One]

Dick Knight has said many times publicly and privately that he will not take the club out of Brighton & Hove. He does not want to go to Pende, no matter what arguments are put forward. The club has already spent millions on this project. It does not want to change its mind now.

Perseus' point about missing a glorious opportunity by not going to Village Way South (or Pende or anywhere else for that matter) is totally and utterly irrelevant. We have on the table a fully working, totally successful plan for Village Way North, Falmer. It has been accepted by Prescott.

Let me just repeat that - IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY PRESCOTT. We are winning the argument for Falmer.

To then rock the boat promoting somewhere else is highly irresponsible assuming you are a Brighton fan. Perseus' plan for Pende is unworkable against the Falmer plan. Remember - it has to jump through the same hoops Falmer has done, and it cannot on several levels, most notably affordable public transport, which is very high on the Government's agenda and one of the main reasons for Prescott rejecting Hoile and Collyer's reports.

The £48m that the Albion have been quoting may indeed go over budget. However, ANY project has the potential to go over budget. Building the stadium and roads in Falmer is one thing. Putting together new plans for Pende, doing the environmental, transport and pollution impact reports, building the same (or larger, as is Perseus' plan) stadium, new roads (more than at Falmer) AND a new railway station will send the bill WAY over the costs for Falmer.

 

[perseus]

I tend to agree with the general sentiments about the road problems at Lancing. As Martin Perry said about the Falmer site after analysing the results of the Falmer referendum "public concern over the roads and transport are the single most important concern over the Falmer planning application" (or words to that effect).

I don't think it is as important as all that as they are quite willing to build supermarkets that cause traffic congestion seven days a week, but it is clear that from the referendum results that this an issue of public concern.

What are the roads really like in Lancing?
It is the single most important political issue in Lancing, bar none. This is mainly because the A27 dual carriageway goes right through a housing area.
The A259 is at full capacity or in excess of full capacity and it is (or was) policy to encourage motor vehicles to use the A27. There is no possibility of an access to Pende by motor transport from the south, even with political pressure.
Anybody can see there is a snarl up at rush hour at Lancing Manor as the dual carriageway squeezes into a small roundabout.

Really, to produce evidence at a Public Inquiry it would be best to produce vehicle number figures, which I have been unable to get. Briefly, the A27 road is crowded, but it is not regarded at full capacity, but might be with the highest scenario of increased traffic in the future. The figures, I have been able to obtain were so vague that it is only like an educated guess, but I would say all the roads were about 15% to 20% more crowded that the comparative roads at Falmer.

This would appear to be a difficult (not insurmountable) problem to resolve. However, this discounts local knowledge and overestimates the amount of traffic a football stadium generates. There is a ready made test. The Shoreham Air Show attracts 20,000 (their figures) paying customers each day, all arriving my car. This causes a snarl up by Sussex standards, but is probably regarded as normal traffic densities in London.

If you want to transfer large number so people in a short space of time, by train is the best way. Build a railway station at Pende, bung in a dedicated bus route and the problems could be resolved. It is not out of the question, but there could be a strong argument that Falmer presents a ready-made better solution in the short term.

The road costs at Pende would be higher because there is a longer run from the A27 to the stadium location near (but not too near) the railway line.

 

[tedebear]

I'm sorry Andy but you are meddling - just the same way the Shoreham Society does around here - and what do they achieve - absolutely nothing..... please leave this to the people who know whats happening - all you are doing is giving Falmer Parish Council fodder for their cannons - please let it be and stop this nonsense!! YOU ARE COSTING THE CLUB MONEY !!

 

[sully]

The £48m that the Albion have been quoting may indeed go over budget. However, ANY project has the potential to go over budget. Building the stadium and roads in Falmer is one thing. Putting together new plans for Pende, doing the environmental, transport and pollution impact reports, building the same (or larger, as is Perseus' plan) stadium, new roads (more than at Falmer) AND a new railway station will send the bill WAY over the costs for Falmer.

This is the single most infuriating thing about the delays.

I am currently working on a project that is in financial difficulty simply because those funding it did not understand the impact of inflation. My original estimate updated for inflation is still spot on - but they're now millions of pounds short of the required budget.

With inflation at just 5% a year, the cost of a £48M project increases by £2.4M for the first year of delay, £2.52M the second year, etc.

The original cost estimates for the stadium went out the window the day the public enquiry was called.

 

[The Large One]

I tend to agree with the general sentiments about the road problems at Lancing. As Martin Perry said about the Falmer site after analysing the results of the Falmer referendum "public concern over the roads and transport are the single most important concern over the Falmer planning application" (or words to that effect).

I don't think it is as important as all that as they are quite willing to build supermarkets that cause traffic congestion seven days a week, but it is clear that from the referendum results that this an issue of public concern.

What are the roads really like in Lancing?
It is the single most important political issue in Lancing, bar none. This is mainly because the A27 dual carriageway goes right through a housing area.
The A259 is at full capacity or in excess of full capacity and it is (or was) policy to encourage motor vehicles to use the A27. There is no possibility of an access to Pende by motor transport from the south, even with political pressure.
Anybody can see there is a snarl up at rush hour at Lancing Manor as the dual carriageway squeezes into a small roundabout.

Really, to produce evidence at a Public Inquiry it would be best to produce vehicle number figures, which I have been unable to get. Briefly, the A27 road is crowded, but it is not regarded at full capacity, but might be with the highest scenario of increased traffic in the future. The figures, I have been able to obtain were so vague that it is only like an educated guess, but I would say all the roads were about 15% to 20% more crowded that the comparative roads at Falmer.

This would appear to be a difficult (not insurmountable) problem to resolve. However, this discounts local knowledge and overestimates the amount of traffic a football stadium generates. There is a ready made test. The Shoreham Air Show attracts 20,000 (their figures) paying customers each day, all arriving my car. This causes a snarl up by Sussex standards, but is probably regarded as normal traffic densities in London.

If you want to transfer large number so people in a short space of time, by train is the best way. Build a railway station at Pende, bung in a dedicated bus route and the problems could be resolved. It is not out of the question, but there could be a strong argument that Falmer presents a ready-made better solution in the short term.

The road costs at Pende would be higher because there is a longer run from the A27 to the stadium location near (but not too near) the railway line.

BUT THE CLUB DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO PENDE. The only people who would find this information remotely interesting or relevant are people who don't want Falmer. Your arguments are IRRELEVANT, and are only stocking further ammunition for the Falmer NIMBYs, meaning the club has to spend more time arguing against them, costing it more money. The club does not want to go to Pende.

We have seen how you have a passion for this site, admittedly asking questions you cannot answer. It's understood how you feel. But for the sake of the future prosperity of Brighton & Hove Albion FC, would you please put your ego aside, accept the fact that the club is not interested in Pende and shut up. Every utterance by you only makes things worse. The club does not want to go to Pende.

We are winning the argument for Falmer, but this seeks to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The club does not want to go to Pende.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I've been away from NSC for most of the day, so haven't been able to contribute to this unfolding discussion.

Probably a good thing, since I would no doubt have lost my temper someway along the line. But, resisting that temptation, I'll confine myself to these observations (all of which are about the planning and development process, which perseus still doesn't understand).

He talks about a railway station as if this is something that Network Rail (formerly Railtrack) might or might not provide. The reality in today's world is that if a railway station is required as an adjunct to a new development, it is the developer's responsibility to fund it and to fund the cost of trains stopping at it. The costs of providing acceptable rail access to Ashburnham Grove is one of the biggest elements in the cost of Arsenal's new stadium. The Football Club is paying those costs, not London Underground.

Likewise with road access. This won't be paid for by the Highway Authority. It would have to be paid for by the Football Club - including the costs of any necessary junctions with the A27 and/or A259. Perseus is still arguing that access roads at Falmer are an expensive element in the cost of that scheme. They are. But the whole road network required at Shoreham Airport would be far more expensive. And the Club would have to meet those costs.

He also talks about not having the traffic data that would help the decision making process. Too true, he doesn't have it. Traffic data relating to new developments is a very complex matter. It will need to be examined at the Public Inquiry. But, before it can be examined, it would have to be collected and future growth estimates would need to be properly modelled. This is a cost that will fall upon the Albion - one of many additional costs that will arise as a result of the Inquiry being reopened.

Finally, he talks about Village Way South as if it was rejected by the City Council because they lacked the imagination to see what a great site it was. The simple fact is that the Albion withdrew the planning application for Village Way South and the Council's Planning Committee never considered it. That decision was no doubt based on a lot of informal advice given at the time, not just from the City Council's planning officers, but from other sources, including consultants engaged by the Albion. I am convinced that VWS would have received far more objections than Village Way North. It was only a fallback contingency plan, designed to put pressure on Brighton University - and as a "negotiating ploy" was successful. But, in my opinion, it was always a non-starter in planning terms.

And one last comment. Tedebear is right. We need to be backing the Club and throwing all our efforts into ensuring that Falmer gets approval.

 

[Northstander]

please end this bleedin issue and get behind falmer!

 

[Curious Orange]

Okay, Perseus has now convinced me that Shoreham Airport isn't viable in terms of cost, sustainable transport and location. The same can also be said for the cement works.

As for how FPC might get hold of Percy's Pende stuff, well it wouldn't take a genius to go on the internet (and NIMBY's aren't geniuses) type in the URL "www.northstandchat.biz" (oh, is that that popular Albion fans website that always gets a mention on the radio?) and take a look at one of the NUMEROUS discussions about Falmer, and then click on one of those links about some site at the end of a runway.......

Falmer it is.

We probably need to start gearing up for campaign mode. We need to mobilise the NIMBYs local to all the alternative sites, make them aware why they are inappropriate, and get them ready to write into the Inquiry when it starts taking submissions.

 

[Curious Orange]

I meant to say "why the sites are inappropriate", this is the one instance where all feel NIMBYs ARE appropriate!!

 

[perseus]

WHERE ARE WE GOING TO FIND THE MONEY FOR ALL OF THIS?? ?? ?? ??

(Question on page 12)

Briefly to answer Yoda's question about costs:

These are just wild guesses.

These are pre-inflation figures:

Stadium £45 million
Roads and junctions £15 million
Railway station £4.5 million
Land purchase negotiable (small)
Football academies, Sussex FA HQ, new ground £3 million (recouped by selling Lancing FC for housing).

Rolling programme of further development reduces the capital costs.

Rail journey time from Brighton non-stop 10 minutes, stopping train 17 minutes.

Thats all the questions asked.

I think this is more expensive than Falmer, but I do not know for sure?

 

[John Boy]

Piss off Percy

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Rolling programme of further development reduces the capital costs.

Excellent strategic thinking!

Only one problem ...

It'll be necessary to bring together a big partnership of major businesses to develop any sort of "rolling programme of further development".

How on earth will that be achieved? A few lines in the Friday-Ad? Or years of complicated negotiations?

And how long would it take to prepare a planning application?

And you are CERTAIN that this won't involve another Public Inquiry?



The ONLY people who have so far been talking about the need for "enabling development" to accompany an Albion Stadium have been ...

... er ...

... FALMER PARISH COUNCIL.



Isn't that a coincidence?

 

[The Large One]

Any chance of locking this thread? It's not about stifling Percy, It's the fact he's not listening and crashing on regardless. The argument is just going nowhere. This in turn only winds people up. Seriously, there has hardly been a football-related thread over the past couple of days on here.

There is nothing we collectively can do about the process at present, so can we get back to more pressing matters like plugging and buying the single, turning up at the quiz night, and supporting the Albion.

Granted, I don't have to read this thread, but f*** it, I care. When the time comes next year, it is just so important that we get behind the Falmer bid as a UNITED front. And I, along with most people, will do whatever it takes (within reason) to get the Albion to Falmer.

To Falmer...

 

[GNF on Tour]

Horton,

You have been consistently contradicted and shown your obvious inadequacies on planning matters (and much more) not only on this thread but for months on NSC. Before that you were hounded off the Seagulls Mailing List for talking utter bollocks that even managed to piss off the liberal woolly jumper brigade (bar a few) that habit the list. For chrisakes, when are you going to get the message, no one is interested in your crap because it has been proved inadequate, ill thought out and most importantly utterly detrimental to the Albions cause.

Put simply - YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You also continullay avoid the question which is very annoying and displays serious character flaws.

Either post some sense, admit when you are wrong or piss off back to your rock pools. Furthermore, if your in anyway involved in protecting our foreshore habitat then I'm very glad I'm not a local limpet.

 

[perseus]

I was happy to bring this thread to a close. I answered any questions as straightforward as I could.

In answer to Lord Bracknell's implied question. I do not think I have read any of the Falmer Parish Council's propoganda. I not think they have reached this far out the wilds of Pende.

There is no doubt about it, though "rolling development" requires finding a operator Somebody to run a business from the premises and give people jobs. Not an easy thing nowadays.

I do not copy anyone, if I can help it.

Anyrate, I am not in favour of using the term "enabling development" because the landowner gets to hear about it and then ups the land price to cream off some of the profits.

It is your prerogative to close the thread without asking any implied questions.

Is the term BANANAS? Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone (or anything).

 

[The Large One]

I was happy to bring this thread to a close. I answered any questions as straightforward as I could.

In answer to Lord Bracknell's implied question. I do not think I have read any of the Falmer Parish Council's propoganda. I not think they have reached this found out the wilds of Pende.

There is no doubt about it, though "rolling development" requires finding a operator Somebody to run a business from the premises and give people jobs. Not an easy thing nowadays.

I do not copy anyone, if I can help it.

Anyrate, I am not in favour of using the term "enabling development" because the landowner gets to here about it and then ups the land price to cream off some of the profits.

It is your prerogative to close the thread without asking any implied questions.

Is the term BANANAS? Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone (or anything).

Horton, coherent English would be helpful. That was a post that made no sense at all.

I do not copy anyone, if I can help it.

Thank f*** for that. Heaven forbid that there is another like-minded nutter roaming free in the same county.

 

[Beach Hut]

Perseus - to para phrase the words of a famous sports manufacturer - just do it and quit.

You really have pissed of the majority big time.