FALMER FOOTBALL STADIUM
When viewed from Village Way across to the A27, the site may seem to be of little importance. But when it is viewed from other slightly more distant viewpoints, its role in the landscape becomes apparent. The Inspector described the site as an integral part of a continuous sweep of high quality open downland, the attractiveness of which had not been seriously damaged by nearby development. John Prescott acknowledged that the proposed stadium will damage the character and appearance of this attractive stretch of open landscape, and cause considerable harm to the AONB. He has also accepted that his decision runs contrary to the primary objective of conserving the natural beauty of such areas.
Much of the discussion has been about whether or not a more suitable location coud be found for a new Stadium and the Inquiry was reopened to examine the issue. We have argued in favour of the eastern end of Shoreham Harbour, identified in the Local Plan as an area that needs to be redeveloped. The second Inspector was attracted by the argument that locating the stadium here would be capable of making a significant contribution to the regeneration of the area, and would be much less damaging to the environment than the Flamer site. However, he concluded that there was too much uncertainty about the redevelopment plans for this location to be regarded as an alternative to Falmer at the present time. The Inspector went on to conclude that, at present, there was no reasonable prospect of planning permission for a stadium being granted at any other locations that were looked at during this phase of the Inquiry.
This may seem conclusive, but it is not. The South Downs are a national treasure, and they ought not to be damaged by major development unless this is clearly required for some overriding national reason. John Prescott has said that the Football Club's desire for a new stadium is not a matter of national concern. However, he has gone on to conclude that the local need for the stadium, coupled with the contribution that it would make to the regeneration of deprived areas in East Brighton and other benefits to the local economy, can be added together to form national considerations that justify harm to the Downs. This is an alarming conclusion, because it is an approach that could be used to justify other major development in the Downs. We must therefore hope that the decision can be challenged successfully in the Courts. If not, we must at least try to ensure that the stadium is not followed by other development that will steadily erode the remainder of the narrow rural gap between the edge of Brighton and the attractive village of Falmer.
Graham Fuller