Pende2

COMPARISON WITH THE PENDE LOCATION FOR A STADIUM WITH FALMER AND OTHERS

FALMER	PENDE	WATERHALL
Ownership: Public domain: cheaper Public would want amenities	Ownership: Private: capital cost of land acquisition (farmland). Public would support a facility with some public access not enjoyed at present.	Ownership: Public domain: cheaper Public would want amenities.
Size: small, maximum 15 acres. Limits expansion of the stadium.	Size: large, 120 acres in one ownership with room for expansion. Size of the stadium not limited.	Size: adequate, about 70 acres.
Planning Permission: Although on the inside edge of the AONBs, political will can easily overcome this obstacle, but maybe at the risk of onerous Section 106 agreements. Possible regional objections from other Councils. VWN has been excluded from the National Park proposed boundaries.	Planning Permission: Allocated for sporting uses, not suitable for alternative uses. Planning permission should be reasonably straightforward providing expensive transport and infrastructure conditions can be complied with. Ancillary developments (except hypermarkets) could be allowed. Local job shortage would help any application.	Planning Permission: Political will opposed to this site for dogmatic reasons which could be changed. However, the Highways department may veto any development. Ancillary developments may be prevented. This area has been included in the National Park proposed boundaries.
Attractiveness of Location: Village Way North is conveniently near the railway station but the stadium does not fit all that neatly (arguable). The Village Way South location embedded in a dip in the Downs has an attractive visual aspect not appreciated by everybody, but it is in an overdeveloped area although better than most stadium locations. This area has been included in the National Park proposed boundaries.	Attractiveness of Location: Superb just out of town location, unlikely to be bettered.	Attractiveness of Location: Seemed the obvious choice before they built the roads. Now seems like an area that could benefit from environmental improvement.
Transport: Infrastructure in place or available for public transport (railway station) but car parking is inadequate. Road capacity adequate.	Transport: Infrastructure would need to be installed at considerable expense. The railway station has been closed and demolished but the site is adjacent to a railway line. Adequate room for parking to be installed. Road capacity adequate but a few objections could be expected. Tested with 20,000 airshow crowds, all arriving by car.	Transport: Road capacity almost certainly inadequate even in the short term. This could be overcome by political will. Adjacent to a railway line, but a station is likely to be uneconomic without ancillary development.
Capital Cost: By far the cheapest option as the infrastructure is in place.	Capital Cost: At least £25 million extra for the infrastructure, a significant amount of capital to be raised. This cost could be underestimated.	Capital Cost: At least £30 million extra for the infrastructure, a significant amount of capital to be raised.
Recouping the Capital Cost: The small site puts a limit on ancillary developments.	Recouping the Capital Cost: A housing development profit could pay for the extra infrastructure, with possibilities of business development as well.	Recouping the Capital Cost: Ancillary developments would require political will and is not out of the question, but from past performance this seems unlikely in the short term.
Revenue: Small capacity of the Stadium and inadequate car parking, as well as the possible restriction on other events will limit income. Car parking revenue may be lost, with limitations because of the size of the site for ancillary interests.	Revenue: Capacity of the stadium can be larger and better car parking and options for concerts will increase income all around. Car parking revenue can all be pocketed. With imagination this could be a gold mine.	Revenue: Capacity of the stadium can be larger and better car parking and options for concerts will increase income all around. On public land, the Council would want some of the car parking dosh.
Practicality: Easily the best bet in the short term.	Practicality: Not as difficult as imagined as the single ownership could help. Undeveloped land. Nothing to demolish.	Practicality: This seems impossible, requiring too much effort compared to the chances of success. Requires imagination and change of political will. Could be impressive though.
Public Support: about 65%	Public Support: about 75%	Public Support: about 65%
Popularity amongst Fans: Seems to be a popular choice, maybe because it is perceived as the only one. But the location is unpopular with some supporters, mainly car goers that will find it a difficult place to get to. I think this is unwarranted. However, persistent car drivers will eschew Park 'n Ride as they do at Withdean, discouraging thousands of supporters. Perhaps, a more serious criticism is the small size of a stadium indicates a lack of ambition and a disappearance of the dream.	Popularity amongst Fans: Although some eight miles from the centre of Brighton, the location will actually be easier to get to for the majority of supporters, although not for a significant population in east Brighton. (Fast train from Brighton is 10 minutes.) Popularity not assessed because this location has not been publicised. I expect it to be comparable to the Goldstone, and better for car parking. Indicates more ambition.	Popularity amongst Fans: Still the most popular choice from an uncritical audience. It is the size of the site indicating ambition contrasted with the dismay at the Park 'n Ride for Withdean and Falmer that makes it so.
Wildlife/Environmental: Very poor, but adjacent to meadows. Both the view and the flora and fauna could be enhanced by the development.	Wildlife/Environmental: Good, with exceptional animals like a famous colony of Water Voles, and other exceptional areas support Willow Tits, Barn Owls and botanical interest as well. Roe Deer can no longer be regarded as uncommon. Habitat is currently under threat from spoil dumping.	Wildlife/Environmental: Poor, former rubbish tip is adjacent to more valued habitats. Both the view and the flora and fauna could be enhanced by the development.
Timetable: VWN: The less favourable of the two is expected to be delayed to June 2003 before construction could conceivably take place. With demolition and extra problems, the earliest date that the stadium could be ready would be before season 2005-6. VWS: This area has been included in the National Park proposed boundaries. The more favourable of the two sites may take even longer, but let us be optimistic and say 2005-6.	Timetable: If an outside developer is involved and the planning process goes smoothly, an early date for construction, I think if everybody gets a move on, we could see the stadium aim for completion for the start of the 2004-5 season.	Timetable: This is a very awkward one, but it would not be conceivable that any date earlier than 2006-7 could be attained. Even this seems an unlikely early date and it would probably take much longer. This area has been included in the National Park proposed boundaries.