Search results

I didn't say it was. The point was that it was an out of town stadium.

Although in this case the Albion would be following their own tradition, as the Goldstone WAS an out of town stadium. However, that is of no relevance to this discussion.

So that's that argument ruled out then, probably. However we should be quite comfortable with the AONB/proposed National Park, against local planning policy, visual and environmental impact, difficult transport solution, negligible socio-economic benefits arguments.

But when was it last used as a landfill? Elsewhere it has been said that landfills shouldn't be built on for forty years, cetainly I can't remember Waterhall being used for that purpose in my lifetime, so that's at least twentynine years.

However, in the re-opened Inquiry, the availability of the alternative sites is one of the criteria for consideration in terms of their viability.

Well, I'll say it: 22,000 CAPACITY IS ONE OF THE ODPM's CRITERIA.

It is an issue because the cost of development is one of the criteria the ODPM wants addressed.

Waterhall has always been an ideal site for building a great big stadium, however it will fail a number of the DPM's criteria. Visual and environmental impact, and other planning priorities such as all of it being in and AONB and it being against planning policy to permit anything north of the...

We do need to ensure that potential objectors to each of the sites are fully aware of the reasons why their site is unsuitable. The list of reasons why sites are unsuitable is now out of date in some respects. We need to ensure that is updated and comprehensive in relation to the criteria set...

That'll be Bellotti's plans on the back of a fag packet application.

Why? The re-opened Inquiry is only considering the viability of the alternative sites.

Waterhall won't be considered because it is against local planning policy to not build north of the A27, and so comes under "(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?".