I am growing increasingly frustrated at the misinformation pedalled by the anti-Falmer lobby in their letters to The Argus.

Without wishing to cast aspersions on the integrity of the writers, they are, at best, being disingenuous.

Mr Ed Bishop (Letters, October 13) wrote to you to extoll the virtues of Toad's Hole as an alternative site, praising the transport links and highlighting the fact the plot had "been offered to the Albion on very generous terms".

I don't really think Mr Bishop needs the truth pointing out but for the benefit of those who may not know and would be misled by his version, I will lay them out again.

The site is privately owned.

A portion of it was offered to the Albion at a very low rate, on condition Brighton and Hove City Council agreed to a large commercial development being granted the remainder of the site. This was never going to be allowed, so the plan was a complete non-starter.

As for the transport links, Mr Bishop informs us the plot is accessible from both sides. In fact, the Highways Agency vetoed any proposed development as they refused to consider a slip road from the A27 on safety grounds.

Unbelievably, he suggests those travelling from the west could "simply use the Devil's Dyke flyover and double back".

This junction is already a problem and hundreds more cars turning right at the roundabout at the top of that slip road would cause queues right back on to the dual carriageway, posing a major safety risk.

While we should all accept there are two sides to every argument, I would have more respect for Mr Bishop's views if he wrote a much simpler version: "Dear Sirs, might I suggest the stadium is built further away from my house in Woodingdean.

Best regards, Ed Bishop."

  • Simon Huffer, Corinthian Road, Chandler's Ford