Adrian Newnham (Letters, April 24) is clearly unconcerned about the effect of a massive new development at Falmer.
Firstly, although there is a main road and railway running through Falmer, two university campuses and a health club, the village itself is still a relatively quiet place.
Sussex University has about 10,000 staff and students who arrive and depart at various times of the day. There can be no comparison with the impact 30,000 or so football supporters arriving and leaving together will have.
The Falmer-to-Woodingdean road will no doubt become a car park, traffic through Woodingdean will become intolerable and supporters arriving by car will also undoubtedly use the university and health club car parks.
Who will be responsible for clearing up the mess?
Unless the club is prepared to invest in resolving transport problems these issues will remain insurmountable.
Mr Newnham also brushes aside the environmental impact. The proposed stadium at Falmer would mean yet another greenfield site being destroyed.
Surely, it is common sense that a preferred option would involve the redevelopment of a brownfield site. The problem is clearly financial.
To develop a brownfield site, a site investigation and risk assessment of contamination would need to be carried out. Remediation works would likely need to follow before any development could take place.
The club, it seems, is trying to avoid these costs by proposing a development on a greenfield site.
What would really be good for the community is for the club to take a responsible attitude and redevelop a potentially contaminated site.
Okay, so Waterhall may not be the best place but it is ideally located for road and rail access. Shoreham and Newhaven both have rail access, road access could be improved and both locations have sites that can be redeveloped and would benefit from inward investment.
Don McBeth's composited picture (Letters, April 19) may not have been particularly accurate but it did highlight the ugliness of developing a greenfield site.
Finally, where does it stop? Just because Falmer has been subjected to a lot of development since the Sixties, why should it be allowed to continue?
Every additional development eats into an ever-decreasing amount of open space and pushes the limits further.
The only sensible option has to be improving an area by redeveloping a brownfield site and attracting investment where it is most needed.
-Peter Millis, Chalkland Rise, Brighton
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article