Has John Wescott (Letters, March 17) been visiting another planet for the past two or three years?

Talking about "Waterhall halt", he asked: "Surely it can't be that difficult to put it back again?

As yet, no one has come up with a logical answer as to why Waterhall cannot be used. That can't be said of Falmer."

Mr Wescott, please come up with one logical reason why the stadium should not be at Falmer - excluding the Nimbyism and scaremongering we have to endure on a regular basis.

After all, it is going to occupy a parcel of land that has no intrinsic beauty, cannot be considered downland, is surrounded on three sides by transportation arteries (rail and road) as well as another road and is south of the bypass alongside a sprawling, ugly university complex.

Our beautiful new community stadium can only bring benefits to the area, visually and economically.

Mr Wescott, Waterhall is not an option for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is north of the bypass, that arbitrarily drawn line where development stops to prevent encroachment on to real downland.

Consideration also has to be given to rail safety issues.

I believe there is no way any form of station would be allowed at or near Waterhall because it would be too close to one, if not two, tunnels. This is unsafe.

Perhaps Mr Wescott can let us know where this former station is or was, how long ago it ceased to be used and why it is no longer used?

It's not part of the system that went to Devil's Dyke in the 19th Century is it, perchance?

There is already a railway station within a couple of minutes' walk from the community stadium site at Falmer.

Why look to build one in a location where it would not be allowed on safety grounds and would put lives at risk?

Falmer is the only option. If there was any other viable location, Brighton and Hove Albion would be looking for planning permission to build Brighton and Hove's community stadium there.

-Robert Martin, Barnwood Road, Guildford