I wonder if some of the people who write letters to The Argus ever actually bother to read your publication. I refer to the letter from P Sayers (The Argus, February 28). He clearly has no idea about what conclusions both inquiries about the proposed site of the Brighton and Hove Albion's new football stadium came up with.
Waterhall is not suitable because it's not viable as a railway halt. This is because it is on a mainline, whereas Falmer is not and it also has a station already.
As far as congestion is concerned regarding Brighton University, the stadium would be used either on a Saturday afternoon or a mid-week evening. Just how much would the traffic congestion mentioned affect Brighton University students at those times?
Finally, Waterhall doesn't have a a four-lane road going through it, only by its side. It also doesn't have those lovely, Sixties-style Sussex University buildings dotted around its landscape and the area is far more of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty than Falmer because of it.
No doubt you will have more than a few responses to P Sayers' letter but what a pity people like that do not bother to get their facts straight before committing their opinions to The Argus.
-Frank Aylett, Worthing
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 The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.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