Frank Aylett's reasons for why Waterhall wouldn't work as a stadium site seem to fall down on several counts (Letters, March 9).

Falmer is on the mainline between Brighton and Eastbourne (and beyond) and its advantage is it already has a station but it would probably need upgrading if it was going to serve a football stadium.

Not being on the mainline from London means fans coming south for a game would need to change trains, whereas if you built a station with perhaps its own loop siding at Waterhall, you could get a direct train to the stadium.

I don't think the stadium at Falmer will have the main road running through it so the argument that the road is adjacent at Waterhall seems a little spurious as it is adjacent to Falmer too.

However, siting it at Waterhall is just as destructive of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as siting it at Falmer so presumably the same arguments would apply.

Should that site ever be considered, one would hope protestors would be equally vehement that Mr Prescott should apply his own rules when making planning decisions.

Some say Brighton and Hove City Council should have looked for a site within the city limits, not pushed the problem to the edge of their jurisdiction.

Elected representatives all round have not done themselves any favours and at the end of the day, it is the Seagulls who have had their existence as a club put at risk - and the stadium is still being argued about.

-Rod Main, Newhaven