Update on Traffic Regulation Orders around Stadium

Some HorfieldROSE members recently met with the residents who would be most affected by the initial TROs being proposed for our area, and invited their feedback to take to our meeting with Alan Berridge, Senior Area Engineer for the Traffic Client Team on 8-05-09.

These notes cover the main points from this meeting:
The Council’s remit is to safety and to keep traffic moving.

These initial, proposed TROs are to protect junctions and corners, are considered long overdue and will be followed by similar throughout Horfield and Bishopston, regardless of any further building developments. Junction layouts (Wessex Avenue & Gloucester Rd was mentioned) may also be looked at the same time as possible waiting restrictions. It is hoped that these initial orders will be in place for August.

Parking services will be responsible for enforcement and rigorous enforcement is expected together with a parking hotline.

A Result!! -

• Following residents feedback we are told that Downend Pk will have their turning space restored and the double yellow lines at the entrance to the road will be trimmed back.
• Bedford Crescent cannot be included retrospectively so application for protection to their corners will be applied for with the next proposals.
• Consideration will be given to the churches – perhaps ‘setting down’ places; hopefully this will used sensibly. Disabled are allowed to park on double yellow lines anyway.
• The police have requested further Match Day restrictions as they are responsible for crowd control and Anti Terrorism measures which they must apply to venues.
• In view of this new signs have been designed and are awaiting approval from the Dept. for Transport. Downend Road from Strathmore to Muller Roads and Filton Ave (in front of the Stadium) will be immediately affected by these, but of course there will be a ‘knock on’ effect for other residents.
• When these are approved we understand Mr Berridge will arrange an open consultation meeting with residents; hopefully this might be in June.

We were very heartened to hear that consideration is being given to the whole area, as the planning permission given for The Stadium Development, Southmead Hospital, Dorian Road and the Cricket Ground will all impact on the traffic and parking issues we have.

If permission is given for the phased build then there will be a further ‘Temporary Traffic Plan’. This is likely to cause major inconvenience to residents.

The Traffic Team can only work with the information they are given and are finding difficulty in getting answers to help their decision making. This is making it a ‘bit by bit’ process. There is a determination, however, to resolve the problems as they receive so many letters!

There appear to be no firm plans, yet, from the Stadium Developers as to how they will help the traffic and parking issues, in fact the reverse seems to be happening as the proposed ‘phased build’ takes away on-site parking and now makes no provision for the ‘disabled’ or ‘visiting fans’ coaches.

We would like to ‘Thank’ everyone for their views and letters – we do feel they were all taken into account and believe it is well worth while continuing to monitor the parking and traffic situations and giving feedback which can be passed to the Traffic Client Team.

Size Does Matter

We have said it before and we are saying it again, the stadium and associated commercial developments are too big for the Memorial Ground site. It appears Rovers' stadium company are also realising that they may have squeezed in too much for their own good.

The image above (click it to see a larger version) is a plan view of the stadium site and surrounding area. The neighbouring properties have been shaded green, the perimeter road is blue and the stadium building itself is shown in red. This shows pretty clearly that there is very little space left on the site outside the building itself.

What this does not show are the vertical differences. The stadium will be enclosed on all four sides by seven story high student accommodation with hundreds of windows looking out over the neighbouring properties. In the above image, houses to the right of the stadium are already on lower ground so their rooftops are at about the same level as the ground within the stadium site.

The promise to make the small area of land in the south west corner (shown in yellow) into an amenity ground for the homes along Alton Rd, Downend Rd and Strathmore Rd was one of the things in the proposed development that was to compensate those resident for the loss of privacy and daylight that the stadium would cause. This is one of the things that helped to tip the balance when the planning application was being decided.

No Room to Work

There was little enough space on the site to conduct the build anyway, but a phased build, while matches are still played at the ground, borders on insanity.

It appears the stadium company have realised they simply do not have the necessary space to do this and this is why they want to raise the level of this "amenity land" which is currently on the same level as the houses up four or five meters to the level of the pitch. This will allow the construction site to extend outside of the existing site boundaries.

The fact that the construction will close off half the site to the public means that at least one of the three public entrances will be for construction use only. To compensate the stadium company expect to open up the Alton Rd emergency exit as a public entrance. Something that has been explicitly forbidden for many years.

No Room to Turn Around

But even once the stadium, student accommodation, hotel, shop, offices and restaurant/conference centre are built, the lack of space will continue to be a problem both for the operation of the facility and for the surrounding homes.

The perimeter road (shown in blue) will be one way only with all vehicles entering at the top left and having to go clockwise around the building and then exit at the top left. This includes large vehicles like coaches, refuse lorries, delivery lorries and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire engines.

The developer has to do computer modelling (called swept paths) to demonstrate that these larger vehicles can actually negotiate the four corners of the stadium. There are a number of places or "pinch points" where turning is very "tight" and only just permits the vehicles to make it round.

The white spaces (such as they are) around the perimeter road are parking spaces. It does not take much imagination to realise that one or two badly parked cars could spell chaos by blocking all vehicles on site, and could present an actual hazard should emergency vehicles need to get around the building.

No Space for Waste

With 550 students, possibly over 100 hotel guests, workers in the offices and other facilities in the complex, a lot of rubbish will be generated. As part of the process of "discharging conditions" set out by the planning permission, the stadium company have to explain to the council how they will manage various things on the site including waste disposal. The report they submitted shows:

• It is likely waste collection will be required on a daily basis due to the amount of waste being generated by all the enabling developments.


• Due to the volume of waste being generated Eurobins, small compactors and skips are proposed to ensure adequate waste storage, especially for recyclable waste.


• Many of the Eurobins will be located close to the perimeter fence.


• A number of parking bays will have to be used to ‘park’ the Eurobins, thus reducing yet again the limited number of parking spaces.

The management of waste will cause noise as it is deposited (often late) and collected (often early) and since it will be kept near the edge of the site lead to unpleasant smells drifting into the neighbouring gardens.

There are also two internal stores for waste and they are to be located (according to the document) at the South East and South west corners of the development. The document recognises that waste removal lorries will potentially have difficulty manoeuvring and recommends that some of the car parking spaces be kept vacant over night to ensure the waste can be collected.

Truly, this site is not big enough to accommodate all of the uses that the stadium company intend to put it to. This madness is now beginning to show as they move from "back of fag packet" plans and face the realities of making it work. And as ever when they need more of anything it is the residents who end up suffering the consequences.

We Don't Post Comments

The Evening Post has a facility to leave comments after articles. These are often more informative or entertaining that the articles themselves.

On a recent article and from time to time in the past comments have been left under the name of "HorfieldROSE" (or variations thereof).

No one from HorfieldROSE have ever left such a comment under the organisation name. Any such comments you may have seen were therefore left by people passing themselves off as group members and not real comments from our group. Members of the group and other residents may have left comments under their own names or aliases, but not as the group. Anyone is entitled to express their own opinion, but that is only an individual's opinion and not necessarily the view of the group.

Why Rovers Clearing Land Is Not Acceptable

The Evening Post published an article about the felling of trees in the area behind the south stand of the Memorial Ground on May bank holiday Monday.  It is hard to decide if it was a good thing that it was published on a low circulation day or not as it is important to get coverage, but the article misrepresented the issues that it was more misleading than informative.

Clearing trees on a property is not illegal.  However, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it a criminal offence to damage or kill nesting birds, their nests or eggs, of species which are listed in schedule 1 part 1 of the act. This is why tree felling is not normally carried out at this time of year and when it is, should be done after clearance is given by an ecologist.

But more significantly, this is not just a piece of private land.  It is land that has an approved planning application which sets out conditions in a legally binding contract.  If the developer, Rovers, does not abide by the terms of the contract they are liable to penalties or in the extreme the cancellation of of the permission contract.

Because it was accepted that the development of the larger stadium, hotel, student accommodation, shop, offices, restaurant and conference centre on the site would have a large and detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, a number of conditions were imposed to mitigate or reduce these impacts.  

One of the critical features of this mitigation is the treatment of the boundaries between the building site and the residential properties that surround it.  As noted in our previous post section 8 of the conditions specifically require an inventory of existing trees to be made:

"The development hereby permitted shall not take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection, in the course of development. [etc]"

Clearing the land before an inventory was made and before the proposals for landscaping have been approved by the council is certainly a violation of the spirit of the agreement and possibly a violation of the letter of the agreement.

The underlying problem is that the permission was granted on a fine balance between local loss of amenity and the "greater good".  Councillors on the DCC (Development Control Committee i.e. planning committee) acknowledged this trade off and how closely balanced it was at the January 2007 meeting when permission was first granted.  

Then in the April 2008 DCC meeting for the revised application which had even greater impacts (taller trusses, more floors on hotel tower etc) and actually offered less public good (reduced learning centre and crèche size, etc) the councillors again acknowledged their concerns about this worsening trade off but allowed the revised application to be approved because Bryan Cadman (Area Planning Service Manager North and West Area Planning Team) had advised them that refusing it could open the council to considerable legal costs.

The whole application process has been ratcheted in favour of the developer who continually asks for a little bit more and then a little bit more and a little bit more.  Although it may seem petty to refuse a small increment, collectively they are becoming more and more extreme and overbearing. 

The council have still not accepted the proposed phased development of the stadium and associated commercial properties, as the wording of the original permission was specifically geared to a single phase build on a site that was not being used for sporting events during the build.  

Phased build has further detrimental impacts on the local area including longer build time and associated noise and pollution, building disruption during the week, match noise on weekends, and no parking facilities on site during the build putting further strain on local roads and parking during events while construction takes place. And measures to reduce impact such as the RPZ (Residents' Parking Zone) and the Park and Ride facilities would not be in force during the build.

The land behind the south stand is also of importance to the phased build.  Because the site is so small and constrained and because the new buildings will take up nearly all of the land leaving only a perimeter road between the building and the surrounding back gardens, the phased build intends to use this land to the south as part of the construction site.  But in order to use it this way it has to be raised four or five meters to match the level of the pitch.

And here Rovers have a problem, because this was not part of the application that was approved.    The approved plans include drawings clearly showing that this land to the south will be left at its current level.  The S106 agreement stipulates that the neighbouring properties will have access to this "amenity land" which would not be possible (without climbing and abseiling skills) when the land meets their gardens as a four meter high wall.  

And the Design and Access Statement (part of the planning application provided by Rovers which explains what the council is giving them permission to build) also confirmed that the “area to the south west bordering Downend Road and Strathmore Road which is currently overgrown will be thinned out to allow the better trees to flourish and additional and appropriate trees and shrubs added to create a natural area which will require little maintenance.” 

The fact that Rovers are clearly trying to push for more than they have already been given and that once again it is the residents who lose while Rovers gain that is the cause for concern.

Yet another new imposition that comes from the phased build is to use the Alton Road emergency exit as a full public entrance during the build.  All through the planning process (and for many years during previous applications) this exit has been confirmed and reconfirmed as an emergency exit and not as a public access.  This simply cannot be used as a full public access without a new planning application.  That's not a request that is the law.

Devastation at the Memorial Ground

Click on images to see larger versions:

The pictures on this post are of what is known as the "open space to the south of the stadium". As you can see the land was densely vegetated and the mature trees provided a welcome screen against the sight of the existing stadium for residents on Downend Road.

On 22 April, without warning or notification to neighbours, workers entered this area of land and deforested the area, clearing the land of existing trees and plants, which in itself is unattractive, but worse exposes residents more fully to the eyesore of the existing stadium buildings (which are small in comparison to the proposed new stadium).

Although landscaping of this land is part of the planning application, it is still governed by the conditions that accompany that permission and section 8 of the conditions reads as follows:

"The development hereby permitted shall not take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection, in the course of development. [etc]"

Obviously if they have already cut down all of the trees it is difficult to comply with this condition. Landscaping plans have been submitted to the council, but they have not been approved.

This piece of land is outside of the boundary of the stadium ground but is owned by the stadium company and hence by Rovers. In the initial planning application, Rovers suggested this piece of land could become an public amenity area (a sort of mini-park).

The residents of Downend Road made representations to development control (planning department) that they would prefer the land to be left as it was because existing mature trees protected the view and lack of access to this area protected their privacy and also security (as access would make it easier for anyone to get into their back gardens). Despite these protests, and the fact that not altering this area would save Rovers money, this aspect of the plan was left in place.

When plans for the phased development became available it transpired that this amenity land would become part of the construction site during the build. This change requires that this "open land" be made up to the same height as the main stadium ground.

As you can see from the photographs, the very reason this land has not been used for anything else is that it is accommodating a large change in level, as the stadium ground has been built up at the southern end to level the pitch. To continue the level right to the edge of the back gardens will mean a four meter high retaining wall right behind the garden fences.

A normal citizen would not be permitted to erect a solid fence over two meters in height (which is the reason people put trellises on fences to make them higher).

This incident illustrates a number of things. One, how Rovers management have disregard opinions of their neighbours throughout this planning process. Two, having received everything they have asked for in the past they no longer feel it necessary to wait for approval. And three, their willingness to push for the ends they want by any means and regardless of the fairness or even the legality of their actions.

Discharge of Conditions Application

When Rovers were granted planning permission for the commercial and sporting developments at the Memorial Ground, there were conditions attached to the permission. Rovers have now made an application for discharge of some of these conditions. These are to be reviewed by the planning department (Development Control) at Bristol City Council.

The following are simply the conditions that they claim to have satisfied. We will provide more information in due course.

The application details for application 09/00652/COND on the council web site

Conditions for discharge are as follows:

2. Contaminated Land
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
- A ground investigation study to identify any contamination at the site
- A Conceptual Model identifying all Pollutant Linkages at the site (ie all sources of contamination, pathways and receptors)
- A Risk Assessment to quantify the risk from contamination, and
- A written Method Statement detailing how contamination will be remediated.
Reason: - To safeguard the safety and health of future occupiers of the site.

5. Construction Noise, Vibration and Air Quality
No part of the development as hereby permitted shall commence until details of an Environmental Management Scheme and Code of Practice has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Scheme and Code of Practice shall oblige the applicant, or developer and its contractor to use all best endeavours to minimise disturbances including noise, vibration, dust and smoke emanating from the site.
Any emergency or other deviation from the above conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Management Scheme shall include:-
(i) Details of engineering measures, acoustic screening and the provision of sound insulation required to mitigate or eliminate specific environmental impacts;
(ii) A detailed specification of demolition and construction works at each phase of development including consideration of environmental impacts and the required remedial measures. The specification shall include details of the method of piling;
(iii) Measures to make local residents aware of any significant activities that are likely to cause significant disruption;

All demolition and construction work shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved management scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the following hours:
08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and
08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays (unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Deliveries to, and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.
Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Part 1:1997 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works.

During demolition and construction on site:
(a) The best practical means available in accordance with British Standard Codes of Practice BS5228:1997 shall be employed at all times to minimise the emission of noise from the site;
(b) Vehicular accesses to adjoining and opposite premises shall not be impeded at any time;
(c) No waste or other burning material shall be burnt on the application site
(d) A suitable and sufficient means of suppressing dust must be provided and maintained, including the adequate containment of stored or accumulated material so as to prevent it becoming airborne at any time and giving rise to nuisance.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until a demolition and construction method statement for the demolition and construction process has beensubmitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following:
(a) An assessment of the presence or absence of asbestos and suitable mitigation measures is appropriate;
(b) The inclusion of suitable measures for the containment of dust, such as the use of debris screens and sheets, suitable and sufficient water sprays; enclosed chutes for dropping demolition materials to ground level;
(c) The use of enclosures or shields when mixing large quantities of concrete;
(d) Details of the provision for the temporary storage of materials on site with preference to the storage of fine dry materials inside buildings or enclosures, or the use of sheeting as far a practicable with water sprays as appropriate.
(e) Consideration to the use of pre-mixed plasters and masonry compounds.
The method statement scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with details to be approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:- To protect the amenities of adjoining residents during the construction period.

10. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority ((unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), a detailed assessment on the potential for noise from the development from affecting neighbouring residential properties. The assessment should include noise from the following:

Noise from the PA system
Noise from fixed plant and equipment at the stadium
Noise from the hotel, student flats and shops (including transport noise)
Noise from conference facilities
Noise from vehicular traffic and parking on the site

If the assessment indicates that noise from the development is likely to affect neighbouring noise sensitive premises then a detailed scheme of noise mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The noise mitigation measures shall be designed so that nuisance will not be caused to the occupiers of neighbouring noise sensitive premises by noise from the development.

The noise assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant/engineer and shall take into account the provisions of PPG 24 Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise, BS4142: 1997. "Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas" and BS 8233: 1999 "Sound Insulation and Noise Insulation for Buildings - Code of Practice".

The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use permitted and be permanently maintained (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

Recommendation:
i. The recommended design criteria for dwellings are as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) 35 dB LAeq 16 hours in all rooms
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) 30 dB LAeq 8 hours in bedrooms
ii. Where residential properties are likely to be affected by amplified music from neighbouring pubs or clubs, the recommended design criteria is as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) Noise Rating Curve NR35
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) Noise Rating Curve NR20 to NR25
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

11. Noise Insulation - Residential
No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed scheme of noise insulation measures for all residential accommodation (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). The measures shall be designed to achieve noise insulation to a standard that nuisance will not be caused to the occupiers of the residential accommodation by the operation of the workshops to the rear of the premises, traffic to the front of the premises and the pub beneath the residential accommodation (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

The scheme of noise insulation measures shall prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant/engineer and shall take into account the provisions of PPG 24 Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise, BS4142: 1997. "Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas" and BS 8233: 1999 "Sound Insulation and Noise Insulation for Buildings - Code of Practice".

The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use permitted and be permanently maintained (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

Recommendation:
a) The recommended design criteria for dwellings are as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) 35 dB LAeq 16 hours in all rooms
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) 30 dB LAeq 8 hours in bedrooms
b) Where residential properties are likely to be affected by amplified music from neighbouring pubs or clubs, the recommended design criteria is as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) Noise Rating Curve NR35
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) Noise Rating Curve NR20 to NR25
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

12. Noise from fixed plant and equipment
The rating level of any noise generated by any fixed plant or equipment as part of this development shall not exceed the pre-existing background level by more than 0 dB(A). The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises most. Measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with BS4142: 1997-"Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas". The assessment must be carried out by a competent person prior to the commencement of the development. These noise levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

13. Details of Extract/Ventilation
Details of the means of mechanical ventilation including that for the extraction and dispersal of cooking smells within both the commercial and residential accommodation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The details shall include method of construction, odour and noise control. The approved details shall be provided before the use hereby permitted commences and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
Recommendation: In order to mitigate odour nuisance it is recommended that flues or vents for the dispersal of cooking smells should terminate at least 1 metre above the ridge height of any surrounding buildings, with no obstruction of upward movement of air, otherwise a method of odour control such as a carbon filter system will be necessary for approval.
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

27. Refuse and recycling
The refuse stores, and areas/facilities allocated for storing of recyclable materials, as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided before the use hereby permitted commences. Thereafter, all refuse and recyclable materials associated with the development shall either be stored within this dedicated store/area, as shown on the approved plans, or internally within the building(s) that form part of the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No refuse or recycling material shall be stored or placed for collection on the public highway or pavement, except on the day of collection, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: - To safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining premises, to protect the general environment and to ensure that there are adequate facilities for the storage and recycling of recoverable materials to encourage energy conservation through recycling.

28. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted commencing, a scheme for the provision of litter receptacles in and around the stadium site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Reason:- In the interests of the appearance of the area and to protect the amenities of residents.

35. TV reception
No part of the development as hereby permitted shall commence until the applicants satisfy the Local Planning Authority either:
a) that the stadium particularly will not have any adverse effect on radio and television reception at properties in the surrounding area or;
(b) that remedial measures will be implemented to prevent any such adverse effects.
The details of these remedial measures shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before use commences and shall be implemented before the development causes any disruption to reception.
Reason: To protect the interests of occupiers of nearby residential and commercial occupiers.

41. Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS)
Prior to the commencement of development (unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority), a strategy of surface water drainage for the site using sustainable drainage methods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the use of the building commencing.
Reason:- To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal.

42. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water run-off limitation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding.

43. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water storage capacity during 1 in 100 year (20%) storm conditions has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

44. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for prevention of pollution during the construction phase has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include details of the following:
1. Site security
2. Fuel oil storage, bunding, delivery and use
3. How both minor and major spillage will be dealt with
4. Containment of silt/soil contaminated run-off
5. Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations.
6. Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness.
Invitation for tenders for sub-contracted works must include a requirement for details of how the above will be implemented.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed site development will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters.

The hidden costs of the football ground

In Monday's Bristol Evening Post there was an article with the title "Talking sport: Who is picking up the tab?" This was an unsual article because it actually described in some detail the state of seige that the area around the Memorial Stadium goes through due to the necessary police presence surrounding matches. It even likened the situation to Apocalypse Now with the police helicopter hovering over the residential rooftops all afternoon in the leadup to and aftermath of the match. Although big disturbances are often reported, all the minor problems occuring on most match days are totally ignored by the police and the press week after week.

But the article also raised the important question of the cost of such matches. Primarily the journalist was asking about the direct costs of the policing, but since the article also mentioned shops on Gloucester Road quickly shutting their doors and putting up closed signs as the crowds poured down the street, it at least alluded to the cost to local businesses and also to the impacts on the lives of people living near the Memorial Ground.

The article did not answer the question of cost but HorfieldROSE had already obtained details of policing costs for past seasons.

During the 05/06 season, the total policing cost was £41,204 of which Rover's paid £14,644 meaning the tax payer picked up the £26,560 remainder.

During the 06/07 season, the total policing cost was £97,988 of which Rover's paid £30,237 meaning the tax payer picked up the £67,751 remainder.

The police can only charge Bristol Rovers for policing activities within the Memorial Grounds and not for activities on the public streets. A third of police funding comes from council tax, nearly a quarter comes from business rates and the remainder comes from central government (income tax, VAT and corporation tax). So one way or another it is the people of Bristol who pick up this policing tab and it is not inconsequential.

But police costs are not Rover's only drain on the council money. Planning applications incur a fee which is calculated on the size of the project and goes towards the administrative costs of processing the application. In high profile applications like the stadium, the costs are likely to be higher than the actual fee due to the increased public interest and interaction. The application fee is entirely separate to the S106 conditions which are things the developer must pay for during or after the actual development to help alleviate impacts of the development on the local area.

The fee for the stadium application in 2006 (06/03850/F ) was just shy of £50,000. It was therefore quite surprising to discover that the council waived the application fee entirely for the application in 2008 (08/00061/F).

It makes sense to put these numbers in context with some of the other figures connected with the stadium development. The S106 agreement is a standard part of granting planning permission and requires the developers to make contributions to local facilities in recognition of the commercial benefit that a planning permission gives them. In Bristol Rover's case the S106 requires the following contributions:

• £100,000 for the set up and running of the residents parking zone, this money would be paid to Bristol City Council.
  
• Up to £50,000 for public artworks. The council may allocate some of this to improve the look of the scheme and the rest to projects elsewhere.
  
• £30,000 towards two bus shelters, raised kerbs and information boards at stops in Filton Avenue to encourage fans and residents to use buses.
  
• £10,000 towards traffic regulation changes to improve road safety.
  
• £10,000 for pedestrian facilities.
  
• £7,450 to the council to make sure the club meets its obligations.
  
• £5,000 to improve traffic flow and minimise congestion in and around Filton Avenue, Gloucester Road and Muller Road.
  

In total that is just over £200,000, so the waiver of a substantial application fee negates a fair proportion of that. And an annual average policing costs of around £50,000 (and probably higher for a larger stadium) also seems to reduce the overall benefits the stadium offers the city and its citizens.

To put the numbers further into context, remember that this is a £35 million project of which about half will go towards the stadium facilities and the other half to build the student accommodation, hotel, restaurant/conference facilities, office space and other commercial aspects of the development. The stadium land is the companies biggest asset and like all other businesses it is keen to maximise the returns it can get from it, no one blames them for that. But what is unfair is for a business to effectively get subsidies from the public purse via waiver of fees or additional support such as the value of the policing. Not to mention the fact that no developer, other than a football "club", would have been given permission for these sorts of developments in this area and on that site.

Bristol Rovers have already spent at least one and a half million on the project. Just to secure all of the land rights associated with the houses that were bought by Rover's directors to smooth the application process cost £700,000 as explained in an article last May.

HOW ROVERS PAID UP IN STADIUM BID BY TORBEN LEE T.LEE

07:00 - 02 May 2008

More than £700,000 was paid to former directors of Bristol Rovers to smooth the way for the new-look Memorial Stadium.

The figures have been revealed by the club to shareholders who wanted to know the reason for a 12-month delay over a planning agreement.

Add to this architects fees over several years, consultation fees, application fees, the application agents PRS, salary for Bill Smith during his time as CEO and so on. Football, even in the lower leagues, is still big business. As the article asks "Who is picking up the tab?"

Following are some excerpts from the article referred to above:

Around 5.30pm on Saturday you'd have thought a royal visitor was making their way through Horfield and Bishopston.
Above the shops on Gloucester Road people were leaning out of windows to get a better look at what was heading their way, hemmed in by a cordon of yellow-jacketed police and flashing blue lights.

At street level the riot squad were ushering pockets of Bristol Rovers fans towards the city centre, despite the reluctance of some of them to move. Overhead the helicopter that had spent most of the afternoon above BS7 was adding a bit of Apocalypse Now to proceedings.

Then they came, marching on together, as the song goes. Around 25 Leeds fans who had clearly been earmarked as wrong 'uns, and in need of a special escort. Down the road they went, ringed by the forces of the law, and followed by three police vans, with others racing ahead to make sure each potential flashpoint site was cleared.

Unless you live near a stadium most people may be largely unaware of the transformation the area goes through when there is a match. On top of the police presence described above, there is also a traffic jam on all of the roads that is as bad or worse than normal rush hour traffic, cars parked everywhere making roads narrower and floods of people moving to or from the stadium ground. The article then gives a bit of context:

Gloucester Road is, essentially, a thriving high street, where traditional Bristol meets the 21st Century. Hardware stores and greengrocers rub shoulders with wine bars and delicatessens, hardened cider drinkers wait at the bar alongside people wanting skinny lattes.

Most of the football season, it's untouched by the sort of police presence we saw on Saturday, but for certain fixtures - Swansea City, Swindon Town, etc - the place has a more sinister feel.

But even when the police presence is lower than on the matches where trouble is more likely, there is always a police presence, and the traffic and crowds are factors at every match. Spirits are usually high, due to excitement for the sport alone but often with the aid of a few beers. Because there often is trouble at matches, it makes all matches feel dangerous, and residents retreat into their houses and lock themselves away for the duration or make plans to be out all day.

But because fixtures occur on a somewhat irregular schedule, it is easy to be caught by surprise, forgetting there was a match this Saturday or this Tuesday and especially for people who may come into the area less regularly. Lib Dem councillor for Bishopston, Bev Knott said (in a separate article):

People going about their everyday business on a Saturday afternoon should not have to rub shoulders with football fans intent on causing trouble.

There was a heavy police presence, but shoppers with children shouldn't be put in a position where they run the risk of being caught up with fans. I believe the police got it wrong on Saturday.

Residents who have nothing to do with football should not be made to feel intimidated by groups of football supporters and I, on behalf of residents who live in the area, want to know what the police are going to do to prevent it happening in the future.

It is hard to know what the police could do differently because the Memorial Ground is in the middle of a residential area with the Gloucester Road being the most direct route to Bristol Temple Meads which is over three miles south of the stadium. The police have also been working to improve traffic flows and have been experimenting with different methods of crowd control (such as allowing fans out of the grounds in batches rather than a single flood). But whatever the police do it is going to be difficult to prevent stadium crowds having an adverse effect on the local community and businesses.

Then the article made some observations and asked some questions:

Two things struck me as the curious convoy of fans, police and police vans went past the busy shops and bars of the stretch of road between the Bristol Flyer pub and Zetland Road.

Firstly, several shopkeepers took one look at what was going past and flipped the signs in their doors from 'open' to 'closed'. Secondly, the ones that didn't retreat stood in the doorways to watch the passing spectacle and shake their heads.

One asked a passing officer how much overtime he was on. Good question, but I've got a better one - who is picking up the bill?

The Ombudsman's Report Has Arrived

On the 17th January 2007 permission for the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium was approved on an on-balance basis by Bristol City Council's Development Committee (North).

An on-balance decision means that the anticipated benefits of a development to a city or region outweigh the adverse impacts of that development to local communities, though in many cases mitigation (as specified by an S106 agreement or conditions) is necessary to reduce these impacts.

Whilst an on-balance decision is a perfectly legitimate outcome for a planning application, there were many issues associated with the 17th January meeting which gave many residents grounds for concern and suspicion. These concerns led to formal complaints to the Council and finally to these complaints being sent to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's report has now been published and the Finding says:

Maladministration causing injustice

Recommended remedy

The Council is to review the implementation of its policies and procedures in respect of:

consultation on planning applications;
consideration of environmental impact;
substitution of Members on Planning Committees; and
its Planning Code of Conduct.

Whilst the Ombudsman does not consider the above administrative failures undermine the actual planning decision, the finding is nevertheless significant.

It should be noted that the Ombudsman's view and recommendations are based on comment and evidence supplied by HorfieldROSE and other residents.

The evidence was found by searching Council files, using Freedom of Information requests, and hundreds of hours of research into statutes, codes of conduct, etc., followed by the Ombudsman's Officers investigating the complaint with the Council.

We accept the Ombudsman's report fully, and must say thankyou to the Ombudsman and all the Ombudsman's officers who have been involved in the Investigation over the past 18 months. Not an easy task for the Ombudsman's office given the complexity of the complaint and one that must have taken considerable resources to complete. Thanks again.

The final chapter has therefore been reached regarding the 17th January 2007 meeting with the publication of the Ombudsman's report. We are now putting all our resources into the next two sequels to the Memorial Stadium saga, taking into consideration the findings of the Ombudsman.

We have already sent to the Council a complaint concerning the Development Control meeting of the 2nd April 2008. And, of course, we are endeavouring to get a full and proper response from the Council over the announcement by Bristol Rovers on the 23rd October 2008, that they now plan to develop the stadium in phases whilst both the Football and Rugby teams remain in residence.

When HorfieldROSE decided on the 17th January 2007 to continue opposition to the Commercial, Residential and Stadium development on the Memorial Ground, we knew there would be a long road ahead, but we did not anticipate the work involved or the difficulties we would encounter, but the campaign against the decision to allow the redevelopment has been reinforced by our research, the Ombudsman's report, and recent announcements concerning the phased built of the development, and we intend to fight on.

HorfieldROSE

You can see the summary and download the full report from Local Government Ombudsman's site.

Who is in charge?

On the 18th October 2006 a question was asked of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the House of Commons (Hansard - 18 Oct 2006 : Column 1283W), "how many statements of community involvement the Planning Inspectorate has rejected because they had procedural or other flaws; which planning authorities submitted each one; and if she will make a statement".

Yvette Cooper replied "a total of 307 Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs) have been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. Of the 214 SCIs which have commenced the examination stage, inspectors have issued 208 binding reports and a total of 121 SCIs have been adopted.

Only one SCI that has been examined has been found to be unsound and has been recommended to be withdrawn by the Planning Inspectorate. This is the Bristol SCI."

Referring directly to Bristol City Council's Statement of Community Involvement, since October 2006 a new draft of the SCI has been produced followed by public consultation, further amendments made and again examined by the Planning Inspectorate in public (22nd July 2008).

In August 2008 the Planning Inspectorate produced a binding report stating that the revised SCI, subject to some amendments, was found sound and Bristol City Council adopted the revised SCI on the 14th October 2008.

Over the same time period a large, highly contentious, stadium redevelopment (with attached enabling development) located in a high density residential area of North Bristol has been under consideration, and planning permission given (twice, applications 06/03850/F and 08/00061/F) by Bristol City Council. The stadium is home to Bristol Rovers Football Club and Bristol Rugby Club.

In January 2007 planning approval was given for the stadium redevelopment on an on-balance basis taking into account adverse local impacts from the stadium and the enabling developments against strategic benefits of the stadium only. In December 2007 amendments to the development design were announced by the Stadium Company and this lead to a second planning application again approved (April 2008) on an on-balance basis, though it was acknowledged additional adverse local impacts would result.

Finally, on the 23rd October 2008, the Stadium Company announced their intention for both the Football and Rugby teams (sharing the existing stadium) to remain at the stadium during the build period, the build now being in phases over a longer period than originally intended. This contradicts the stated aim (in the Stadium Companies' own Statement of Community Involvement and at press conferences) of ground sharing elsewhere during the build.

Residents in the vicinity of the development site have communicated with Bristol City Council over the change in the way the redevelopment is to be built stating that this change must be subject to public scrutiny, all additional adverse impacts identified, and any necessary mitigation (through additional conditions or obligations) identified. Despite the concerns of residents Bristol City Council signed the associated S106 agreement on the 17th November 2008.

The change in the stadium build and the occupation during the build period will undoubtedly add additional hardship to the local communities over and above the level anticipated when the above two planning approvals were given.

The Council's newly adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), section 6, states:

"6.21 In all cases where the applicant requests significant revisions after permission has been granted, a new planning application will be necessary which will be subject to a fresh round of consultation.

6.22 The only changes that could be considered as an amendment to an approved scheme are those that are so minor that they would not in effect need planning permission."

Also the premise behind section 6 of the SCI is that Developers will be expected to involve the local community and Local Councillors in early discussion of the implications of their proposals and how these might be dealt with. As stated above changes to the proposed build were announced through the press without discussion with Bristol City Council, local Councillors or any community groups.

At the present time Bristol City Council does not seem willing to pursue the matter of a new planning application with the Stadium Company. Certainly the Council has not stated a clear position on this matter, even though many requests have been made asking them to do so.

We therefore now have a situation where Bristol City Council is failing to ensure the involvement of the citizens of Bristol in a significant amendment to major planning development and as such they are failing to comply with section 6 of the newly adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

So it appears Bristol City Council, one of the last, if not the last, Authority to adopt a Statement of Community Involvement will be the first Authority to fail to uphold the requirements of the statement.

The main point is who is actually in charge of the planning process, the Developer who makes significant changes to the way a development is built but decides not to go through the planning application process again, or a Council that should insist on a new planning application if significant changes to a development are identified. This issue could have implications concerning Statements of Community Involvement across the Country, not just Bristol City Council.

Phased Development Changes Conditions

Yesterday we discovered that Rovers had signed the S106 agreement just prior to their announcements concerning a phased development of the residential and stadium development at the Memorial Ground. It also appears that members of the planning department responsible for the management and enforcement of the conditions attached to the plans were not aware of either the signing of the S106 or the announced changes to the plans.

Obviously the Rovers board decided that it would be to its advantage to have the planning permission signed and sealed before they announced changes that cast huge doubt on the validity of that permission due to changes in circumstances and the plans.

When planning permission is granted by the Development Control Committee, that permission has contractual conditions attached which specify limits and actions that must be complied with in order to make the permission acceptable to the committee (and to planning law). The S106, which is often referred to as “the community gain”, is similar to the conditions in that it stipulates things that the developer must do. These things are often tangential to the main development and involve improvements to the surrounding area. The idea is that the developer gains financially from being given permission and should therefore share some of that good fortune with the area around a development to compensate them for the negative impacts of the development. In this case Rovers get £30,000,000 the S106 stipulates pay back of around £250,000 (which is less than one percent). When the S106 is signed, the council can then give the final permission for the development.

The conditions and S106 have both been drawn up assuming an intensive build during which the site will not be used for matches and at the end of construction the enabling developments (hotel, student accommodation, conference centre/restaurant, office space and retail outlet) will be completed at the same time as the full new stadium.

Many of the conditions stipulate that they must be acted upon “before the first match in the new stadium” (such as traffic management plans or safety plans) or that certain things cannot be done (e.g. use of the hotel or student accommodation) until the stadium is completed and ready for sporting events.

The first phase of these new plans would create the side of the stadium that contained the hotel and nearly half of the student accommodation along with around a third of the proposed stadium capacity. It is not hard to imagine, Rovers requesting that these enabling developments should be permitted to begin operation even though the stadium was not finished. It is also not hard to imagine the money running out during the project. If permission to “turn on” the enabling development had not be given already, this could tip the balance.

The stadium would then consist of only the East Stand and possibly the north which would act as a megaphone to blast the crowd noise southward across St Andrews and Bishopston. Part of the justification of the new plans were that an enclosed four sided stadium would better contain noise and light spillage. Both of these benefits would be lost.

The conditions attached to this planning permission were not arbitrary. Allowing development of a hotel, student accommodation, retail outlet and so on was only permissible on this site because it would deliver a full stadium. These conditions are there to safeguard this objective and to ensure that the impact of the development on the local community is not boundless.

To permit the changes announced this week without a complete revision of the contracts on which the permission was granted would be a farce.

Use these links to download draft copies of the conditions and s106.