Don't Give Up

Obviously the decision made by the Development Control Committee at the council house on Wed 17 Jan 2007, was a huge disappointment to the thousands of residents living in the community around the stadium. Apparently even the planning officer was surprised by the result because no one knew better how thin the case for approval was.

It is staggering when you consider that the key document in central governments planning policies from which all other documents and policies are derived is "Planning Policy Statement 1" where it declares that community is at the heart of planning policy. It says:

14. The Government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to promoting community cohesion in both urban and rural areas.

13vi. Community involvement is an essential element in delivering sustainable development and creating sustainable and safe communities.

26i. Recognise the needs and broader interests of the community to secure a better quality of life for the community as a whole.

40 The planning system operates in the public interest to ensure the development and use of land results in better places for people to live.

41. One of the principles of sustainable development is to involve the community in developing the vision for its area.

43. Community involvement in planning should not be a reactive, tick-box,process. It should enable the local community to say what sort of place they want to live in at a stage when this can make a difference.

All of this seems to have been totally ignored. Very little note was made of the fact that there were 966 letters of objection against 1083 letters of support and that 831 of those supporting letters were pro forma letters handed out at matches for fans to sign and send in. With only around 200 individually written letters of support there were nearly five letters of objection for each letter of support.

Letter Counts in Support and Objection on BBC News


In the "debate" councillors spoke of the search for alternative sites. Cllr Charles Price essentially said that alternative sites exist but that they are just not affordable to the football club. If the claim that the stadium will provide civic and financial benefit to the city of Bristol, why was it not worth paying for an appropriate site.

The stadium can now be built, but there are still hurdles for the club to clear. The legally binding contract that sets out the clubs obligations has to be agreed with the council (called the Section 106 aAgreement of S106 for short), and it is only when that contract is signed that the planning permission is formally granted.

There is the not inconsiderable matter of a financing shortfall of £2 million. In the letter provided by Rovers to the council to justify the "enabling development" (ie the hotel and student flats) it says:

For the purpose of this exercise it is safe to assume that conventional development funding from a bank would be unlikely to be forthcoming for the construction of a football stadium and certainly not for a loss making club in one of the lower two divisions of the Football League. Indeed even working capital requirements are now not on the agenda for most banks. Furthermore most banks would not regard a football stadium as tangible security. Largely based on reputational risk and the difficulty in realising any value for the security.

The club already has debts of £2.5 million and interest rates have been raised by the Bank of England to fight inflationary forces. This means they are unlikely to fall over the next few years and may even increase. The existing debt and the additional borrowing that will be needed could cause serious problems for the club in pursuing these plans.

Playing from an alternative stadium for the 07/08 and 08/09 seasons could also have adverse effects on the club's finances. They will not receive rent income from Bristol Rugby, they will have to pay rent to use another facility and distance and placement may reduce attendances at "home" matches.

If the club's finances forced it into administration, there is an automatic ten-point penalty imposed by the FA which would cause almost certain relegation for the club. If the club remained in administration for an extended period, it could even face expulsion from the FA.

In addition the club must find investors willing to purchase a compromised hotel facility and to take on the student flats even though that market appears to have peaked. Contracts and financial arrangements will have to be made between these parties and the club and again there could be complications.

Construction too is a costly and somewhat unpredictable process. The current financing has negligible contingency provision and should there be technical problems or any of the usual sorts of increase in costs during construction, there may be no where for additional finance to be found and that may halt the construction and bankrupt the club.

As we have said all along this stadium plan is all about money and ultimately it is money that may scuttle the whole project.

Even though there is not actual “appeals” avenue for objectors to the plans to take there are a number of procedures which we are following which we hope may alter the current situation.

In short, don’t give up, keep in touch and check this site from time to time to here of any developments.