Stable Doors and Bolted Horses

In the Horfield ROSE complaints document which was presented to the Bristol City Council in March, complaints numbers 34 to 37 concerned the handling of substitutions at the Development Control Committee meeting on 17th January 2007 where the the Rovers stadium redevelopment application was considered.

Councils have rules and codes of conduct in addition to national laws that they must abide by. In the case of appointing substitutes for council committees there are points made in the Local Government Acts of 1972 and 2000.

The Local Government Act 2000 does not allow for substitute or co-opted members of an executive but Councils may wish to consider the appointment of substitute members to other committees. ... as Committees require to be appointed by full Council under Section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972, any scheme of appointment of substitutes which is not specifically approved by the full Council is likely to be [legally] vulnerable.

The councils own "Committee Procedure Rules" are referred to as both CMR and CPR and have section numbers for individual rules. The minutes of the meeting of Bristol City Council held last year on 16th may 2006 at 2:00 p.m. the following:

Substitutes

17. In accordance with CPR1.2 (iii) and CPR4 in addition to deciding the allocation of seats to political groups, the city council is also required to decide substitute arrangements.

18. CPR4.2 provides:
“For each committee or sub-committee, the full Council will appoint the same number of substitutes in respect of each political group as that group hold ordinary seats on that committee or sub-committee.
RECOMMENDED - the city council is recommended:
(i) to approve the allocation of committee seats as set out above;
(ii) to nominate members (including substitutes) to serve on the committees (in accordance with the agreed political balance) for the 2006 / 2007 municipal year;

However, substitutes were not allocated for a number of committees including the Development Control committees. This is a serious issue and the fact that substitutions were made for the DCC meeting on the 17th of January puts the legitimacy and legality of the decision in doubt.

Whilst Stephen McNamara (Bristol City Council Head of Legal Services) has repeatedly blustered that the legality of the decision is not in doubt it is very interesting that this year he is not handling the appointment of substitutes as a mere agenda item on a full council meeting, but has instead made this part of the Legal Officers Annual Report (page 11) and has strengthened the language to ensure that substitutes are appointed by the full council and by a certain deadline.

If the council's position was so strong, why then are they taking extra steps this year to ensure they do have appointed substitutes when last year, according to them, it did not matter? This definitely looks like a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The following are the complaints that have been made to the council on this matter.


Complaint Number 34.

The substitution of Councillor Cooper by Councillor Sykes was confirmed by the Liberal Party Members Support Officer. This procedure is not in accordance with CRM4 in that substitute members for all committees (except executive) are appointed by full council. This is confirmed by the minutes of the full council meeting of the 16th May.

Complaint Number 35.

The submission of a statement in Councillor Kerry’s name by the Conservative Group had precluded the said Councillor from taking part in the Development Control Meeting of the 17th January (referred to Standards Committee 15th February. See also Complaint number 10).
Councillor Kerry subsequently resigned from the DC Committee a few hours before the meeting. This was known to members and officers before the meeting, and a substitute should not have been allowed in such circumstances as there could be doubt of impartiality, and there are no constitutional rules to cover this situation. Also, the minutes of the meeting should not have received Apologies from Councillor Kerry, but should have noted his resignation.

Complaint Number 36.

The third substitution, Councillor White substituting for Councillor Malik took place just ‘moments’ before the start o the meeting, and is contrary to CMR4. Again Bristol City Council failed to maintain its constitution in this case.

Complaint Number 37.

There is currently one substitute for the Development Control (Central) Committee, and none appointed to other Development Control Committees. The Development Control (North) meeting of the 17th January had three substitutes appointed by Party Groups for the meeting, which is contrary to CRM4. Bristol City Council has failed to ensure the method of member substitution for Development Control committees is clearly seen to be open and impartial.

Quoting from the Bristol City Council constitution, part 5, section D: “The successful operation of the planning system relies on ensuring that councillors and officers involved in its operation act in a way that is not only lawful, fair and impartial, but is also clearly seen to be so. The council acknowledges that the public is entitled to expect the highest standards of conduct and probity by all persons holding public office.”

Witnesses speak of trouble in and around Memorial Ground

According to letters written into the Bristol Evening Post, the violence associated with the Rovers match on Saturday 12 May 2007 was the worst some seasoned football supporters have seen since the 1980s. Also according to the Lincoln city fans forum, bottles and coins were being thrown into the away supporters area at the Memorial Ground but stewards and police within the stadium did nothing to stop this.

One of these witnesses says that when he spoke to a steward at the Memorial Ground while events were unfolding he was told:

...it is the Police's responsibility to police outside the ground, and [he] should write to the club and [his] concerns would be dealt with in due course.

The letter goes on to say

The club has made statements that they are a community club and they care for and want to help the local community. This is a time when I - a local resident, and so part of the local community - want their help.

Policing fans at Ashton Gate has also been a problem and improved match day policing arrangements were promised along with the expansion at those grounds. But as a letter to the Evening Post said in December last year, despite "Police warning for fans ahead of Millwall game" (December 15) fans were causing trouble and no policemen were in sight to prevent it.

This does not bode well for the current plans to rebuild the Memorial Stadium. Over the last year Rovers matches have frequently failed to attract even 5,000 fans. During the planning application, the lack of seating was given as one reason why numbers of attendees were not higher. After redevelopment the stadium will have a seating capacity of 18,000 which is over three times the 5,000 that have been normal earlier this season and around twice the number that have attended the recent matches where trouble has broken out.

Larger Matches Bring More Trouble and Violence

Only two weeks after the violance of the Rovers v Swindon match, Saturday 12 May 2007 saw yet more violence as up to 150 Rovers fans clashed with police after the Rovers v Lincoln City match. The Bristol Evening Post reported:

Up to 150 Bristol Rovers fans clashed with riot police in a running battle which saw Gloucester Road closed to the public.

For 30 minutes they clashed, turning Gloucester Road into a no-go area. Eventually, after repeated warnings, police in full riot gear charged the crowd.

Violence centred around the John Cabot pub on Gloucester rd. The Inn on the Green which saw the worst violence two weeks ago was not admitting anyone wearing a football shirt and the Wellington Inn was closed before and after the match.

Dave Harper, safety officer for Bristol Rovers, said: "Unfortunately most clubs now have this element of people with no real interest in the football club.

"Their only interest is in fighting and using football to carry out their objective.

"Many of them are probably banned from the club anyway, but they spend their time near the ground looking for trouble."

This demonstrates that there is no way of controlling the trouble really - all Rovers can do is ban from the ground but the perpetrators have to actually cause trouble and sustain damage before police can do something.

Most disturbing for public safety. We now see that with local pubs closing prior to matches there's also an economic price to pay. Local businesses are suffering as well as quiet, respectable neighbourhood pubs being affected which impacts on quality of life for local residents and visitors.

It's all very well criticising the police, but part of their role is to get the situation under control with a firm hand to protect the public, which Rovers clearly aren't doing. Police duties in the grounds are paid for by club but what about outside? Does this come from the public purse and if so how long will it be before our council tax goes up again? Good for Bristol as a whole?

In the event that the behaviour we've seen from troublemakers can't be controlled, how long will it be, and what will it take for authorities to listen to locals and overturn this decision to expand. The authorities have yet to demonstrate that they can cope with the existing problems.

Note "Safer Bristol" council initiative with police was criticised by GOSW (Government Office of the South West) lately at Social Development Scrutiny Commission on seeing that council had done little other than pat itself on the back when in fact they fell short of the mark in key areas.

The argument goes that there are a few rotten eggs spoiling it for everyone but this is not simply one or two isolated incidents. On the day of the Swindon match there were fights taking place in many locations around the area. The Bristol Observer had a photograph of Swindon fans being escorted by police on Cheltenham Road (presumably for their own protection), while local eye witnesses saw brawling on Purdown Green and in the car park opposite the bottom of Shaldon Road where the police stood by and simply watched.

More worrying, from the safety point of view, a resident of Alton Road reported that an official ground supervisor was forced to let a group of Swindon fans in at the Alton Road gate because they were being chased by Rovers supporters. This account was backed up by a police officer in full riot gear. Alton Road is, for safety reasons, designated as an emergency exit only, and this constitutes a worrying breach of safety standards, occasioned by loutish behaviour on the part of Rovers supporters.

Inspector Andy Coote of Avon & Somerset police has reported that Horfield suffers 50% more 'primary acquisitive crime ' (burglary, theft, in-car theft) than other areas. Many letters in support of the development proposals mentioned a 'community police station' in the stadium. Delivery of police service will be compromised by inadequate base facilities, and what is proposed is in fact little more than a small police operations room. The police have also expressed concerns about traffic management issues, access etc.

Local Roads Not Suited to Crowds and Coaches

The area around the Memorial Stadium simply was not designed to support the traffic and the transport needed for large crowds. Earlier this season, a supporter bus ended up trying to go up Strathmore Road next to the stadium. This road is fairly typical of the residential streets around the stadium and two cars are unable to pass each other. Trying to get a huge coach down this sort of road is madness. However when the driver got stuck and had to back down the entire length of the road he blamed his satellite navigation system for making him turn into the road.

Residents Parking Zone And Supporter Buses

Part of the Memorial Stadium redevelopment is the introduction of a match-day Residents' Parking Zone (RPZ). Many supporters of the redevelopment plans cited this as a reason why locals should support the plans rather than oppose them. They argued that with the introduction of supporter buses and the RPZ residents would be much better off after the new stadium was built.

Let's look at the facts. The transport assessment report done for Rovers as part of the planning application, showed that the current stadium size would use up all the spare parking within a 1.5km radius from the stadium (just under a mile in old money). The proposed RPZ included only twelve roads initially but was later extended to cover sixteen roads (or parts of roads). The following map shows the 1.5km radius as the main circle and the RPZ roads marked with blue in the center.



Click on the above to see a larger version. The sixteen roads included in the RPZ are all very close to the stadium and only include about one tenth of the parking area already impacted by the stadium parking.



As part of the plans Rovers would pay £100,000 to the council to set up the parking zone which is small change out of the £30 million that will be generated by the enabling development (a mere third of one percent). They have also agreed to pay for the running of the RPZ indefinitely. These measures are to be set out in the Section 106 agreement (or S106 which is the legal arrangement that must be agreed between Rovers and the Council before the planning permission becomes official).

Each household within the sixteen streets will be given one parking permit free of charge. Households with more than one car will have to buy additional permits and visitor permits will also have to be purchased when residents within the zone expect car driving guests. The annual permit cost has been suggested at around £100. This seems inordinately high especially compared to the £16 per year charged for the Norwich residents parking (see the "Like Norwich?" article below).

Then there is the question of supporter buses. These buses will be introduced as attendance numbers increase. When the average match attendance from the previous season (i.e. year) reaches 8,000 one supporter bus will be introduced and four park and ride buses will be introduced (from some as yet undecided park and ride location). An additional supporter bus will be added for each additional 1,000 average attendees above 8,000 from the previous year and one additional park and ride bus will be added for each 1,000 average attendees above 12,000 from the previous year.

This means that if every match from the previous season was sold out there would be a total of 11 supporter buses coming from various location around Bristol and 11 buses serving a park and ride location. A double decker can hold 84 passengers (including standing) so that is a maximum of 1,848 out of 18,000 fans coming by these buses.

However the key thing is that it is the AVERAGE from the PREVIOUS year. This means that there has to be a year of attendances which need the buses before they will be added and the peak attendances will always be much higher than the average attendances. For instance, in a season if attandances ranged from 9,000 to 16,900 there would only be five supporter buses because the average would be just under 13,000.




The table above shows a 30% variation in the number of attendees around each of the trigger level which would be a pretty realistic variation. That is to say if the attendance levels for a season fall evenly within the range of numbers in the first two columns then the number of supporter and park and ride buses will be as shown in the right hand columns.

The point is that to get the number of supporter buses high, the attendances have to be very high. And even when all of the buses are in service, they will only have a minor impact on car usage even if the buses are fully used. In reality the take-up of the supporter buses may be very poor since people will have become used to driving before the buses are even introduced.

Like Norwich?

There were over 80 statements from the public submitted for the Development Control Meeting where the Memorial Stadium application was decided. One of them was from Chris Graham who talks about his experience of the stadium expansion at Norwich City FC. He once lived near the Memorial Stadium but now lives near the Carrow Road stadium and draws comparisons between the two redevelopments.

At least one of the councillors on the development control committee has since said that this statement influenced his decision to vote in favour of the Memorial Stadium plans. The fact that the statement was the third out of over 80 statements, means it was far more likely to have been read by all of the councillors on the committee and may have influenced them also.

On face value his statement is very encouraging and makes the following points:

• Supporting stadiums increases political popularity (which is not a planning consideration)
• The redevelopment has increased property values (which is not a planning consideration)
• Norwich stadium has been expanded to a capacity of 26,000 which is more than the Memorial Stadium
• Recent development included restaurant, hotel and hundreds of new flats without parking
• The stadium car park was built on and no longer offers spectator parking
• Access to the stadium area is via two small bridges which also serve a shopping and entertainment complex
• Traffic problems have reduced due to redevelopments

Which sounds marvellous (if not miraculous). You can read the text of the statement here.



It makes sense to understand the local circumstances in Norwich to judge how valid his comparisons are. Below is a small map of Norwich, clicking on it will open up a larger version.



Geography


Norwich is about the size of Swindon and has a population of about 120,000. It has two ring roads, an inner and an outer, with the inner ring just under a mile in diameter circling the central part of the city. The two ring roads actually join and become one in the south east corner of the city where the stadium is located. The city has six park and rides along the main routes out of the city. Within the inner ring road there are car parks with a total capacity of over 5,000 spaces.

The Riverside area is to the south east and is separated from the city centre by the river and is bounded by railway lines to the north east. The railway station is in the north end of the area and the ring road goes through Riverside from north and then crosses the river to the south where it is called Carrow Road. The stadium is directly south of Carrow Road just before it crosses the river. There is the smaller Novi Sad bridge crossing towards the city centre in the middle of the area. There is a third bridge on Prince of Wales Rd from the city centre just north of Riverside connected to the ring road. The ring road itself does not cross the river on the north side and would allow access to Riverside without use of a bridge.

There are four storey terraced housing that has been built within the last twenty years along the rivers edge facing the city centre. In the middle of Riverside is a large complex similar to the Venue at Cribbs Causeway with the cinema, bowling and other leisure facilities which has a car park for 738 cars.

View from Novi Sad bridge northwards



As explained by by Chris Graham the stadium has built an eight storey block of flats on its former car park and a seven storey hotel in the corner between stands.

Views from inside the stadium of the 7 story hotel being built (that directly overlooks terrace houses):




The western corner of a triangular area of Victorian terraced housing lies across the road from the eastern corner of the hotel. This is the only housing of this type in the Riverside area. Most of the housing around the Carrow Road stadium is modern, multi-storey and post-dates the stadium. Therefore it has been optimally placed, landscaped and is not dominated by the stadium.

These are the new flats that have been built on the Norwich City car park:




Apart from the small group of Victorian houses to the East of the stadium the whole of Riverside is ex-indistrial land and has been developed as an urban lifestyle area not unlike Harbourside/Canons Marsh in Bristol. Being about half a mile from the city Centre its positioning is also similar to Harbourside and less like the Memorial stadium. The flats have underground parking for about 80% of the living units.



Above you can see the stadium is surrounded by roads and the river and that the small area of Victorian terraced housing is across the road from the stadium and faces the corner of the stadium. The new blocks of flats are on the old car park which is on the lower edge of this picture.





This is a picture of the area from around 1950 taken from above the city centre looking south. The stadium is in the middle of the picture. Again the small triangle of Victorian houses can be seen just past the stadium on the left. It is also apparent that as late as 1950 this was a predominantly industrial area and would have been in need of regeneration in the latter part of the 20th century. That regeneration has all be done in the context of an existing large professional football stadium.

Logistics

In the period just before a match and just after a match, police close the section of the ring road that goes through Riverside to allow the large number of pedestrians to cross into Riverside on the bridges. The car park associated with the leisure facilities does try to prevent match day parking but this is apparently still an issue. The fact that most cars no longer come into Riverside to park is a real bonus for the residents in the area and since most of their parking is private underground parking they do not have to worry about outsiders taking it at any time. They can also use all of the leisure facilities such as restaurants, bars, cinema complex, bowling alleys, large retail units, night clubs, swimming pool, and gyms within Riverside without the need for a car. As Chris says, things around the stadium are great.

I called Norwich City Council to find out how traffic was managed. When I said I had heard they had a very good match day traffic system in place, they laughed out loud.

Whilst things on Riverside are good, match day traffic is a real problem for the rest of the city. The town centre parking is generally used up by normal shopping traffic even on days without matches so it is not able to handle much additional parking on match days.

The train station does not help with local fans but is close to the stadium and brings fans from Ipswich, Cambridge, Great Yarmouth, London etc.

Because Norwich is quite compact, there are a lot of people who do walk or take the bus into the centre and walk to the stadium. But quite a large proportion of the supporters come from the surrounding area (not unlike Bristol where 30-40% of fans are from "outer or beyond Bristol"). Many of these use the park and rides on the outskirts of the city but these too are usually well used by shoppers and so these can only take a limited number of match day cars especially on Saturdays.

There are seven restricted parking zones within Norwich. An annual resident permit costs £16. These operate on weekdays only and from 8AM to 6:30PM and therefore do not coincide with match times. There is currently no match time parking zone but this is being set up and will be paid for by the football club. This zone will presumably be be in the Lakeham area south of the city centre rather than actually in Riverside.

Many businesses and even the council offices on Martineau Lane offer the use of their car parks for fans.

However the council told me "People park wherever they think they can get away with it. We have a lot of parking on the verges." They are working on a travel plan but this has not been implemented. Closing the ring road at match times has an impact on traffic in the rest of the city. Much of the traffic management is handled with extra policing rather than with infrastructure.

Chris Graham says "Full access to the whole area is only via 2 small, narrow bridges. The access around The Memorial Stadium is far, far better." It is precisely the limited access that makes the situation at Riverside work as cars cannot or do not attempt to come into the area. The vast majority of the housing has been built in the last twenty years with its relation to the stadium a factor in the design and with off street parking facilities also built in from the start. Being relatively near the city centre provides access to some of the public transport and enables many people in the city to walk to the matches.

Beyond the inclusion of a hotel, the overall similarities of the Memorial Stadium and Carrow Road are fairly limited. It would also seem that prosperity in Riverside was good despite the stadium rather than because of it.

There is one final thing to note about Chris Graham's statement. It was e-mailed to Councillor Judith Price who was the Chair of the Development Committee, and it was not sent to the planning officer for the application nor to Democracy services which handle the public statements. I have no idea who Chris Graham is nor do I have the faintest idea how or why he chose to e-mail this statement to Cllr J Price. But the statement is 'suspicious' in that the statement was accepted without an address, and should have been sent to the planning officer responsible for administering the planning application. Judith Price should have informed the sender to re-sent to Kit Stokes and not dealt with it herself - something about councillors being seen to be impartial when dealing with planning applications.

Bristol Evening Post Turns Blind Eye to Football Violence

Reading Monday's Bristol Evening Post you might believe that £3 extra on each ticket had bought enough policing to prevent any trouble from occurring. However if you were in the area or are from Swindon you will know things were quite otherwise.

There was a police helicopter circling long before the match began and remained some time after it had finished. Mounted police in riot gear were very visible on the streets and attended trouble at the top end of Ashley Down Road.

However the most serious incident took place at the Inn on the Green pub in Horfield as reported in the Swindon newspaper:

http://www.adver.co.uk/

A GANG of 20 hooligans armed with baseball bats attacked Swindon Town fans before the team's crucial match with Bristol Rovers.

The unprovoked violence took place at the Inn on the Green pub in Horfield, Bristol, at about 1.30pm as about 30 Town fans gathered for a friendly pre-match drink before the crunch encounter.

Fans caught up in the terrifying ordeal have described the attack as premeditated.

Karen Norton, 22, of Wantage, was among the Town fans targeted in the pub's beer garden. She said: "We were just sat in the pub garden and all of a sudden these blokes came in with baseball bats and started throwing glasses and bottles at us.

"It was completely unprovoked as we were just enjoying a quiet drink, there were even some Rovers fans there who we were getting on with. I got put behind a group of blokes for my own safety, but then a glass only just missed my face.

"The blokes with the baseball bats were just attacking the Swindon fans - there was blood everywhere. I was just crying my eyes out. I have never seen anything like it in my life."
advertisement

One eyewitness said the gang were contacted via mobile phone by one man who then singled out the fans that were attacked.

Chris Doore, 33, also from Wantage, said that the yobs crashed through the beer garden's fence to make their escape.

He said: "The fence was demolished in the beer garden as they legged it. After about five minutes six or seven riot police arrived and I said you're a bit late.' "There must have been between 20 and 30 blokes in casual clothes and one of them was shouting they're over there' pointing to the Swindon fans.

"I saw one bloke get hit in the face and there were quite a few others who were injured."

The article goes on to say

PC James Neighbour, Swindon police football liaison officer, said that he was aware of the violence at the Inn on the Green and said it was one of several flashpoints involving rival supporters before the game.

But he said the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with by Avon and Somerset police.

He said: "As far as I am concerned, I'm aware that there was trouble in various different locations in Bristol.

"Avon and Somerset police are also aware and the matter will be dealt with accordingly.

"I thought Swindon fans were well behaved. What I can say is that small groups of Swindon fans were being picked off by larger groups of Bristol Rovers risk' supporters, in other words hooligans.

"It was disappointing to see, but there was a police helicopter with a camera, police units with cameras and lots of footage taken so we can arrest those responsible."

According to comments posted on the Swindon web site, a ground share for Rovers at Swindon looks far less likely and they are spreading the word so that Rovers may find themselves unwelcome at any nearby grounds.

This sort of behaviour may represent only a minority but if it is still happening, this will never be a family friendly spectator activity regardless of the actual stadium facilities.

On Points West immediately after the Development Control Meeting at the Council when the planning approval for the new stadium was decided Bill Smith, chief executive of BRFC said of the new stadium plans "It is something for the whole of Bristol ... something that puts us on the sporting map." Unfortunately the Rovers have already put themselves on the sporting map and not gloriously, but through shameful acts. At the same time one of the Rovers supporters said "it'll be a much better experience for away supporters as well, and gives them a much better welcome." In the light of last Saturday's match, it would seem a "better welcome" is not what some fans are after.

-