Delays in S106 Signing

Today's Bristol Evening Post has an article stating that Rovers have requested a two month extension past the six month deadline (which was today 17 July 2007) for the signing of the S106 contract which would grant official permission for the demolition and redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium which had been consented at the Development Control Committee meeting on 17 January 2007.

In the article it says:

Rovers' director Geoff Dunford said there had been a slight hitch with public art promised as part of the scheme. But he said that had now been resolved.

It is hard to see how this condition would cause much difficulty. This is the wording from the June draft of the contract:

12. PUBLIC ART
Prior to Commencement of Development the Owner will submit a strategy and obtain the written approval of the Council to the strategy for the commissioning inclusion and future management of public art within the Application Land to form part of the Development and the Development will be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy unless otherwise approved in writing by the Council

All this requires is that the art be agreed before they start building in January. It does not set a budget, it does not say which artist is to be used, how big the art should be, what it should consist of, materials to use, or anything else which could be contentious. How could this possibly be causing "a hitch" at the contract signing stage?

And since Mr Dunford says this has been resolved why do they need a two month extension?

Mr Dunford and Mr Higgs, group chief executive of building firm Cowlin Construction then go on to try and quash speculation on other reasons or rumours why the development plans might be delayed. In particular they say "The finances are more or less in place, it is now just a question of finalising the details."

But delaying the signing of the S106 contract has nothing to do with the finance or ground sharing with Cheltenham. Funny they should be at such pains to emphasise that the finance is still all right when no one was asking about that.

-----

The S106 (or Section 106) contract sets conditions placed on a developer (usually financial) where the developer has to mitigate problems caused by their development. In some case the S106 is used to get developers to actually add something to the community in which they are building. This is to reflect the fact that the developer benefits financially because of the planning permission and adding things like public playgrounds or other facilities passes some of that benefit on to the community. This is called "community gain", but in the case of the Memorial Stadium all of the conditions of the S106 are simply there to as an attempt to alleviate the additional traffic and activity that the development will bring.

A document specifying what would go into the S106 contract has been available since the time of the planning meeting. The negotiation of the S106 is supposed to be open to public inspection and comment, but it took considerable effort on the part of HorfieldROSE members to acquire a working draft of this document in June.

Whilst most of the changes from January to June are the addition of legalese (much of which appears to be very standard material that could have been pasted in without any knowledge of the specifics), there are a number of notable differences in the June draft and the original outline from January.

One of the areas of greatest concern is "Section 4 Travel Plan" which used to specify many of the things that have been presented as solutions to the problems of a 50% increase in the capacity of the stadium.

The current draft says that Rovers will implement a travel plan which will evolve over time and that changes will be made only after written approval from the Council.

Specifics from the January draft OMITTED in the current contract

• The appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator to produce and implement the Travel Plan measures for all uses on the site;
• £10,000 towards the provision of local pedestrian facilities;
• £30,000 towards the provision of two bus shelters, raised kerbs and real time information on the two bus stops in Filton Avenue;
• provision of discounted bus tickets for all ticket holders;
• A travel information board at the entrance to the ground and on the website of the relevant club to include information on bus services, trains, cycle routes, Park & Ride services, and pedestrian/ cycle routes.
• Match programme and website travel information to include details of travel options, and including a section on travel to the ground from various locations. Website to include travel page with map of local roads, bus stops, links to transport providers' websites etc.
• Twice a season bus information on the back of tickets to advertise local bus services.
• Production and distribution of mini public transport maps to season ticket holders at least once during each season for rugby and football
• The review of spectator travel mode share targets based on information provided in the Transport Assessment.
• Monitoring by a third party of spectator travel modes at agreed events at least once a year for five seasons.
• The provision of failsafe funding to a maximum of £40,000 over the total monitoring period of 5 years.

Whilst there is a certain logic to making the travel plan adaptable to future conditions, there is always a fear that it will be inadequate to counter immediate problems.

Ombudsman Begins Investigation

On 27th of June 2007 the Local Government Ombudsman wrote to HorfieldROSE to state that our complaint is now being investigated. In his letter he states that he will investigate that:

The Council failed to adhere to its Code of Conduct for Development Control and other Appropriate Planning Matters at the consultation stage and when determining the planning application.

That the Council failed to keep complete and accurate records of the events associated with the planning application.

In addition the Ombudsman has acknowledged that he has received a large number of letters from residents supporting the complaint and this has help ensure this will be treated as a complaint from a group and not from a single individual.

We would like to thank all of you who took the time to endorse this complaint by letter or email and for your continued support for the cause. Although our efforts continue, these may not be very visible to all of the public who have backed us through the campaign, so we would like to thank you for staying with us and not giving up hope.

Please pass on these thanks and information to any of your neighbors who may not have internet access. Thanks again.

— HorfieldROSE Committee

US Bus to Supporter Bus

Although this may seem entirely unrelated to the Memorial Stadium, the "US Bus" service that ran between St Werburghs and St Pauls with Easton has now been closed.

This service came into existence after protests from local people about the barrier to movement from traffic and street crime in the area around the M32. The service was paid for in part by funds set aside to help develop transport services in urban areas, but it was not a free service and tickets had to be purchased in advance from various outlets.

The service ran from 8AM to 8PM each day but was often completely empty. Part of the problem was that you had to be a "member" to buy tickets and even though there were around 1000 members, obviously the hassle factor meant that people did not bother.

The failure of this service shows that despite being something that was desirable, much rests on the implementation of the plan. One of the big problems for the US Bus was that timetables and route/stops information was only available to members (a bizarre statue attached to the funding).

The connection to the Memorial Stadium of course is the idea of supporter buses as the solution to the congestion problems in Horfield on match days. If all eleven supporter buses were to be implemented they would be expected to deliver 1000 spectators to a match. However because "trigger" attendance levels for the introduction of the buses is based on average attendances, it is unlikely that there will ever be more than five or six supporter buses running.

The question is whether the information about when and where these buses travel from will be sufficiently publicised for the services to actually be used. Or will we see the supporter buses withdrawn after several years of underuse with the excuse "there is no point in running empty buses which are only contributing to the pollution and congestion."

History and photograph from http://www.stwerburghs.org, the St Werburghs community web site.