First Annual Report – The campaign so far

The opposition to the stadium redevelopment plans started in the time honoured tradition by residents coming together to form a residents action group; to discuss the development plans and see what impact those plans would have on their lives and homes.

Stage 1 of the campaign.
Many residents then raised matters of concern with the developers, Councillors and the Council during the consultation stages of the redevelopment planning application by letter, and then finally writing formal letters of objection to the plans in time for the Development control (North) meeting on January 17th 2007. In many cases residents sent statements to the committee to re-enforce their concerns.

However, few of the concerns raised were actually dealt with at the above meeting. Issues such as the perimeter road around the boundary of the stadium with its’ predicted traffic of 1000+ vehicles using it per day, the 24 hour/7 days a week activity at the stadium due to the hotel, student accomodations, conference centre, etc., general noise and pollution, and the general impact on the area during matches were not examined rigorously, as demanded by the residents.

There is no question in the minds of residents and observers, having witnessed a sequence of events at the planning committee, and subsequent revelations, that serious questions remain unanswered - questions that further erodes trust in our local council. The news concerning Councillor Martin Kerry being ‘gagged’ (Evening Post – January), late substitutions, and other events related to the meeting added to the feeling of injustice.


Stage 2 was the official complaint to the Council over the Planning Application, the above meeting, and codes of conduct the Council failed to adhere to.

So, where are we now.

Stage 3 The complaint has been passed to the Local Government Ombudsman, together with additional supporting evidence. The timescale for the completion of this stage is not currently known, though the Ombudsman has confirmed he has received a response to his questions from the council. (see Possible decisions by the Ombudsman or download the LGO Guidance document as a acrobat/pdf file.)



Stage 4 has not yet been finalised. Planning for this stage is proceeding, though it is dependent on the final report from the Ombudsman and as such, it is prudent not to announce our proposed intentions at the present time.

From the start of the campaign we have endevoured to maintain three main principles :

1. To be non-political.
2. Not to be anti-sport or anti-Bristol Rovers/Bristol Rugby. Many members of HorfieldROSE are club supporters, and we fully recognise we have to present a balanced view in the work we do on behalf of HorfieldROSE.
3. To ensure the Stadium redevelopment has no impact on the local environment or the amenity of any home in Horfield and Bishopston in any way.
   

HorfieldROSE Committee

Rovers Chief Executive Resigns

Bill Smith the Chief Executive of Rovers has resigned. This is not wholly surprising. He was, after all only brought in to handle the financing of the stadium redevelopment. He never moved from his home in Reading. But there are aspects of this which raise questions.

First, it seems odd that Rovers seem to have been trying to conceal the fact that he had left despite this apparently being the planned course of events, (especially if Smith had taken on other commitments which now take priority over his role at Rovers). Perhaps things were supposed to be completed long before now?

Curious too that the club web site made the public statement on Friday 10 August 2007, on the eve of the new season. Perhaps they were waiting for as many season tickets to be sold as possible before coming clean with the fact that the financing for the stadium is not in place and the person who's job it was to do this has left.

If Smith has not been around since the end of the last season, who has been handling the financial negotiations with the prospective backers of the scheme? This is a complicated set up. The £35 million for building the stadium and enabling development has to come from somewhere and that somewhere will be a bank. HBOS was the original lender although there were rumours that they had pulled out. But whichever bank is financing the project, the club still needs buyers for the enabling development in order to get the loan in the first place.

The above was all supposed to be organised in time for the July 17 signing of the S106 agreement with Bristol City Council which has now been granted a two month extension supposedly over the amount of money to be spent on a piece of public art. How much is this artwork supposed to cost that it could endanger the whole stadium redevelopment? Or is it simply a smoke screen to cover the fact that financial negotiations have not been going to plan and the club is hoping for some eleventh hour miracle to save face?

No Parking Solution

There were three articles of interest in today's Bristol Evening Post.

The first was "Noise Blunder Officer Has New Council Job" about the mistakes made by the planning department over the Ashley Waste Recycling Centre on which the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) found the council guilty of maladministration. When the ombudsman made his decision the council said in a statement that the planning officer no longer worked for the council but it now transpires that he left but returned to a more senior post.

We have been told by members of the planning department that planning officers leaving the council has been a real problem making them short staffed and overworked. The planning officer for the Memorial Stadium redevelopment also resigned following the Development Control Committee Meeting where the stadium decision was made. There have been rumours that he may return to work for the council again.

Whilst it is encouraging to see that the LGO awarded damages of £2000 to each of the two complainants it is slightly worrying that they "had not yet been given any money, and had not yet heard anything from the council since the ombudsman's recommendations were made."

The second article was "New Park And Ride" which is about the shortage of parking for the new Cabot Circus shopping centre. Much of the site that the new centre is being built on was once car parks. There is a 2,600 capacity multi storey car park being built as part of the development but with an anticipated 50,000 visitors a day, this is not expected to be enough.

The proposed solution is to explore the possibility of a park and ride in north Bristol which would use the M32 to reach the new shopping centre. This is not a new idea and as ever the planners look to the UWE car park as a possible location, at least in the short term. Perhaps planners should be reminded that the UWE car park has already been earmarked as one of the sites for the Rovers supporters Park and Ride. Since Saturdays are busy retail days and football matches occur right in the middle of the day on Saturdays, there could be a problem.

The third article "Footie And Fiesta Bring Car Chaos" covers the fact that a Bristol City Football Club match occurred during the Saturday of the Balloon Fiesta and caused even greater demands on the roads and car parking in that side of the city causing gridlock right through the centre to Temple Way. Apparently 100,000 people went to see the balloons on Saturday (that gives some perspective on the 50,000 shoppers a day expected at the Cabot Centre) and 19,000 to see the football.

The article leads with "Dozens of cars parked around Ashton Gate and the Cumberland Basin were towed away on Saturday afternoon when Bristol City's first game of the season clashed with the Bristol International Balloon Fiesta."

"Dozens" does not sound like a lot of cars when one considers how many cars must have been in the area and illegally parked. This does not bode well for parking enforcement around the Memorial Stadium if it takes an influx of 119,000 people to generate just "dozens" of car towings.

The article talks about the web site that allows owners of private land to sell parking time on that land. This site was used to create an extra 400-space car park at the Cala Trading estate for the football supporters. Hopefully that scheme can be expanded to provide parking at many of the other private car parks around the Ashton Gate stadium.

Unfortunately there are no equivalent sites near the Memorial stadium. Horfield and Bishopston are primarily residential areas. There is virtually no public parking (other that on-street) with the 20 space car park on Gloucester Rd just south of Somerville Road being the only public car park within the 1.5km radius of the stadium. The Civil Service Club car park off Filton Avenue just past Muller Rd is private and is already used for Rovers staff and VIPs by arrangement. The Horfield Sports Centre has a 170 space car park but this is for use of visitors to the centre. The car park at the Lime Trees Road TESCO is for the use of its customers and since the shop is open whenever there are matches there is little scope for use as a match day car park. This TESCO is currently seeking to expand the shop which will reduce the capacity of the car park. There are also parking spaces at the County Cricket Club and Brunel College just inside the 1.5km radius. There are simply no other car parks private or public in the area.