HorfieldROSE

Phased Development Changes Conditions

2008-10-25T13:16:00.003+01:00

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.

The Latest Revision

2008-10-24T15:20:00.005+01:00

Yesterday, Rovers announced yet more alterations to their stadium plans. The new idea is to develop the commercial, residential and stadium development in phases allowing the stadium to remain in use during the development.

This phased demolition and construction would inevitably take longer than an intensive development and will therefore extend the period where construction noise and muddied roads reduce the amenity of the area. It also removes one of the few consolations of the construction which was to be a respite from the matches for a a year and a half.

Having to vacate the ground was always a huge problem for Rovers and Bristol Rugby because fans would have to travel further, gate profits would be lower and the “home” match advantage would be reduced. So if this was really a practical possibility surely it would have been the plan from the outset and not now that money is tighter than ever.

The reason this has not be seriously considered before is that it probably cannot be done. Other grounds have certainly managed it but they have had direct road access and more room on their sites. The current plans will almost entirely fill the site leaving only enough room around the edge for a one way road between the building and the back gardens of the houses that surround the site on all four sides.

Phasing work will add complications to the construction and will increase costs. It sounds as if the plan is to build the “east” side of the new stadium first on what is currently the car park. This will require the demolition of the current tall east stand but the concrete terraces would remain during this first phase. The Trubshaw Gardens entrance would have to be closed as an entrance for fans. At the end of the season, phase two would begin with the demolition of the terraces on the east and north sides and the pitch moved northward and eastward. This is a massive undertaking involving the bulk of the excavations and for it to be completed within the three months between seasons is optimistic in the extreme. Construction of the north, south and west sides of the new building could then proceed during the season. This time the other two entrances would be closed to spectators who would only be able to enter via the Trubshaw Gardens entrance.

In order to host events the stadium is required to meet certain safety standards. Part of that is the ability for spectators to exit the site quickly and safely in the event of an emergency and for emergency services to gain access. The fact that the stadium site is not on a road and can only be accessed through the three alleyways between houses on Filton Avenue is already a safety issue. If one or more of these is closed due to construction work, the site may simply not be permitted to host events.

It is interesting that the negotiations for the S106 contract for the March 2008 planning decision has not progressed since the announcement that the backers of the scheme had pulled out. The S106 is the contract between the developers (in this case Rovers), and Bristol City Council which makes the planning permission official. Usually this contract would be signed within six months of the permission, but Rovers were granted an extra six months to sign the previous contract. Without this contract nothing can be built so it is odd that this has been left unattended.
Update: 24 Oct 2008, 17:48, We have just learned that the S106 was signed days in advance of yesterday's announcement. We are trying to get some more facts on this but it has significant implications and we will be making a posting within the next 24 hours to explain.

Even with legal planning permission, the developers are still required to submit plans for demoltion and construction process which have to be approved by the Council for compliance to regulations. It was conspicuous that no such plans had been submitted to the council in the run up the to most recently cancelled start date for the project. It will be interesting to see when and if such plans are submitted for this newest revision.

The announcement on the Rovers web site is at pains not to overstate the certainty of the scheme admitting it will need to pass many approvals, has not yet appointed a contractor, and does not have financing in place (or even a specific candidate backer).

"Needless to say we will still have to obtain a number of approvals to progress the regeneration of the Stadium in this manner. These include the Football League, Football Foundation, Football Licencing Authority, Bristol City Council, Statutory Services and the Safety Advisory Group.

“We hope to be in a position to appoint [the main contractor] in the coming weeks when we have finalised the lump sum price for the project

"Due to the current turmoil in the financial markets, it is not certain that we will be able to achieve the necessary funding in the manner we first planned, and the board are now exploring alternative proposals with various other parties.

"Our agents are currently out to the market with student accommodation providers and hotel operators and we hope to receive bids in the near future.

These will give the board a good selection of excuses when they want to announce the next delay to the construction. Probably the biggest advantage of the latest revision for the board is that uncertainty about where home matches will be played will not be a problem when they announce further delays and changes.

Second Annual Report – The continuing campaign

2008-08-17T07:55:00.002+01:00

In June Rovers announced that the student accommodation company Opal had withdrawn from the Commercial, Residential and Stadium Redevelopment project and that the stadium build would be delayed by a year.

It would be unwise to assume this is the end of the plans and if Rovers do find another student (or other) Accommodation Company to back the scheme then it is possible the redevelopment will be started next year. That is why, even though things appear to be safe and quiet at the moment, the members of the HorfieldROSE committee continue to work to restrain these plans.

In May HorfieldROSE met with the Ombudsman’s investigator and our thanks go to him for giving us the opportunity to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of our complaint against Bristol City Council’s original planning permission of January 2007. Our thanks also go to the many residents who contributed to the HorfieldROSE complaint, and to those who wrote directly to the Ombudsman’s office. Except to say that the Investigation is ongoing, we have no further information at the present time.

Much work has been done during the year: we have met with Councillors and Officers from the Transport and Planning departments, and have continued to voice our concerns about the suitability of such a large development for this area. We have highlighted the increased density of population and traffic that will come from the development of Southmead Hospital, the Cricket Ground and the various housing projects proposed for the area.

The current situation is that, as no stadium building work is taking place, the mitigation measures (i.e. Residents Parking Zone, Stadium Monitoring Group, Park and Ride, etc.) which were obligations on Bristol Rovers Football Club from the first planning application, do not have to be implemented.

Two of our committee members recently attended a meeting with Bristol City Council, police, traffic safety officers, local Councillors and representatives from the Football Club to discuss parking and traffic control issues. The emphasis is on keeping the area immediately surrounding the Stadium clear for emergency vehicles and spectators. Match day restrictions will be put in place during the season, any permanent measures being subject to public consultation. Please do respond to the Council during the consultation period as measures set up now may well become a precedent.

We have asked for clarification on who pays for these measures, how they will be enforced, and how consultation will be effected. Any concerns you have should be addressed to your local Councillor.

The clamping measures for those who park illegally on Horfield Common are a success and thanks, again, go to everyone who sent in their views on the issue – things can be changed with persistence.

We will fight on and continue to abide by the principles on which we were founded:

1. The protection of the local environment and the amenity of residents in Horfield and Bishopston against unacceptable impacts of stadium development and activity,

2. Support for sport in general and the Bristol teams in particular. Our opposition is to the development plans, not the teams themselves.

3. Campaign in an inclusive manner, working with all involved and remaining politically unaligned.

Back to Basics

2008-05-31T10:59:00.005+01:00

In a long running campaign like this it is easy to get caught up in the day to day aspects and then to forget the primary reasons for things.

HorfieldROSE and other people who oppose this stadium plan are not anti-sport. Many of the members of HorfieldROSE are football or rugby supporters, but when one looks at all of the factors in these plans the detrimental aspects far outweigh the benefits. There are many good reasons for wanting a new and better stadium, but not just any stadium because the one that is being planned, is not good for Bristol, it is not good for the clubs, the fans or the resident's who will have to live with it.

The Wrong Location

When the Memorial Ground was established in 1921 in memory of all those who had died in WWI, it was a set of rugby pitches with a covered wooden terrace stand in an established Victorian residential area near the edge of the city. Both players and spectators would be drawn from the surrounding area and most would arrive on foot.

Times have changed and so has the city. Nearly a century of development and the Memorial Ground is now land locked in a huge sprawl of housing suburbs. Attendees to matches now come from much greater distances, cars are the primary mode of transport, and sport has become much more commercial.

All of these factors make the site less appropriate for today's needs. All seater stadiums are always bigger than terraced stadiums with the same capacity. Changing the stadium from mainly terraced to all seater and at the same time increasing the capacity by 50% makes the necessary structure significantly larger completely filling the site. This is not good for the neighbours of the stadium, but it also means that the stadium will not be able to expand, gives no area outside the stadium for activities and also presents crowd management and safety issues.

Despite being near a showcase bus route, there are simply not enough buses passing to bring even a fifth of the fans to a sold out match, so most fans are forced to drive. The stadium is two miles from any dual carriage roads and the A and B roads that do come near the stadium become clogged and congested very quickly especially around junctions.

Large numbers of people coming by car means there is a huge demand for parking. Currently the non-residenttial roads around the common soak up a large number of the cars coming into the area. But as the numbers increase, fans will be forced to park further and further from the stadium.

The increased congestion and time it will take for people to find parking spaces will not only detract from the experience of the stadium users but also presents a real hazard to safety in the area and restricts the ability of emergency vehicles to move within and through the area. This will be even more important after the E&A moves from Frenchay hospital to Southmead hospital.

Time to consider other sites

In 2002 a search for an alternative site within the Bristol City Council boundary was done and this concluded that there were no available alternative sites. Six years have passed and many things have changed. Bristol City FC managed to find a new site last year.

Avonmouth had been ruled out because it is on the flood plane, but this week a bread factory has been granted permission there and other developments have also been allowed by the Environment Agency.

The eastern fringe of the city is also being developed on greenfield land around Emersons Green.

A stadium in any of these areas would have room to expand, and better road links. Any search that considered sites in parts of Bristol covered by South Gloucester Council would increase the number of possible sites dramatically.

Current Plans not good for Bristol, Fans or Residents

Bristiol

The current plans are described as a £40 million stadium but less than half of that is going on the stadium and the rest goes into the student accommodation, hotel, offices and so on. This is not going to be a great stadium by anyone's standards.

Bristol needs good sporting venues and it would be good if these could also be used for other large events like concerts. However, because of the inappropriate location of the Memorial Stadium, other uses are being restricted by conditions in the planning permission. Even if they were not, the same transport problems would plague visitors to other events as well. At least as regular visitors sports fans would know the area better than visitors to occasional events.

Since the site is not city centre getting to it by public transport is difficult. Since most bus routes go to the centre, anyone not already on the showcase bus route will have to travel into the centre, change buses and then head up the Gloucester Road. This is why people drive instead. Since driving is inevitable, it would be much better to find a site that is either central or has better transport links.

As mentioned before, there are only two A&E departments within Bristol and to have one of them snarled up in match day traffic jams will not be of benefit to the city.

The Fans

No one would deny the poor state of the current facilities, but the fans and the clubs will not be well served by better facilities in the wrong location.

At 18,500 capacity, the stadium is much bigger than the current one, but not big by Championship league standards. The stadium could be a serious impediment to advancement because it already fills the site and cannot be expanded, and the student accommodation will make it impossible to sell the site and move in the future. If the plans are built it will be the last stadium Rovers will ever own and it will never be bigger than 18,500.

And that assumes it gets built. Even now this project has cost the club in terms of money spent getting it this far, disruption to the sale of tickets due to uncertainty about where the teams will be playing. And by taking on an overambitious project and failing to deliver the Rovers board leaves yet more fans disenchanted with the whole experience. Considering how well the team has done over the last year it is a shame that this project sours that success.

Residents

One of the key things that many people forget is that this is not just a larger stadium, it is a stadium with a student block, hotel, offices and other uses bundled with it. This is no longer just about a better sporting venue, this is a large commercial development.

This changes a lot of things. One of the consolations for living near a stadium is that it is essentially dormant 300 days of the year.

The student blocks (which will essentially be the outer walls of the stadium) will be seven storeys high and have literally hundreds of windows on each side looking down into the back gardens of the surrounding houses on all four sides. The roof trusses of the stadium will be a couple of meters short of the height of Cabot Tower. This is an extremely tall building bang in the middle of Victorian terraced homes.

An additional 546 students in the area will change the character of the area and will generate more journeys. Local pubs and restaurants will be overrun by students because there is no break out space or recreational area for students on the stadium site. Also as a living facility the number of lorries servicing the building for deliveries, refuse collection and so on will increase dramatically and every day of the year.

Summary

Everyone deserves a better stadium than this. The city needs something it can be proud of, that people can get to easily and that can be used for sports and other activities. The club needs a venue that will be able to grow with its successes and will not be an impediment to fans because parking is too miserable, or indeed because ticket prices at an all seater venue prove to be prohibitive.

Hopefully, the recent withdrawal of Opal will provide time for reflection and opportunities for a different and better plan in a more suitable location.

Opal Student Accommodation Abandons Stadium Project

2008-05-30T17:12:00.007+01:00

Update

This story has been covered in most of the media this evening.

Also the "quote" from HorfieldROSE member Toby Lewis in the Evening Post article is a very crude paraphrase and not a direct quote (what is printed in the paper does not even make logical sense). The point being made was that HorfieldROSE has always contended that this is the wrong site for the stadium because of the lack of transport infrastructure such as parking and transport, and that it would have been better for this to be stopped through a logical decision rather than financial difficulties.

The following statement has appeared on the Bristol Rovers web site today:

The directors of Bristol Rovers Football Club have recently been made aware that the preferred student accommodation provider negotiating the stadium regeneration is no longer able to progress the project.

As a result the club has entered into negations with an alternative provider.

A further statement will be made next week.

The preferred student accomodation provider was Opal and it was Opal that was to provide £32 million of the funds for the stadium redevelopment (£8 was to be found).

Opal has been in the frame for a very long time and were involved in the S106 negotiations on the previous planning application that was signed this January. Bringing in a new company at this late stage is unlikely to be easy.

One of the key things about Opal is that they do not currently have any student properties in Bristol and this was their foot in the door. Other companies such as Unite which do operate in Bristol will be less willing to pay such a large sum for the student block at the Memorial Stadium.

The other thing to consider is why Opal, who have been very committed to the project, have pulled out. This surely has to do with their ability to raise this sort of finance in the current economic environment. If Opal are finding it difficult then other companies will too.

On Friday 16 May Bristol Community Radio 93.2FM Rovers director Edward Ware said that tenders from the building contractors were due to be received on "Monday week" (which oddly meant the bank holiday Monday, 26 May 2008). Either Mr Ware got his dates wrong or the Rovers board have decided not to share the value of the tenders yet.

The £40 million cost for the stadium is only the Rovers own estimate. The actual bids that the building contractors may return could be higher than this. Perhaps this is what has brought things to a head with Opal, if they were being pressed for even more to finance the build.

Once again fans are left in the dark by the Rovers board. It will be very interesting to hear the "further announcement" by the Rovers board next week.

Rovers in the News

2008-05-03T12:13:00.002+01:00

Rovers have been in the papers quite a bit over the last two weeks, and not just on the sports pages. The article on Friday 2 May 2008 "How Rovers Paid Up In Stadium Bid" is quite odd. The article blames the 12 months of delays to the stadium development, in part, on a financial settlement with ex-directors of the club.

"A club spokesman claimed one reason for the delay - which, he said, could not be revealed to the public while it was going on last year - was an issue over the purchase from former directors Colin Williams and Mike Turl of the two houses and of shares held in the club."

It is not clear why it could not be revealed, and the strange thing is that this issue was covered in much greater detail in a Western Daily Press article on 14 October 2006, three months before the planning application even went to the planning committee. So the issues were already very much in the public domain and basically amount to the repayment of loans made by the ex-directors to the club. No big controversy.

On Tuesday 29 April 2008 the article "Gas Opt For Cheltenham" contained several surprises. First was the cost of building the stadium had increased a further £5 million bringing the total to £40 million. This is still only an estimate and the actual cost will not be known until the club receives bids from the three contractors that have been asked to tender. The firm Balfour Beatty (which bought Cowlins last year) has declined to bid "for purely commercial reasons".

The second surprise was Nick Higgs saying "We will be looking to get back here as soon as possible. Maybe with just three sides of the ground finished". This would mean the south stand within the stadium would not be built, probably ever. The new stadium building almost completely fills the stadium site with only a single lane road going around the perimeter of the site. All traffic entering the site including cars, deliveries, refuse collection and emergency vehicles will have to follow this road around the building as there is no turning room anywhere.

It would therefore be impossible to have any construction work going on while the building is in use because no traffic would be able to use the perimeter road. Access for cranes and movement of large structural elements would be problematic. Conceivably the whole facility (including the student flats and hotel) could be shut down in the summer but it will be far more costly to construct the south stand after the building was put into use and so becomes that much less likely to happen.

The third surprise was Higgs saying "that 80 per cent of the project would be financed by the building of student accommodation for 546 people, with the rest of the balance to come from commercial letting." The deal with Opal (the company that will buy and run the student flats) is not signed and even they will be affected by the current economic climate. But the remaining 20 percent of £40 million (which is £8 million) will be from "commercial letting". Big money for a company with a turnover last year of £4.9 million, a profit of £740k and debts of £2.7 million.

Since no buyers have come forward for the hotel, serious questions should be asked about how this further £8 million will be raised and what assets will be sold or mortgaged to get the money. Will Rovers actually own anything after all the contracts are signed?

Seeing the reader comments on all of these articles, fans are obviously not impressed and feel they are being lied to and kept in the dark about what is really going on at the club. Delay after delay for the start of stadium work is being supported by feeble excuses such as "negotiations over public art" and now "two pre-season friendlies" and "buying back properties from ex-directors". As one fan said in the Evening Post comments section "Come on Evening Post, get on with some proper journalism and find out what's really going on? They must think we are stupid."

Ombudsman to Conduct Interviews

2008-04-19T09:02:00.004+01:00

The Ombudsman's Investigator has recently contacted HorfieldROSE and has confirmed that, after discussing our complaint against Bristol City Council with the Local Government Ombudsman, he has been asked to visit Bristol in June to investigate our complaints in more detail.

This is obviously a major step forward in the Ombudsman's consideration of the 44 complaints sent to Bristol City Council last year, and the additional documentation sent to the Ombudsman over the last 12 months in support of the original complaints.

We understand the Investigator will be meeting with Council Officers and Councillors, and possibly those residents of Bishopston and Horfield who sent letters to the Ombudsman in support of the main HorfieldROSE complaint, during his visit.

It is probable the Investigator will also be interviewing members of the HorfieldROSE committee.

Whilst the Ombudsman's investigation concerns the previous planning permission for the residential, commercial and stadium development at the Memorial Ground the importance of the decision to investigate further cannot be underestimated.

The HorfieldROSE committee intends to co-operate fully with the requirements of the Investigator during his visit to the City, and we will be informing HorfieldROSE members of the arrangements closer to the date(s) of his visit.

An Unwelcome Decision

2008-04-19T08:57:00.002+01:00

On the 2nd April the Council's Development Control (North) Committee meeting again decided to approve the residential, commercial and stadium development at the Memorial Ground.

We believe the reason for the re-submission of the development application was due to changes to the design of the building being deemed significant enough to warrant a new planning application.

Residents attended the meeting and a number of statements read to the committee opposing the development plans. Many of the arguments against the proposals were on noise, loss of daylight, overlooking, sustainability, privacy and environmental, issues but the arguments were in the main, ignored by the committee.

It fact, there were a number of non-planning issues raised by Council Officers which influenced much of the discussion by the Councillors present, and after reviewing the minutes and video of the meeting, the HorfieldROSE committee has decided to make a formal complaint to the Council over these issues.

The main points of the complaint are as follows :

Committee Members were advised before their consideration of the redevelopment proposal that, if the decision was refused, the Council could face substantial Legal Costs. This statement focused member’s attention on possible legal action against the Council rather than on the merits of the planning application.
The Local government Ombudsman’s continuing investigation into the previous planning application (06/03850/F) was also raised a number of times during the course of the meeting. This matter is not a planning issue and should not have been raised by the legal officer or any committee member, as a view on the possible outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigations could, and possibly did, influence the decision making process.
The Council failed to publish a number of updated design detail drawings on the public website, and this denied the community access to, and the opportunity to comment on, new revisions to the development design.
Outstanding issues surrounding the submitted air quality report had not been addressed, the Council still awaiting a full response from the developer's air quality consultant. The proposed Conditions could not therefore be tested against a credible air quality report.
No Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out. The presented traffic and air quality assessments were considered sufficient information by the Council to substitute for an Environmental Impact Assessment for the previous planning application, but both these assessments now appear to be flawed and therefore fail to address environmental impacts of the development as qualified by national and EU policy.
Noise conditions proposed for the previous application (06/03850/F) and carried over for this application, are not fit for purpose. A noise assessment had been completed for the stadium itself but not for noise associated with on site traffic and from the enabling developments. These additional assessments should have been carried out and considered in the course of processing the application, to provide greater certainty on the noise issues. There is the possibility the existing conditions may not be capable of being complied with and therefore compromise the permission.
No information on the sustainability of the current proposal was provided to the committee. Sustainability of a development of the scale proposed is a major planning matter, but the changes to the build process (except in the reduction in the number of loads of spoil to be removed from the site) and the re-arrangement of the enclosed space was not considered in terms of long term sustainability of the development.

Many issues associated with the new development such as increased height of parts of the development, loss of daylight to properties on Alton Road, reduced sustainability due to increased use of precast concrete and re-arrangement of internal accommodation, overlooking, etc. have been raised through correspondence prior to the committee meeting, but were not addressed in ay detailed way.

According to the Council's code of conduct on Development Control matters, "When dealing with planning matters only material planning considerations should be taken into account. Section 54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires all planning applications to be determined by reference to the Development Plan, if material to the application, and any other material consideration."

The events of the committee meeting has raised deep misgivings amongst those residents who attended the meeting, perhaps even more than after the planning meeting of January 2007. The HorfieldROSE committee has therefore decided to seek advice on the soundness of the planning decision from elsewhere.
We will report on this matter when we have more information.

HorfieldROSE committee.

Disappointed but not Surprised

2008-04-03T09:40:00.007+01:00

Yesterday (2 April 2008) the Bristol City Council Development Control Committee met to make decisions on a couple of planning applications including the revised plans for the Memorial Stadium.

We were disappointed, although not surprised, that the decision was once again to approve the plans for the commercial, residential and stadium development at the Memorial Ground site.

It was basically a fait accompli when Bryan Cadman of the Planning department explained to the councillors that since this was only a revision of the previous plans which were approved, Rovers could challenge the decision legally if the new plans were refused permission. In this light five of the councillors expressed grave concerns about height, shadowing, noise, pollution and the lack of disabled parking but then voted in favour.

All of these issues were raised with the previous planning application and sadly most of them were glossed over, or simply ignored. Many issues had never been satisfactorily quantified such as air quality and noise assessments. In short the scale of the impacts was never given sufficient consideration and all sacrificed for the vague notion of "the general good".

It is actually a sad day for the fans too. During both this application and the previous two the inappropriateness of the current site of the stadium has been acknowledge by all concerned.

Transport in the area is good for a residential area but inadequate for large volumes of visitors at larger matches, even with the laughable transport mitigation measures. Parking at current attendee levels is possible because of the non-residential roads around the common, but this will not scale up as attendee numbers increase. Like filling a bottle under a tap, it starts slowly but once the capacity in the main vessel is used the water races up the neck of the bottle.

Fans will find that unless they arrive four or five hours before a match they will have to park in areas much much further from the stadium than they are used to. This not only makes the experience for the fans less pleasant but may also deter the less dedicated fans from attending which ultimately hurts the club's income the the whole rationale for the increased stadium capacity.

The student flats and hotel have taken up a significant amount of space within the stadium site which precludes future expansion for the stadium. As many fans have noted 18,500 seats is a bit small for a Championship league stadium. This effectively draws a line over the ambitions of the club and suggests that it really has no plans to advance past League One. Had the club considered alternative sites and sold the Memorial Ground for residential development the club could have kept its options open. If the proposals actually get built, the club will find that it is stuck with a stadium it cannot sell and wont even own the the student flats because these are being sold off in advance to raise the finance for the build. If an alternative site did present itself at a later date, the club will not be able to move from the current site. What a shame.

The redevelopment proposals are also very disruptive to the current business of the club. We have heard rumours that even the club's board is not unanimous on whether the plans should be implemented. Once again fans face the prospect of buying season tickets without knowing where home matches will be played. Also nearly two full seasons of playing in exile will be detrimental to club morale and finances and may hinder the current progress the team is making within the leagues.

Last year when the last planning application was being decided the word that kept coming up was "sustainability". The student rooms were to be prefabricated off site and assemble at the ground offering efficient used of materials and reducing wasteage. The insulation of the building was to exceed building regulations by 10%. There was even an article in the Evening Post suggesting that wind turbines could be placed on the roof.

This year, the plans involve the student flats being constructed from cast concrete which is one of the most environmentally damaging building materials (because concrete is made by burning limestone at extreme temperatures, 1560C, which takes lots of fuel). No mention of the 10% better insulation than building regulations was made this time round, and the solar gain of the building will be reduced by changes in the position of rooms. And the wind turbines, well, no one took that article seriously.

The proposals were presented as a scaled down version of the previous plans, which was very misleading. As we have explained in an earlier post the hotel has always had 84 rooms and this has not changed, but the number of stadium hospitality boxes (which could be used by the hotel as extra rooms) has been reduced. There have always been 546 student bedrooms. They were divided into 106 flats before but have now been divided into 99 flats. That just means more students crammed into each flat, the external impact of the students will be the same. The height, despite claims has gone up with the plans as submitted in January and revisions since have increased them further. The hotel block is 3m taller, the turrets on the north side are taller, the north east corner is taller, the arched trusses are taller. The south corners have been drawn in away from the boundary wall, but the central section of the south side remains at the old position and now leans out closer to the boundary wall.

They have removed the conference centre but intend to use the restaurant for conferences instead. Just removing a dedicated room within the building has no external impact when the same function will take place at the stadium, but simply in a different room. The retail shop will be reduced in size by five square meters (only 1% of the total area) which is so insignificant it hardly bares mentioning.

The reductions they did not highlight were the education centre which is reduced to less than half the size of last years plans. The crèche too is to be halved in size.

There are also serious safety concerns that have not been fully addressed. The perimeter road that will be added around the outside of the stadium will be so narrow that it has to be a one way road and there will be no places which will allow turning or passing.

The fire department has stated that it will not be able to get a fire engine with a tall ladder (a large appliance as it is called) around the building. Access to the south, west and north sides of the building could become severely restricted if there was any kind of obstruction or debris in the roadway.

Evacuating the stadium also raises some concerns. Because the building itself now fills so much of the site, there will be little standing room outside the stadium building within the stadium site. This will make it harder for fans to exit the building before other fans have exited the site. During a mass exit, emergency vehicles such as fire engines or ambulances would not be able to enter the grounds and fire fighters and paramedics would have to proceed "on foot" and against the flow of spectators.

The surrounding area to will be placed at risk by cars parked illegally on street corners. This reduces visibility and makes driving and walking in the area more hazardous. But the main concern is that emergency vehicles are large and require clear corners to turn into many roads. Residents with chronic conditions such as heart disease or acute asthma who may frequently need to be collected by ambulance live in fear. And accidents can happen to anyone.

This is not the end of the story. There will be another S106 to be hammered out with the council. Rovers have not yet signed a deal with Opal the student letting firm which will buy the student flats and provide the finance for the project. With an unsettled property market and other economic gloom, this deal becomes less certain. Rovers board may also decide that this is not the right time to cash in the family silver and will save their most precious asset, the Memorial Ground, for when they actually need the capacity and are in a stronger financial position to build a better stadium at a more suitable site. The fact that Bristol City Football Club can find a new site shows that it is possible and we can all take heart in that.

Picture credit: Title: Bristol Council Photo by: FatMandy Licence: CC NonCommercial NoDerivs License

Thanks to all who attended the public meeting

2008-03-28T21:52:00.003Z

Thank you very much to everyone who came along to the meeting this evening. It is very encouraging to see the continued strength of feeling among the residents and to know that the endless process of applications has not dented the resistance.

We would still like to increase the number of letters of objection so if you have not yet written please do so this weekend and ensure you post or email them by Monday.

Please send letters of objection with your name and address to
Ref: application no. 08/00061/F

north.planning@bristol.gov.uk

or to the case officer

Kit Stokes,
Brunel House,
St. Georges Road,
BS1 5UY

Letters of objection will be counted by the planning department and the number of letters of objection and support will be stated at the development control meeting.

You can increase the impact of your letter by also sending it in as a statement which will be included in the pack of statements given to the councillors the day before the development control meeting. Unlike letters of objection, the councillors will actually be expected to read all of the statements before the meeting.

Submitting a statement would also give you a theoretical right to speak at the meeting, but there will be a large number of statements and so only a limited number of people will actually get an opportunity to speak. There is no obligation to speak if you do submit a statement.

Please send your statements including your name and address to

Ref: application no. 08/00061/F

democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

Bristol City Council
Democratic Services
Council House,
College Green,
Bristol
BS1 5TR

A question was raised about access to the documents for the previous application. Thse can be found on the council web site at the following address:

http://e2eweb.bristol-city.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=J5S2VVDNK0000

Follow the tab for "Associated Documents" The previous application number was 06/03850/F

Public Meeting Friday 28 March 7:30PM

2008-03-26T09:10:00.002Z

Horfield ROSE are hosting a public meeting to discuss the situation with the residential, commercial, and stadium development at Memorial Ground redevelopment.

The meeting will be held at the Horfield Methodist Church Hall, entrance on the side on Churchways Avenue (the same entrance used on Polling days) at 7:30PM Friday 28th March 2008.

The officers report has been published and it gives us serious concerns about the way this application is being treated.

The Development Control Committee meeting to decide this application is currently scheduled to take place at 6PM on Wednesday 2 April 2008.

If you cannot attend please send all your letters of objection,
Ref: application no. 08/00061/F by 28 March to

north.planning@bristol.gov.uk

or to the case officer
Kit Stokes,
Brunel House,
St. Georges Road,
BS1 5UY

or use Council’s website, www.bristol-city.gov.uk/planning

Please add your name and address to validate.

PLEASE COME ALONG & TELL YOUR NEIGHBOURS!!!!

Clamping on the Common Starts Sunday

2008-03-07T17:06:00.004Z

Well done to everyone who has been lobbying local councillors, MPs, the Police and others about the illegal parking around the area, particularly on match days.

Our persistence has paid off and the damage caused to the Common, which is nothing short of vandalism and shows the deep disrespect that match-day visitors have for the area, is thankfully now being dealt with as a matter of urgency.

A company has been appointed with clamp and tow away powers, with associated fines being imposed. We are assured that there will be a rigorous system put into place. Please continue to be vigilant and let the company know if illegal parking is occurring. Signs will be displayed with a contact number.

The illegal and often dangerous parking on the streets is a matter for Bristol City Council and The Police and we are hoping that with your continued lobbying, photographs and reports of index numbers they will be inspired to follow this excellent initiative. There have already been incidents where emergency vehicles have been badly delayed because of parking and traffic congestion in the area and we are trying to make sure an accident does not become a tragedy. We shall continue to fight for the safety of this community.

We hope this will encourage you continue to object to aspects of the New Stadium Application that could affect you. It is still a totally unsuitable development for this area with regard to size, noise, parking, traffic and will greatly affect the quality of our lives.

Map of Horfield Common: No parking for anyone on the green bits.

Local Government Ombudsman Update

2008-03-01T09:53:00.001Z

Following receipt of Local Government Ombudsman's Provisional view letter towards the end of last year HorfieldROSE has continued to investigate all aspects of Planning application 06/03850/F, the development of commercial, residential and stadium facilities at the Memorial Ground, in order to respond to a number of questions posed by the Ombudsman's Investigator and to clarify a number of other aspects of the development. Our response to the letter was sent early January and we thank the Ombudsman's office for allowing some additional time to ensure our reply was as complete and detailed as possible.

HorfieldROSE has been in further communication with the Ombudsman's office over the past few weeks and we now understand a response to our complaint should be available towards the end of March, though this response may again be a provisional view due to the complexity of the complaint and the potential need to further clarify some aspects of the planning application and the process by which the Council's decision was reached.

As always HorfieldROSE will bring further information as when we are able, though it should be remembered that the process is quasi-judicial and as such only general details can be published.

HorfieldROSE Committee

Please Write with Your Objections

2008-02-04T11:07:00.000Z

Bristol Rovers have recently submitted new plans (application number 08/00061/F) for the Memorial Ground, AFTER full planning permission has been granted for the last plans! There are many major changes, but none will benefit residents.

Changes include:

Height and massing increase in NE & NW corners
Arched roof trusses and roof planes are higher, making whole building dominate local skyline even more
Perimeter road is narrower in places making it more likely to cause congestion, pollution and noise
Many more upper windows now face OUTWARDS, directly overlooking residential properties
The development has moved CLOSER to Trubshaw Gardens
The dedicated conference facilities have gone, but the restaurant will be used for the same purpose and will hold even more people, so no benefits to locals.
Proposed changes to the stadium design reduces sound insulation to the north and south stands.

Many of these excesses had to be removed from the previous application as concessions to get planning permission. With this application the developers seek to reinstate what would not have been permitted last year.

You can view these plans at the Planning Office, and on the Council’s website.

The plans will be put before the Planning Committee on 2 April 2008 so we must keep the pressure on.

If you objected before, PLEASE do so again before Mid Feb but before the end of the month at the latest!

Nothing has changed for the better.

Write to the Planning Office, your councillor and the Evening Post (epletters@bepp.co.uk) NOW!

Kit.Stokes@bristol.gov.uk

Kit Stokes
Planning Office
Bristol City Council
Brunel House
St George's Road
Bristol
BS1 5UY

Don't Believe Rovers' Propaganda

2008-01-20T18:00:00.000Z

The new planning application does represent significant changes to the commercial, residential and stadium development proposed at the Memorial Ground site, contrary to the claims made by Rovers in the Evening Post article on Saturday 19 Jan 2008.

Their claims are misleading at best (rebutted here in order of increasing significance):

Claim: The size of the convenience store and restaurant both reduced.
Reality: The convenience store will be reduced from 375 sq.m to 370 sq.m which is a 1% reduction. Five square meters is about the size of a small domestic bathroom. The restaurant will be reduced from 1110 sq.m to 1056 sq.m losing 54 sq.m which is a reduction of just under 5%. Again this is not a huge difference. They neglect to mention that the education centre will be reduced from 280 sq.m down to 121 sq.m which is a reduction of 56% or over half. In other words it used to be as big as eight hotel rooms but is now only as big as four. The creche too has seen dramatic reductions from 188 sq.m down to only 100 sq.m nearly halving that as well.

Claim: Number of hotel bedrooms down from 112 to 97.
Reality: The hotel has always had 84 bedrooms and still has 84 bedrooms. It has also always been the case that the stadium hospitality boxes could be used as additional bedrooms for the hotel. It is the number of hospitality boxes that has been reduced which changes the theoretical number of bedrooms in the hotel from 112 (84 rooms + 28 boxes) to 97 (84 rooms +13 boxes). It was improbable that all 28 boxes would ever be used as hotel rooms and it seems Rovers also believe it is unlikely to need a full 28 hospitality boxes for matches either.

Claim: Number of student flats down from 105 to 99.
Reality: In both the old and new plans there will be accommodation for 546 students. Each student flat was to have five or six bedrooms and one bedroom sized communal room. The change simply means the number of bedrooms per flat has increased. Previously there were 21 flasts with six bedrooms, the remainder having only five bedrooms. The new plans have 51 flats with six bedrooms. Considering that there is no other breakout space for students within the building or on the site, this represents a further reduction in quality of living conditions for students.

Claim: There will be 25 per cent fewer lorry runs (up to 10,000) carrying excavated spoils from the site.
Reality: It sounds like the reduction could be up to 10,000 lorry runs, that would imply that the total number of lorry loads was 40,000. But one lorry every five minutes eight hours a day would require 417 working days of lorries to clear the site, essentially the entire 18 months allocated for the build. Therefore one can only assume that 10,000 lorry loads is the total to be removed and of this up to 2,500 may be saved. Even so the remaining 7,500 lorry loads will take 78 working days at one every five minutes which is a few days short of four full months of dirt removal.

Claim: The roof height is going to be lower or the same as it was before.
Reality: This is completely untrue in both letter and spirit, because the building will in fact be the same height in most parts or a whole storey higher in some places. The extra floor added to the north east corner means that even the north side of the building is pushing the height limits allowable under loss of daylight regulations (previously this was the only side that did not reach or exceed these limits). The arched roof trusses are now significantly taller and will be more visible from near and far. The roof over the stadium in the previous plans sloped inwards to the centre, and would therefore not be very visible from anywhere. The new plans have a fairly steep roof which slopes outwards and is therefore much more visible from everywhere. They also fail to mention that the student flats on the sixth floor used to face into the pitch but in the new plans face outwards which means the neightbouring houses are overlooked by considerably more of the student flats.

Claim: This has not been a cost-cutting exercise.
Reality: Anyone who knows about building will know that groundworks are one of the most costly areas of any build. The fact that this significant cost has been reduced by 25% and that the commercial aspects of the stadium and enabling development remain at the same scale as before suggests that either they are in fact attempting to generate a profit from the development or the initial plans and budgets were grossly inaccurate. The finances of this plan must be open to public scrutiny.

This is just the latest chapter in a long history of Rovers asking for something, getting it and then asking for more.

The North Stand application which was granted permission gave them everything they realistically needed including a increase in capacity to 13,200, an increase which could credibly be mitigated via supporter buses and park and rides.

Emboldened by that success, they then asked for a whole new stadium with a capacity of 18,500 and all of the enabling developments (hotel, student flats, etc) which was far in excess of their needs and of the area to support. They argued that this was not an increase of 6,500 from the still current stadium capacity of 12,000 but rather only 5,300 capacity increase over what had already been granted. Suggested mitigation measures ceased to be credible but permission was granted anyway.

Having been given permission for this excess, they are back for yet another helping. This is why there is such strong local resistance to these plans, we have seen it all before over the last eleven years. And there is no way to satisfy their demands because as soon as they get what they ask for they are asking for more.

If their attitude towards their neighbours, the residents in the area, was anything better than contempt, they would have looked at "better use of the stadium area" before the last application so as to reduce its size and impact. As it stands, the neighbours on all four sides of this site will be faced with a six and seven story building at the bottom of their gardens with traffic and crowd noise 24/7.

These plans cannot be allowed to simply get a rubber stamp from the council and the issues must be properly and publicly discussed and some limit must be placed on the constant demands of Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited.

We are also tired of the Evening Post acting as the mouthpiece for Rovers' propaganda. In the run up to the planning application a year ago Mike Norton Editor in Chief of the Evening Post wrote a personal letter of support for the plans, on company letterhead, and insisted the paper would be "editorialy objective". As a member of a group trying to get its opinion heard, it certainly does not feel that objective.

New Galleries of Stadium

2008-01-20T17:50:00.000Z

We have produced two new galleries showing the changes in the stadium plans. These are using the images provided in the application itself and are not images we have created. There is narrative text along with the images to explain what is seen and how things have changed.

Evolution - The first gallery looks at the evolution of the plans since they were first presented in October 2005.

Comparrison - The second gallery looks at side by side views of the stadium as proposed last year and as in the new planning application.

HorfieldROSE Replies to Ombudsman

2008-01-19T13:33:00.000Z

HorfieldROSE has now replied to the Ombudsman's provisional view letter. Our reply letter, which ran to eleven pages of text and fifty-five pages of new evidence, was sent Wednesday 16th January to meet a mutually agreed new deadline of the 18th January 2008.

Whilst we cannot publish our letter for the time being due to the quasi-judicial procedures the Ombudsman follows when working on a complaint of this nature, we can assure residents we have explored every aspect of the Councils planning procedures and codes of conduct and ensured all 'deviations' have been included in the response.

Also, the planning application documentation held by Bristol City Council has been searched during many visits to the Council's planning office and again relevant information supporting our case has been passed to the Ombudsman's Office.

We will be contacting the Ombudsman's Investigator next week to seek a date of reply to our letter, though we suspect, given the amount of new information we have supplied, he will only be able to give an estimated timescale.

However, I think we would all agree that the Investigator should be allowed the time to do a thorough job of investigating our complaints, rather than rushing the work and missing so vital issues.

Yet Another Planning Application in Jan 2008

2008-01-17T11:53:00.000Z

We had heard in December that Rovers were intending to make further changes to their planned stadium. We also understood that these changes were significant enough that they would require an additional planning application. We also understand that they were not permitted to make this new application until the S106 agreement on the plan given approval this time last year had been signed.

All this now seems to be true. It is hardly coincidence that the day after the S106 was signed (almost six months later than planned), a new application was made. The description on the Bristol City Council website is as follows:

Amendments to regeneration of existing stadium to provide a new 18,000 seated (18,500 Capacity) stadium and ancillary accommodation, hotel (84 rooms), 99 student flats (546 rooms), restaurant, convenience store, offices, associated car, coach and cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

Documents became available for viewing on the Bristol City web site yesterday

click here for the application page

click here for the actual documents for downloading

It would seem that the stadium site has more bedrock than was initially expected and this has meant that the excavations needed for the original plan would be too costly. They have therefore had to increase the height of the stadium especially around the north west corner and the hotel tower where an extra story has been added.

They have also juggled some of the use of space. The conference centre has been removed completely, presumably because this was one of the things that was not going to be sold off up front and as such losing it does not lower their initial build budget. The number of student flats has been reduced from 105 to 99, but does not seem to have reduced the actual number of students which is still around the 550 mark.

Action from you

Currently this application is not going to go before the development control committee and is just going to be looked at by planning officers and then probably passed without much problem, UNLESS we make a fuss about it.

There are currently no notices in place in the streets around the stadium but the deadline for comments is set as the 31 Jan 2008 and the determination date is 4 April 2008. The fact that notices have not been placed in the area and as yet no one we know of has received a letter of notification it is unreasonable for them to set a deadline for consultation at the end of this month.

We are making requests to members of the Development Control Committee and to the planning officers that this application is sent before the Development Control Committee so that it can be properly and publicly debated.

Remember that planning officers and councillors are here to help and are not the enemy, so it is vitally important that any correspondence is polite and respectful. However, it is also important for you to express as clearly as you can how angry you are about these proposals and as explicit as you can be about how this will affect you.

Please contact Councillors on the Development Control North Committee and convey the following message:

Dear Councillor

I have heard that Bristol Rovers Football Club has made yet another planning application (08/00061/F) which entails significant revisions of the existing proposals. I understand that, as a councillor serving on the DCC North committee and a local member, you have the power to request that this application should be heard by that committee. This application appears to fall within the category of exceptions to the Delegation Scheme for Planning Applications. As the application relates to extensive and fundamental alterations from the original application, which was itself a major and controversial application, it is essential that the application goes before the committee.

David Kitson is both a member of the committee and a councillor for the Bishopston Ward and voted against the plans last year.

Of the other councillors on this committee Charles Price voted in favour of the plans last year, Albert Murphy voted against, Abdul Malik was on the committee but did not attend the meeting due to family commitments. All of the other members of the committee are new since the vote last year.

It would also be good for the planning department to know that you are concerned. The application says that the consultation period ends on 31 Jan 2008 but we have been assured that it will actually end 21 days from the date that the planning department sends out notifications, which has not yet happened.

Please check this site regularly as we will post any additional information we have here as soon as we can.

Justifying the Unjustifiable

2008-01-16T13:48:00.001Z

Anyone who saw the handling of the planning application that was submitted by Rovers in 2006 and which was unbelievably granted permission in 2007 will no doubt wonder if there were unseen forces at work. How could such an inappropriate plan receive permission?

One is made even more curious when seeing documents in the application file such as an email to Kit Stokes, the planning officer in charge of the application, from Michael Rogers who is a Design/Project Officer at City Centre Projects & Urban Design, which is part of Bristol City Council.

His email begins

From an urban Design perspective, I find the proposed development very difficult to support. The retention of the sport stadium facility within this location, as an integral part of the character and identity of the local neighbourhood, is to be welcomed from my perspective. I feel, however, that this benefit is wholly overshadowed by the scale, form and intensity of enabling development proposed. From an Urban Design perspective, I consider that the proposal raises four fundamental problems:

1. The creation of an inappropriate mix and intensity of development for such a backland location within the centre of a development block. [...]

2. The visual impact of the proposed development. Based upon the submitted visual impact images, I would wholly disagree with the author's statement that 'the development will have very little or no adverse visual impact.' [...]

3. The detrimental impact of the proposed building upon neighbouring residential amenity' overshadowing and the shear overbearing impact of the building's scale/proximity appear to be the critical issues here [...]

4. The poor quality living and working environment for the proposed enabling development.

The four points have been truncated here to give the essence of his objections but each point is followed by a lengthy paragraph explaining the case against allowing such an application to be granted permission. But then amazingly he continues:

Notwithstanding the above fundamental concerns with regard to the proposed development, I am mindful of the Council's corporate commitment towards assisting the Football Club in its achievement of an improved facility at the Memorial Ground.

He then goes on to suggest a number of mitigations that would help to shoe horn the application through the planning process and that the plans might be presented to the South West Design Review Panel for their input. Their input as seen in the officers report bares a striking resemblance to the suggestions made by Mr Rogers. Click here to download the full document from Mr Rogers to Mr Stokes.

When the planning officers report came out, it seemed clear the the author was tasked with reconciling the unreconcilable. No where was this more apparent in the three consecutive paragraphs at the end of page 42 and beginning of page 43 of his report. In the first paragraph he admits:

Overall it is acknowledged that a modern sporting stadium of the scale required will inevitably appear out of place in a predominantly two-storey residential environment, this is a dilemma that is in evidence in towns and cities all of the country.

So he agrees that stadia are out of place, but then in the next paragraph says

It is considered that the proposal would enrich the local skyline, whilst clearly identifying the location of this landmark facility.

This is not a counter argument simply a contradiction of the earlier statement. And possibly fearing that people will not swallow this contradictory statement he adds

Whilst there are concerns about the overall scale, it is considered that the stadium will only be visible from a limited number of vantage points.

This too is largely untrue. The current stadium is visible from many places in and around Horfield and beyond, but the fact that is is a dark colour and not a bulky structure means that it is far less visible. The new stadium in contrast will have significantly more bulk and mass and will be clad in brighter materials which will make it highly visible from vantage points near and far.

In the week after the application was granted permission at the Development Control Committee meeting last January, we examined the "key issues" section of the planning officers report.

We simply counted the problems that the officer cites. We also count whether he suggests a mitigation to lessen the problem, a condition to contain the problem within limits, simply excuses the problem without offering any solution or suggests that there will actually be a benefit from the new development. These are his judgements not ours, we are simply counting them, although we do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions. We also ranked problems between one start and three star (three star being more serious than one star) and put the results in a table.

The above table shows the solutions to the various key issues and how they are handled. Twenty three issues are remedied in part by mitigation or conditions while twenty one are unresolved and simply excused. A further six items are claimed as enhancements as a result of the plans. The poor quality of amenity for the students in student flats is not excused or remedied and so does not appear in the above table. Also the two issues on waste and recycling were not problems nor enhancements are are not included in the above totals. Some items included both excuses and enhancements in which case the issue was counted in both columns.

You can download our report which lists all of these issues in detail explaining what each key issue is how it is to be resolved and any notes about whether we agree with the problem or solution.

We can only hope that the latest planning application will be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits and that all those factors are openly and clearly visible to planners, committee members and the public.

The Council's Vision

2008-01-16T12:34:00.000Z

When you got your council tax bill last year it was accompanied by a booklet entitled "Your Council Tax and Business Rates explained 2007 -2008" with all sorts of wonderful sounding mission and vision statements. But how does it hold up against the real world?

"A thriving economy"

Aim - to maintain and develop a competitive
economy, ensure all people and neighbourhoods can
contribute to, and benefit from, that thriving economy
and to make Bristol one of the most attractive places
in Europe

Apparently with the exception of Horfield where nearby pubs now close on Rovers matchday afternoons, The John Cabot licencing suspension in part due to football associated violence, means it has not yet reopened. Book Cupboard forced to pull down shutters and shelter pedestrians from violence in the street (reported in Swindon, but not Bristol) on a Saturday afternoon residents severely restricted from travelling and being more economically active on matchdays due to traffic densities curtailing access.

Health and Well Being

To ensure everyone in Bristol has the opportunity to
be as healthy, fulfilled and as independent as possible.

Unless they live in Horfield where up to 150 disabled sports fans must compete for only 8 disabled parking spaces instead of the current 32. Where air pollution concerns are ignored and deemed insignificant despite planners insisting on restrictions over students owning cars and approving a hotel without parking, to mitigate traffic which proves there's already a big problem

A High Quality Environment

Bristol to be a green capital of Europe, tackling the cause
of climate change and creating a clean and attractive

Where urban designer comments are ignored as are environment BCC's Sustainable City Team's comments, in terms of the failure to commit to lower carbon technologies presented. Also ignored BCC ecology officer who suggests a wildlife survey to establish existing species within existing natural environment.

Balanced and Sustainable Communities

with a high quality of life where no one is disadvantaged

Unless they live in Strathmore Rd where their daylight will be compromised or round the perimeter of stadium where the noise pollution is likely to keep infants awake beyond their normal sleeping hours. Not to mention shift workers etc.

The Final Insult (page 28) says

"Our Mission: to improve public safety through preventing, protecting and responding" giving sage advice about "knowing your escape route"

Tell that to the ambulance driver stuck in traffic for 15 minutes in Gloucester Rd on matchday, compromising patient safety.

When you consider the many roads bordering the site which are inaccessible to large emergency vehicles not least on matchdays, it compounds the view that insufficient diligence has been applied to plans, which give rise to serious conflicts with BCC's "corporate aims".

The S106 Signing is Not the End

2008-01-09T21:45:00.000Z

The start of the New Year has brought fresh challenges. It is almost a year since the contentious planning application meeting for the development of the Memorial Stadium and the S106 agreement has only just been signed, six months later than the originally slated deadline.

For many months now any questions we have raised with different Council departments involved have received the reply that nothing can be done until this agreement has been signed. So now we can ask the questions and expect the consultations that need to take place. Common sense would suggest that this should have happened before any signings but planning moves in mysterious ways!

We are not satisfied with the agreements about traffic volumes, noise, air quality, loss of light, parking, ‘Park and Ride’ provision, and will still continue to challenge the premises on which they are based. The Stadium Monitoring Group set-up needs to be representative of all views involved and have an independent basis.

We are still involved with the ‘Ombudsman’s investigation into the whole process.

There has been a revealing survey done by the Liberal Democrat party into the Resident’ Parking Zone. This could be a good foundation for talks about parking let’s encourage them to set up a meeting so our voices can be heard.

We are very concerned that the use of the site 24/7 has not been truly appreciated by the planners. This development is commercial with accompanying stadium facilities! We need to get the message across.

What HorfieldROSE can't understand is why so many of Bristol City Council officers' own questions or concerns about the proposals appear to remain unaddressed or ignored?

Now the S106 has been signed we can keep asking the questions, we can keep pointing out the problems. So if you have concerns, examples, questions, etc. now is the time to voice these. Contact your councillors, the planning department, the Avon and Somerset Police, the Parks department for parking on the Common. Send in your photographic or detailed examples and ask for a reply and intended action; continue to question until you are satisfied!

The recent Evening Post article suggested that Bristol Rovers will be holding an exhibition of plans later this month so another opportunity to question them too - and make sure it happens – too many promises have been unforthcoming.

The start of the New Year has brought fresh challenges; if you value the area and the community then speak out and make sure we are heard. Lots of different people saying ‘it matters to our quality of life’ shall not be ignored.

Happy Christmas

2007-12-24T13:28:00.000Z

We would like to wish everyone a very happy Christmas, and thank all of the people who have supported this campaign over the last fourteen months for their dedication and perseverance.

The campaign continues.

-- HorfieldROSE Committee

Map of HorfieldROSE members

2007-12-04T09:24:00.000Z

As part of our additional evidence being sent to the Local Government Ombudsman, we have produced a map, showing where 600+ members of HorfieldROSE are in relation to the stadium. Each red dot represents one person but its location does not indicate the exact address. Rather the positionings merely indicate the number of people on a given road, although positioning has taken into account local geography and likelihood of positions (e.g. Muller Rd members have been placed close to the stadium rather than evenly along the length of the road).

The green arrow indicates the main gate of the stadium. There were some twenty people who were beyond the borders of this map which shows the extent of the impact of matches on the area. Note also that the area to the north of Muller Rd where there is a high concentration of objectors and yet this area was not considered for inclusion in the Residents Parking Zone (RPZ).

See our earlier article on the extent of the RPZ to see how limited the RPZ provision is in comparrison to the extent of the problem. Also click on the map above to seen a larger version.

Ombudsman's Provisional View letter

2007-12-04T09:21:00.000Z

Earlier this year a schedule of 44 complaints, and other associated documentation, was sent to Bristol City Council for their consideration. The complaints schedule, compiled from comments made by a large number of local residents, spanned many issues including failure to follow procedures, planning guidelines and codes of conduct when considering the Memorial Stadium Redevelopment planning application. Complaints concerning the management and conduct of the Development Control Meeting of the 17th January was also included in the schedule.

The Council responded to the 44 Complaints during April and May this year, and the only concession to the complaints was as follows:

"Whilst I can agree that there are always things that could be done better, and undoubtedly lessons to be learned from this process, I do not accept there is anything flawed in the process that would undermine the validity of the decision, or suggests that the decision taken on 17th January needs to be rescinded."

HorfieldROSE found the Councils' response to the 44 complaints to be totally unacceptable. If the Stadium Redevelopment takes place many residents lives around the stadium will be blighted due to the Council turning a blind eye to many aspects of the proposed stadium, such as the perimeter road, student accommodation, the size of the building, etc. It is not really necessary to repeat here what all residents of Bishopston and Horfield know is wrong with the proposed stadium, especially the potential for traffic chaos and increased pollution!

We therefore resolved to send more associated documentary evidence to support our case to the Ombudsman's Office.

The Ombudsman's Investigator has been in close contact with our group over the past few months and we have supplied further details as required, BUT, the investigators provisional view has concluded that we have not (as yet) convinced him Bristol City Council has failed to administer the planning application correctly in regard to planning law and planning procedures. Nor did we convince him that the planning meeting of the 17th January did not reach a decision in a quasi-judicial manner.

However, the Investigator has stressed that the letter outlines his provisional view and we can respond with further evidence in support of our complaint - and rest assured, we intend to.

HorfieldROSE understands that over 30 people sent letters of complaint to the Ombudsman's office and we would recommend, if you have any more meaningful evidence to add to your original letter, then please do so by letter, though we would stress that repeating information you have already sent is not necessary as we believe the Ombudsman's investigator is fully acquainted with all aspects of the complaint.

Please email the HorfieldROSE website if you have any further questions on this.

The campaign against the stadium redevelopment, and the associated adverse impacts on the community, is continuing.

Good Neighbours?

2007-11-26T10:14:00.001Z

As part of the planning application for the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium Bristol Rovers submitted a document called "Statement of Community Involvement". This document contained statements such as "[the club has] demonstrated its willingness to engage sensitively with all stakeholders affected by or with an interest in its plans" (page 7, para 4) and "The club will endeavour to be a good neighbour" (page 11).

Because the promised Stadium Monitoring Group has yet to be set up, HorfieldROSE and Councillor Rosalie Walker, arrange a meeting on the 13th of November 2007, to bring representatives from different political parties (including parliamentary candidates), council staff, councillors, residents and stadium management together for discussion of issues raised by the potential redevelopment of the stadium and the increases in it's capacity and use for non-sport activities.

It was therefore quite surprising that not only did Bristol Rovers fail to send a representative to the meeting, we did not receive any reply to the invitation whatsoever.

The Statement of Community Involvement also points to the "Resident's Liaison Group" as a sign of former good relations with local residents. Since no one within HorfieldROSE had been in this group nor known of anyone who was in it, we wrote to Roger Cooper of Bristol Rovers and requested specific information. This is the reply we received:

Further to my note on Sunday I have now been informed that the Football Club has spoken with three of the most prominent members of the Residents Liaison Group. One person – XXXXXXXX was happy for you to be given his telephone number and this is XXXX XXX XXXX. The two others took your contact details and will no doubt contact you in due course – I mentioned one of these on Sunday and she may already have got in touch.

There are three others, not two as I had previously thought. One of these has recently suffered a stroke so we have not tried to contact her. The two others are those we believe may have left the area. The Club has been unable to get a reply from one and the other’s phone gives an unobtainable signal. We will keep trying the number for the first of these two and I will let you know if we are able to make contact.

I trust you will contact XXXXXXXX and leave you to do so.

Regards,
Roger Cooper

We have since spoken to members of this group and have the following details from them:

It was set up with some sort of funding from a national stadia group (unsure of exactly which one) and ongoing funding possibly from both BCC and Rovers. It met about 4-5 times per season and was a group of residents. The group has not met for about two years.

Initially it was to monitor general complaints e.g. noise from the tannoy system, litter, parking, traffic congestion etc. Dave Harper (at that time police liaison officer) was involved and the directors sometimes came to the meetings including Dunsford once. Councillors were involved including ones representing Lockleaze and Ashley Down Wards.

The group ground to a halt due to financial issues, no long term funding, no one listened to residents concerns, and the resulting resident disillusionment with the process. The members of the liaison group also felt "battle weary" after years of meetings, delivering leaflets and trying to make a difference but seeing little change.

Communication does not seem to be the club's strong suit as even fans are also feeling a bit frustrated by the lack of news of progress. The article in Saturday's Evening Post "ROVERS' STADIUM - DEAL STILL IN LIMBO" points out that the Section 106 contract that makes the planning permission official which was supposed to be signed in July, then September, then October, then November, has still not been signed even though both Rovers and the Council continue to claim that the signing is imminent. One fan left the comment

How much longer is this going to go on for. I was under the impression everything was sorted, but yet again more delays. Perhaps the club could put something in tueday nights program to explain the situation we now find ourselves in concerning S106.
concerned fan, bristol

We also believed that the conditions and points for the S106 were essentially finalised when the Planning Development Committee gave consent to the plans in January. How could they give approval if these terms were still negotiable. Having seen the ongoing drafts of the S106, the terms have stayed technically the same but a large degree of discretion has been added where specifics are no longer included and phrases such as "the Stadium the Owner will submit to and obtain the approval in writing from the Council" for various things including the Travel Plan. At the planning meeting, one of the concessions that had been given was the assurance that events like pop concerts would not take place at the stadium, but now it is suggested, these would be possible simply by obtaining written consent from the council from time to time.