HorfieldROSE

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:13:00 +0000

HorfieldROSE has seen a statement from the Bristol City Council planning department that says

There has been no progress on the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium. The Club has made no contact with the Council in at least the last six months in respect of the discharge of conditions on the application.

The statement also said the company that was employed by Rovers to manage the redevelopment process is no longer working on the stadium development.

Anniversary of S106 Signing

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:58:00 +0000

Twelve Months ago today (17th November 2008) a S106 agreement was signed by Bristol City Council, Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd. and other interested parties in the Memorial Stadium land.

S106 agreements are agreements negotiated, usually in the context of planning applications, between developers (in this case Bristol Rovers (1883) ltd) and local planning authorities. Signing the S106 agreement is also the final step in approving a planning application where a S106 agreement is required.

A S106 agreement is intended to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. In other words to mitigate adevelopments' adverse impact by, for example, providing payment for additional buses, improved road junctions or traffic calming measures.

The stadium development S106 agreement includes the following obligations:

1. Provide Supporters buses the number depending on previous season average attendance at matches.
2. Provide a Park and Ride bus service again depending on previous season average attendance at matches.
3. Pay contribution towards a Residents parking zone.
4. Travel Plan to encourage alternative modes of transport to the car.
5. A Student Parking and car ownership restriction.
6. Upgrade the access roads to the site to adoptable standard.
7. Pay Highways Contributions.
8. Produce and implement a Traffic Management Plan.
9. Agree the constitution of a Stadium Monitoring Group with the Council.
10. Enabling Development not to be occupied unless the stadium is completed.
11. Provide a Landscaping plan and a strategy for residents access to the Amenity Area.
12. Provide a strategy for including Public Art in the new stadium.

See http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=28759004 for full details.

So what progress has there been to meeting the S106 obligations after twielve months?

True, some of the obligations cannot possibly be met without a new development being in place, but there are some where progress can be made if there is a desire to make progress, even if it is just to prepare a plan to meet an obligation when the development is complete.

For instance, the Stadium Monitoring Group constitution could be in draft form by now, but efforts made by Councillors and others to get meaningful discussions started have not produced any significant progress.

Also there is a requirement to produce a landscaping plan and to allow the land at the southern corner of the stadium site to be used as residents amenity land. What we have seen is the clearance of trees and bushes before any landscaping scheme being agreed, and certainly without any warning to, or consultation with, local residents.

So, in spite of searching for and asking for information to the contrary, there is very little evidence to suggest significant progress in meeting any of the obligations.

Obligations contained in a S106 agreement are there to mitigate the adverse impacts from a new development, and whilst there is a possibility the development will not be started within the three year planning permission expiry period, one year already elapsed, residents will continue to be very concerned that, should the development actually be started, obligations will not be in place to mitigate the adverse impacts.

November 2009 Update - Little Change

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:14:00 +0000

Over the past four months HorfieldROSE has continued to communicate with our own members, the Council, Councillors, and other organisations over various aspects of the development to ensure that should a start with the development be made we will be in a position to react accordingly.

The principle aim is to stop the Commercial, Residential and Stadium development at the Memorial ground as the site is totally unsuitable for the scale and changes planned, and the surrounding residential areas can't absorb the impacts.

Our objection is not to the sporting activities on the site, but to the non-sporting enabling development and the inability of the surrounding area infrastructure to support a vastly increased stadium capacity.

Permission has recently been granted for the Southmead "super hospital" which will inevitably increase the amount of general traffic in the area. This will also mean more ambulances passing through the area which may well be hindered by congested streets. The County Cricket ground application if approved will also have an impact on the area around the Memorial Ground. While HorfieldROSE does not take a view on these other applications, we do note that these other projects further impact issues such as congestion and pollution around the Memorial Ground.

In May 2009 HorfieldROSE and other local residents thought, as did some supporters of the football club, that a start to the development had been made with the clearance of the trees, etc. from the land to the south of the stadium. Residents reacted strongly against the work and a complaint has been made to the Council as the work was carried out without the conditions relating to landscaping being approved, and certainly not in the spirit of consultation and cooperation as promoted by the Stadium Company.

However, since May very little appears to have progressed. We believe a delay was caused in July 2009 due to one of the developers' agents contracting swine flu, and we trust he/she recovered quickly from the illness. We also believe another company has been requested by the stadium company to look into options for the stadium site.

We also continue to watch progress with the traffic orders in Bishopston and Horfield, and hopefully we will see an improvement to traffic flow, and for ambulances, etc. being able to travel through the area without undue delay on match days.

On behalf of all our members we will continue to monitor the situation and if there is any change we will let members know in the usual way.

Update on Traffic Regulation Orders around Stadium

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:19:00 +0000

Some HorfieldROSE members recently met with the residents who would be most affected by the initial TROs being proposed for our area, and invited their feedback to take to our meeting with Alan Berridge, Senior Area Engineer for the Traffic Client Team on 8-05-09.

These notes cover the main points from this meeting:
The Council’s remit is to safety and to keep traffic moving.

These initial, proposed TROs are to protect junctions and corners, are considered long overdue and will be followed by similar throughout Horfield and Bishopston, regardless of any further building developments. Junction layouts (Wessex Avenue & Gloucester Rd was mentioned) may also be looked at the same time as possible waiting restrictions. It is hoped that these initial orders will be in place for August.

Parking services will be responsible for enforcement and rigorous enforcement is expected together with a parking hotline.

A Result!! -

Following residents feedback we are told that Downend Pk will have their turning space restored and the double yellow lines at the entrance to the road will be trimmed back.
Bedford Crescent cannot be included retrospectively so application for protection to their corners will be applied for with the next proposals.
Consideration will be given to the churches – perhaps ‘setting down’ places; hopefully this will used sensibly. Disabled are allowed to park on double yellow lines anyway.
The police have requested further Match Day restrictions as they are responsible for crowd control and Anti Terrorism measures which they must apply to venues.
In view of this new signs have been designed and are awaiting approval from the Dept. for Transport. Downend Road from Strathmore to Muller Roads and Filton Ave (in front of the Stadium) will be immediately affected by these, but of course there will be a ‘knock on’ effect for other residents.
When these are approved we understand Mr Berridge will arrange an open consultation meeting with residents; hopefully this might be in June.

We were very heartened to hear that consideration is being given to the whole area, as the planning permission given for The Stadium Development, Southmead Hospital, Dorian Road and the Cricket Ground will all impact on the traffic and parking issues we have.

If permission is given for the phased build then there will be a further ‘Temporary Traffic Plan’. This is likely to cause major inconvenience to residents.

The Traffic Team can only work with the information they are given and are finding difficulty in getting answers to help their decision making. This is making it a ‘bit by bit’ process. There is a determination, however, to resolve the problems as they receive so many letters!

There appear to be no firm plans, yet, from the Stadium Developers as to how they will help the traffic and parking issues, in fact the reverse seems to be happening as the proposed ‘phased build’ takes away on-site parking and now makes no provision for the ‘disabled’ or ‘visiting fans’ coaches.

We would like to ‘Thank’ everyone for their views and letters – we do feel they were all taken into account and believe it is well worth while continuing to monitor the parking and traffic situations and giving feedback which can be passed to the Traffic Client Team.

Size Does Matter

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:10:00 +0000

We have said it before and we are saying it again, the stadium and associated commercial developments are too big for the Memorial Ground site. It appears Rovers' stadium company are also realising that they may have squeezed in too much for their own good.

The image above (click it to see a larger version) is a plan view of the stadium site and surrounding area. The neighbouring properties have been shaded green, the perimeter road is blue and the stadium building itself is shown in red. This shows pretty clearly that there is very little space left on the site outside the building itself.

What this does not show are the vertical differences. The stadium will be enclosed on all four sides by seven story high student accommodation with hundreds of windows looking out over the neighbouring properties. In the above image, houses to the right of the stadium are already on lower ground so their rooftops are at about the same level as the ground within the stadium site.

The promise to make the small area of land in the south west corner (shown in yellow) into an amenity ground for the homes along Alton Rd, Downend Rd and Strathmore Rd was one of the things in the proposed development that was to compensate those resident for the loss of privacy and daylight that the stadium would cause. This is one of the things that helped to tip the balance when the planning application was being decided.

No Room to Work

There was little enough space on the site to conduct the build anyway, but a phased build, while matches are still played at the ground, borders on insanity.

It appears the stadium company have realised they simply do not have the necessary space to do this and this is why they want to raise the level of this "amenity land" which is currently on the same level as the houses up four or five meters to the level of the pitch. This will allow the construction site to extend outside of the existing site boundaries.

The fact that the construction will close off half the site to the public means that at least one of the three public entrances will be for construction use only. To compensate the stadium company expect to open up the Alton Rd emergency exit as a public entrance. Something that has been explicitly forbidden for many years.

No Room to Turn Around

But even once the stadium, student accommodation, hotel, shop, offices and restaurant/conference centre are built, the lack of space will continue to be a problem both for the operation of the facility and for the surrounding homes.

The perimeter road (shown in blue) will be one way only with all vehicles entering at the top left and having to go clockwise around the building and then exit at the top left. This includes large vehicles like coaches, refuse lorries, delivery lorries and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire engines.

The developer has to do computer modelling (called swept paths) to demonstrate that these larger vehicles can actually negotiate the four corners of the stadium. There are a number of places or "pinch points" where turning is very "tight" and only just permits the vehicles to make it round.

The white spaces (such as they are) around the perimeter road are parking spaces. It does not take much imagination to realise that one or two badly parked cars could spell chaos by blocking all vehicles on site, and could present an actual hazard should emergency vehicles need to get around the building.

No Space for Waste

With 550 students, possibly over 100 hotel guests, workers in the offices and other facilities in the complex, a lot of rubbish will be generated. As part of the process of "discharging conditions" set out by the planning permission, the stadium company have to explain to the council how they will manage various things on the site including waste disposal. The report they submitted shows:

It is likely waste collection will be required on a daily basis due to the amount of waste being generated by all the enabling developments.

Due to the volume of waste being generated Eurobins, small compactors and skips are proposed to ensure adequate waste storage, especially for recyclable waste.

Many of the Eurobins will be located close to the perimeter fence.

A number of parking bays will have to be used to ‘park’ the Eurobins, thus reducing yet again the limited number of parking spaces.

The management of waste will cause noise as it is deposited (often late) and collected (often early) and since it will be kept near the edge of the site lead to unpleasant smells drifting into the neighbouring gardens.

There are also two internal stores for waste and they are to be located (according to the document) at the South East and South west corners of the development. The document recognises that waste removal lorries will potentially have difficulty manoeuvring and recommends that some of the car parking spaces be kept vacant over night to ensure the waste can be collected.

Truly, this site is not big enough to accommodate all of the uses that the stadium company intend to put it to. This madness is now beginning to show as they move from "back of fag packet" plans and face the realities of making it work. And as ever when they need more of anything it is the residents who end up suffering the consequences.

We Don't Post Comments

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:00:00 +0000

The Evening Post has a facility to leave comments after articles. These are often more informative or entertaining that the articles themselves.

On a recent article and from time to time in the past comments have been left under the name of "HorfieldROSE" (or variations thereof).

No one from HorfieldROSE have ever left such a comment under the organisation name. Any such comments you may have seen were therefore left by people passing themselves off as group members and not real comments from our group. Members of the group and other residents may have left comments under their own names or aliases, but not as the group. Anyone is entitled to express their own opinion, but that is only an individual's opinion and not necessarily the view of the group.

Why Rovers Clearing Land Is Not Acceptable

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:49:00 +0000

The Evening Post published an article about the felling of trees in the area behind the south stand of the Memorial Ground on May bank holiday Monday. It is hard to decide if it was a good thing that it was published on a low circulation day or not as it is important to get coverage, but the article misrepresented the issues that it was more misleading than informative.

Clearing trees on a property is not illegal. However, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it a criminal offence to damage or kill nesting birds, their nests or eggs, of species which are listed in schedule 1 part 1 of the act. This is why tree felling is not normally carried out at this time of year and when it is, should be done after clearance is given by an ecologist.

But more significantly, this is not just a piece of private land. It is land that has an approved planning application which sets out conditions in a legally binding contract. If the developer, Rovers, does not abide by the terms of the contract they are liable to penalties or in the extreme the cancellation of of the permission contract.

Because it was accepted that the development of the larger stadium, hotel, student accommodation, shop, offices, restaurant and conference centre on the site would have a large and detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, a number of conditions were imposed to mitigate or reduce these impacts.

One of the critical features of this mitigation is the treatment of the boundaries between the building site and the residential properties that surround it. As noted in our previous post section 8 of the conditions specifically require an inventory of existing trees to be made:

"The development hereby permitted shall not take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection, in the course of development. [etc]"

Clearing the land before an inventory was made and before the proposals for landscaping have been approved by the council is certainly a violation of the spirit of the agreement and possibly a violation of the letter of the agreement.

The underlying problem is that the permission was granted on a fine balance between local loss of amenity and the "greater good". Councillors on the DCC (Development Control Committee i.e. planning committee) acknowledged this trade off and how closely balanced it was at the January 2007 meeting when permission was first granted.

Then in the April 2008 DCC meeting for the revised application which had even greater impacts (taller trusses, more floors on hotel tower etc) and actually offered less public good (reduced learning centre and crèche size, etc) the councillors again acknowledged their concerns about this worsening trade off but allowed the revised application to be approved because Bryan Cadman (Area Planning Service Manager North and West Area Planning Team) had advised them that refusing it could open the council to considerable legal costs.

The whole application process has been ratcheted in favour of the developer who continually asks for a little bit more and then a little bit more and a little bit more. Although it may seem petty to refuse a small increment, collectively they are becoming more and more extreme and overbearing.

The council have still not accepted the proposed phased development of the stadium and associated commercial properties, as the wording of the original permission was specifically geared to a single phase build on a site that was not being used for sporting events during the build.

Phased build has further detrimental impacts on the local area including longer build time and associated noise and pollution, building disruption during the week, match noise on weekends, and no parking facilities on site during the build putting further strain on local roads and parking during events while construction takes place. And measures to reduce impact such as the RPZ (Residents' Parking Zone) and the Park and Ride facilities would not be in force during the build.

The land behind the south stand is also of importance to the phased build. Because the site is so small and constrained and because the new buildings will take up nearly all of the land leaving only a perimeter road between the building and the surrounding back gardens, the phased build intends to use this land to the south as part of the construction site. But in order to use it this way it has to be raised four or five meters to match the level of the pitch.

And here Rovers have a problem, because this was not part of the application that was approved. The approved plans include drawings clearly showing that this land to the south will be left at its current level. The S106 agreement stipulates that the neighbouring properties will have access to this "amenity land" which would not be possible (without climbing and abseiling skills) when the land meets their gardens as a four meter high wall.

And the Design and Access Statement (part of the planning application provided by Rovers which explains what the council is giving them permission to build) also confirmed that the “area to the south west bordering Downend Road and Strathmore Road which is currently overgrown will be thinned out to allow the better trees to flourish and additional and appropriate trees and shrubs added to create a natural area which will require little maintenance.”

The fact that Rovers are clearly trying to push for more than they have already been given and that once again it is the residents who lose while Rovers gain that is the cause for concern.

Yet another new imposition that comes from the phased build is to use the Alton Road emergency exit as a full public entrance during the build. All through the planning process (and for many years during previous applications) this exit has been confirmed and reconfirmed as an emergency exit and not as a public access. This simply cannot be used as a full public access without a new planning application. That's not a request that is the law.

Devastation at the Memorial Ground

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:11:00 +0000

Click on images to see larger versions:

The pictures on this post are of what is known as the "open space to the south of the stadium". As you can see the land was densely vegetated and the mature trees provided a welcome screen against the sight of the existing stadium for residents on Downend Road.

On 22 April, without warning or notification to neighbours, workers entered this area of land and deforested the area, clearing the land of existing trees and plants, which in itself is unattractive, but worse exposes residents more fully to the eyesore of the existing stadium buildings (which are small in comparison to the proposed new stadium).

Although landscaping of this land is part of the planning application, it is still governed by the conditions that accompany that permission and section 8 of the conditions reads as follows:

"The development hereby permitted shall not take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection, in the course of development. [etc]"

Obviously if they have already cut down all of the trees it is difficult to comply with this condition. Landscaping plans have been submitted to the council, but they have not been approved.

This piece of land is outside of the boundary of the stadium ground but is owned by the stadium company and hence by Rovers. In the initial planning application, Rovers suggested this piece of land could become an public amenity area (a sort of mini-park).

The residents of Downend Road made representations to development control (planning department) that they would prefer the land to be left as it was because existing mature trees protected the view and lack of access to this area protected their privacy and also security (as access would make it easier for anyone to get into their back gardens). Despite these protests, and the fact that not altering this area would save Rovers money, this aspect of the plan was left in place.

When plans for the phased development became available it transpired that this amenity land would become part of the construction site during the build. This change requires that this "open land" be made up to the same height as the main stadium ground.

As you can see from the photographs, the very reason this land has not been used for anything else is that it is accommodating a large change in level, as the stadium ground has been built up at the southern end to level the pitch. To continue the level right to the edge of the back gardens will mean a four meter high retaining wall right behind the garden fences.

A normal citizen would not be permitted to erect a solid fence over two meters in height (which is the reason people put trellises on fences to make them higher).

This incident illustrates a number of things. One, how Rovers management have disregard opinions of their neighbours throughout this planning process. Two, having received everything they have asked for in the past they no longer feel it necessary to wait for approval. And three, their willingness to push for the ends they want by any means and regardless of the fairness or even the legality of their actions.

Discharge of Conditions Application

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:53:00 +0000

When Rovers were granted planning permission for the commercial and sporting developments at the Memorial Ground, there were conditions attached to the permission. Rovers have now made an application for discharge of some of these conditions. These are to be reviewed by the planning department (Development Control) at Bristol City Council.

The following are simply the conditions that they claim to have satisfied. We will provide more information in due course.

The application details for application 09/00652/COND on the council web site

Conditions for discharge are as follows:

2. Contaminated Land
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
- A ground investigation study to identify any contamination at the site
- A Conceptual Model identifying all Pollutant Linkages at the site (ie all sources of contamination, pathways and receptors)
- A Risk Assessment to quantify the risk from contamination, and
- A written Method Statement detailing how contamination will be remediated.
Reason: - To safeguard the safety and health of future occupiers of the site.

5. Construction Noise, Vibration and Air Quality
No part of the development as hereby permitted shall commence until details of an Environmental Management Scheme and Code of Practice has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Scheme and Code of Practice shall oblige the applicant, or developer and its contractor to use all best endeavours to minimise disturbances including noise, vibration, dust and smoke emanating from the site.
Any emergency or other deviation from the above conditions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Management Scheme shall include:-
(i) Details of engineering measures, acoustic screening and the provision of sound insulation required to mitigate or eliminate specific environmental impacts;
(ii) A detailed specification of demolition and construction works at each phase of development including consideration of environmental impacts and the required remedial measures. The specification shall include details of the method of piling;
(iii) Measures to make local residents aware of any significant activities that are likely to cause significant disruption;

All demolition and construction work shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved management scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the following hours:
08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and
08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays (unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Deliveries to, and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.
Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Part 1:1997 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works.

During demolition and construction on site:
(a) The best practical means available in accordance with British Standard Codes of Practice BS5228:1997 shall be employed at all times to minimise the emission of noise from the site;
(b) Vehicular accesses to adjoining and opposite premises shall not be impeded at any time;
(c) No waste or other burning material shall be burnt on the application site
(d) A suitable and sufficient means of suppressing dust must be provided and maintained, including the adequate containment of stored or accumulated material so as to prevent it becoming airborne at any time and giving rise to nuisance.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until a demolition and construction method statement for the demolition and construction process has beensubmitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include the following:
(a) An assessment of the presence or absence of asbestos and suitable mitigation measures is appropriate;
(b) The inclusion of suitable measures for the containment of dust, such as the use of debris screens and sheets, suitable and sufficient water sprays; enclosed chutes for dropping demolition materials to ground level;
(c) The use of enclosures or shields when mixing large quantities of concrete;
(d) Details of the provision for the temporary storage of materials on site with preference to the storage of fine dry materials inside buildings or enclosures, or the use of sheeting as far a practicable with water sprays as appropriate.
(e) Consideration to the use of pre-mixed plasters and masonry compounds.
The method statement scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with details to be approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:- To protect the amenities of adjoining residents during the construction period.

10. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority ((unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), a detailed assessment on the potential for noise from the development from affecting neighbouring residential properties. The assessment should include noise from the following:

Noise from the PA system
Noise from fixed plant and equipment at the stadium
Noise from the hotel, student flats and shops (including transport noise)
Noise from conference facilities
Noise from vehicular traffic and parking on the site

If the assessment indicates that noise from the development is likely to affect neighbouring noise sensitive premises then a detailed scheme of noise mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The noise mitigation measures shall be designed so that nuisance will not be caused to the occupiers of neighbouring noise sensitive premises by noise from the development.

The noise assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant/engineer and shall take into account the provisions of PPG 24 Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise, BS4142: 1997. "Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas" and BS 8233: 1999 "Sound Insulation and Noise Insulation for Buildings - Code of Practice".

The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use permitted and be permanently maintained (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

Recommendation:
i. The recommended design criteria for dwellings are as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) 35 dB LAeq 16 hours in all rooms
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) 30 dB LAeq 8 hours in bedrooms
ii. Where residential properties are likely to be affected by amplified music from neighbouring pubs or clubs, the recommended design criteria is as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) Noise Rating Curve NR35
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) Noise Rating Curve NR20 to NR25
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

11. Noise Insulation - Residential
No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed scheme of noise insulation measures for all residential accommodation (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). The measures shall be designed to achieve noise insulation to a standard that nuisance will not be caused to the occupiers of the residential accommodation by the operation of the workshops to the rear of the premises, traffic to the front of the premises and the pub beneath the residential accommodation (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

The scheme of noise insulation measures shall prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant/engineer and shall take into account the provisions of PPG 24 Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise, BS4142: 1997. "Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas" and BS 8233: 1999 "Sound Insulation and Noise Insulation for Buildings - Code of Practice".

The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use permitted and be permanently maintained (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

Recommendation:
a) The recommended design criteria for dwellings are as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) 35 dB LAeq 16 hours in all rooms
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) 30 dB LAeq 8 hours in bedrooms
b) Where residential properties are likely to be affected by amplified music from neighbouring pubs or clubs, the recommended design criteria is as follows:
Daytime (07.00 - 23.00) Noise Rating Curve NR35
Nightime (23.00 - 07.00) Noise Rating Curve NR20 to NR25
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

12. Noise from fixed plant and equipment
The rating level of any noise generated by any fixed plant or equipment as part of this development shall not exceed the pre-existing background level by more than 0 dB(A). The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises most. Measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with BS4142: 1997-"Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas". The assessment must be carried out by a competent person prior to the commencement of the development. These noise levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

13. Details of Extract/Ventilation
Details of the means of mechanical ventilation including that for the extraction and dispersal of cooking smells within both the commercial and residential accommodation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The details shall include method of construction, odour and noise control. The approved details shall be provided before the use hereby permitted commences and thereafter shall be permanently retained.
Recommendation: In order to mitigate odour nuisance it is recommended that flues or vents for the dispersal of cooking smells should terminate at least 1 metre above the ridge height of any surrounding buildings, with no obstruction of upward movement of air, otherwise a method of odour control such as a carbon filter system will be necessary for approval.
Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining residences.

27. Refuse and recycling
The refuse stores, and areas/facilities allocated for storing of recyclable materials, as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided before the use hereby permitted commences. Thereafter, all refuse and recyclable materials associated with the development shall either be stored within this dedicated store/area, as shown on the approved plans, or internally within the building(s) that form part of the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No refuse or recycling material shall be stored or placed for collection on the public highway or pavement, except on the day of collection, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: - To safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining premises, to protect the general environment and to ensure that there are adequate facilities for the storage and recycling of recoverable materials to encourage energy conservation through recycling.

28. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted commencing, a scheme for the provision of litter receptacles in and around the stadium site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Reason:- In the interests of the appearance of the area and to protect the amenities of residents.

35. TV reception
No part of the development as hereby permitted shall commence until the applicants satisfy the Local Planning Authority either:
a) that the stadium particularly will not have any adverse effect on radio and television reception at properties in the surrounding area or;
(b) that remedial measures will be implemented to prevent any such adverse effects.
The details of these remedial measures shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before use commences and shall be implemented before the development causes any disruption to reception.
Reason: To protect the interests of occupiers of nearby residential and commercial occupiers.

41. Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS)
Prior to the commencement of development (unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority), a strategy of surface water drainage for the site using sustainable drainage methods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the use of the building commencing.
Reason:- To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal.

42. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water run-off limitation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding.

43. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface water storage capacity during 1 in 100 year (20%) storm conditions has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

44. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for prevention of pollution during the construction phase has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include details of the following:
1. Site security
2. Fuel oil storage, bunding, delivery and use
3. How both minor and major spillage will be dealt with
4. Containment of silt/soil contaminated run-off
5. Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations.
6. Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness.
Invitation for tenders for sub-contracted works must include a requirement for details of how the above will be implemented.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed site development will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters.

The hidden costs of the football ground

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:50:00 +0000

In Monday's Bristol Evening Post there was an article with the title "Talking sport: Who is picking up the tab?" This was an unsual article because it actually described in some detail the state of seige that the area around the Memorial Stadium goes through due to the necessary police presence surrounding matches. It even likened the situation to Apocalypse Now with the police helicopter hovering over the residential rooftops all afternoon in the leadup to and aftermath of the match. Although big disturbances are often reported, all the minor problems occuring on most match days are totally ignored by the police and the press week after week.

But the article also raised the important question of the cost of such matches. Primarily the journalist was asking about the direct costs of the policing, but since the article also mentioned shops on Gloucester Road quickly shutting their doors and putting up closed signs as the crowds poured down the street, it at least alluded to the cost to local businesses and also to the impacts on the lives of people living near the Memorial Ground.

The article did not answer the question of cost but HorfieldROSE had already obtained details of policing costs for past seasons.

During the 05/06 season, the total policing cost was £41,204 of which Rover's paid £14,644 meaning the tax payer picked up the £26,560 remainder.

During the 06/07 season, the total policing cost was £97,988 of which Rover's paid £30,237 meaning the tax payer picked up the £67,751 remainder.

The police can only charge Bristol Rovers for policing activities within the Memorial Grounds and not for activities on the public streets. A third of police funding comes from council tax, nearly a quarter comes from business rates and the remainder comes from central government (income tax, VAT and corporation tax). So one way or another it is the people of Bristol who pick up this policing tab and it is not inconsequential.

But police costs are not Rover's only drain on the council money. Planning applications incur a fee which is calculated on the size of the project and goes towards the administrative costs of processing the application. In high profile applications like the stadium, the costs are likely to be higher than the actual fee due to the increased public interest and interaction. The application fee is entirely separate to the S106 conditions which are things the developer must pay for during or after the actual development to help alleviate impacts of the development on the local area.

The fee for the stadium application in 2006 (06/03850/F ) was just shy of £50,000. It was therefore quite surprising to discover that the council waived the application fee entirely for the application in 2008 (08/00061/F).

It makes sense to put these numbers in context with some of the other figures connected with the stadium development. The S106 agreement is a standard part of granting planning permission and requires the developers to make contributions to local facilities in recognition of the commercial benefit that a planning permission gives them. In Bristol Rover's case the S106 requires the following contributions:

£100,000 for the set up and running of the residents parking zone, this money would be paid to Bristol City Council.
Up to £50,000 for public artworks. The council may allocate some of this to improve the look of the scheme and the rest to projects elsewhere.
£30,000 towards two bus shelters, raised kerbs and information boards at stops in Filton Avenue to encourage fans and residents to use buses.
£10,000 towards traffic regulation changes to improve road safety.
£10,000 for pedestrian facilities.
£7,450 to the council to make sure the club meets its obligations.
£5,000 to improve traffic flow and minimise congestion in and around Filton Avenue, Gloucester Road and Muller Road.

In total that is just over £200,000, so the waiver of a substantial application fee negates a fair proportion of that. And an annual average policing costs of around £50,000 (and probably higher for a larger stadium) also seems to reduce the overall benefits the stadium offers the city and its citizens.

To put the numbers further into context, remember that this is a £35 million project of which about half will go towards the stadium facilities and the other half to build the student accommodation, hotel, restaurant/conference facilities, office space and other commercial aspects of the development. The stadium land is the companies biggest asset and like all other businesses it is keen to maximise the returns it can get from it, no one blames them for that. But what is unfair is for a business to effectively get subsidies from the public purse via waiver of fees or additional support such as the value of the policing. Not to mention the fact that no developer, other than a football "club", would have been given permission for these sorts of developments in this area and on that site.

Bristol Rovers have already spent at least one and a half million on the project. Just to secure all of the land rights associated with the houses that were bought by Rover's directors to smooth the application process cost £700,000 as explained in an article last May.

HOW ROVERS PAID UP IN STADIUM BID BY TORBEN LEE T.LEE

07:00 - 02 May 2008

More than £700,000 was paid to former directors of Bristol Rovers to smooth the way for the new-look Memorial Stadium.

The figures have been revealed by the club to shareholders who wanted to know the reason for a 12-month delay over a planning agreement.

Add to this architects fees over several years, consultation fees, application fees, the application agents PRS, salary for Bill Smith during his time as CEO and so on. Football, even in the lower leagues, is still big business. As the article asks "Who is picking up the tab?"

Following are some excerpts from the article referred to above:

Around 5.30pm on Saturday you'd have thought a royal visitor was making their way through Horfield and Bishopston.
Above the shops on Gloucester Road people were leaning out of windows to get a better look at what was heading their way, hemmed in by a cordon of yellow-jacketed police and flashing blue lights.

At street level the riot squad were ushering pockets of Bristol Rovers fans towards the city centre, despite the reluctance of some of them to move. Overhead the helicopter that had spent most of the afternoon above BS7 was adding a bit of Apocalypse Now to proceedings.

Then they came, marching on together, as the song goes. Around 25 Leeds fans who had clearly been earmarked as wrong 'uns, and in need of a special escort. Down the road they went, ringed by the forces of the law, and followed by three police vans, with others racing ahead to make sure each potential flashpoint site was cleared.

Unless you live near a stadium most people may be largely unaware of the transformation the area goes through when there is a match. On top of the police presence described above, there is also a traffic jam on all of the roads that is as bad or worse than normal rush hour traffic, cars parked everywhere making roads narrower and floods of people moving to or from the stadium ground. The article then gives a bit of context:

Gloucester Road is, essentially, a thriving high street, where traditional Bristol meets the 21st Century. Hardware stores and greengrocers rub shoulders with wine bars and delicatessens, hardened cider drinkers wait at the bar alongside people wanting skinny lattes.

Most of the football season, it's untouched by the sort of police presence we saw on Saturday, but for certain fixtures - Swansea City, Swindon Town, etc - the place has a more sinister feel.

But even when the police presence is lower than on the matches where trouble is more likely, there is always a police presence, and the traffic and crowds are factors at every match. Spirits are usually high, due to excitement for the sport alone but often with the aid of a few beers. Because there often is trouble at matches, it makes all matches feel dangerous, and residents retreat into their houses and lock themselves away for the duration or make plans to be out all day.

But because fixtures occur on a somewhat irregular schedule, it is easy to be caught by surprise, forgetting there was a match this Saturday or this Tuesday and especially for people who may come into the area less regularly. Lib Dem councillor for Bishopston, Bev Knott said (in a separate article):

People going about their everyday business on a Saturday afternoon should not have to rub shoulders with football fans intent on causing trouble.

There was a heavy police presence, but shoppers with children shouldn't be put in a position where they run the risk of being caught up with fans. I believe the police got it wrong on Saturday.

Residents who have nothing to do with football should not be made to feel intimidated by groups of football supporters and I, on behalf of residents who live in the area, want to know what the police are going to do to prevent it happening in the future.

It is hard to know what the police could do differently because the Memorial Ground is in the middle of a residential area with the Gloucester Road being the most direct route to Bristol Temple Meads which is over three miles south of the stadium. The police have also been working to improve traffic flows and have been experimenting with different methods of crowd control (such as allowing fans out of the grounds in batches rather than a single flood). But whatever the police do it is going to be difficult to prevent stadium crowds having an adverse effect on the local community and businesses.

Then the article made some observations and asked some questions:

Two things struck me as the curious convoy of fans, police and police vans went past the busy shops and bars of the stretch of road between the Bristol Flyer pub and Zetland Road.

Firstly, several shopkeepers took one look at what was going past and flipped the signs in their doors from 'open' to 'closed'. Secondly, the ones that didn't retreat stood in the doorways to watch the passing spectacle and shake their heads.

One asked a passing officer how much overtime he was on. Good question, but I've got a better one - who is picking up the bill?

The Ombudsman's Report Has Arrived

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:38:00 +0000

On the 17th January 2007 permission for the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium was approved on an on-balance basis by Bristol City Council's Development Committee (North).

An on-balance decision means that the anticipated benefits of a development to a city or region outweigh the adverse impacts of that development to local communities, though in many cases mitigation (as specified by an S106 agreement or conditions) is necessary to reduce these impacts.

Whilst an on-balance decision is a perfectly legitimate outcome for a planning application, there were many issues associated with the 17th January meeting which gave many residents grounds for concern and suspicion. These concerns led to formal complaints to the Council and finally to these complaints being sent to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's report has now been published and the Finding says:

Maladministration causing injustice

Recommended remedy

The Council is to review the implementation of its policies and procedures in respect of:

consultation on planning applications;
consideration of environmental impact;
substitution of Members on Planning Committees; and
its Planning Code of Conduct.

Whilst the Ombudsman does not consider the above administrative failures undermine the actual planning decision, the finding is nevertheless significant.

It should be noted that the Ombudsman's view and recommendations are based on comment and evidence supplied by HorfieldROSE and other residents.

The evidence was found by searching Council files, using Freedom of Information requests, and hundreds of hours of research into statutes, codes of conduct, etc., followed by the Ombudsman's Officers investigating the complaint with the Council.

We accept the Ombudsman's report fully, and must say thankyou to the Ombudsman and all the Ombudsman's officers who have been involved in the Investigation over the past 18 months. Not an easy task for the Ombudsman's office given the complexity of the complaint and one that must have taken considerable resources to complete. Thanks again.

The final chapter has therefore been reached regarding the 17th January 2007 meeting with the publication of the Ombudsman's report. We are now putting all our resources into the next two sequels to the Memorial Stadium saga, taking into consideration the findings of the Ombudsman.

We have already sent to the Council a complaint concerning the Development Control meeting of the 2nd April 2008. And, of course, we are endeavouring to get a full and proper response from the Council over the announcement by Bristol Rovers on the 23rd October 2008, that they now plan to develop the stadium in phases whilst both the Football and Rugby teams remain in residence.

When HorfieldROSE decided on the 17th January 2007 to continue opposition to the Commercial, Residential and Stadium development on the Memorial Ground, we knew there would be a long road ahead, but we did not anticipate the work involved or the difficulties we would encounter, but the campaign against the decision to allow the redevelopment has been reinforced by our research, the Ombudsman's report, and recent announcements concerning the phased built of the development, and we intend to fight on.

HorfieldROSE

You can see the summary and download the full report from Local Government Ombudsman's site.

Who is in charge?

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:11:00 +0000

On the 18th October 2006 a question was asked of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the House of Commons (Hansard - 18 Oct 2006 : Column 1283W), "how many statements of community involvement the Planning Inspectorate has rejected because they had procedural or other flaws; which planning authorities submitted each one; and if she will make a statement".

Yvette Cooper replied "a total of 307 Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs) have been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. Of the 214 SCIs which have commenced the examination stage, inspectors have issued 208 binding reports and a total of 121 SCIs have been adopted.

Only one SCI that has been examined has been found to be unsound and has been recommended to be withdrawn by the Planning Inspectorate. This is the Bristol SCI."

Referring directly to Bristol City Council's Statement of Community Involvement, since October 2006 a new draft of the SCI has been produced followed by public consultation, further amendments made and again examined by the Planning Inspectorate in public (22nd July 2008).

In August 2008 the Planning Inspectorate produced a binding report stating that the revised SCI, subject to some amendments, was found sound and Bristol City Council adopted the revised SCI on the 14th October 2008.

Over the same time period a large, highly contentious, stadium redevelopment (with attached enabling development) located in a high density residential area of North Bristol has been under consideration, and planning permission given (twice, applications 06/03850/F and 08/00061/F) by Bristol City Council. The stadium is home to Bristol Rovers Football Club and Bristol Rugby Club.

In January 2007 planning approval was given for the stadium redevelopment on an on-balance basis taking into account adverse local impacts from the stadium and the enabling developments against strategic benefits of the stadium only. In December 2007 amendments to the development design were announced by the Stadium Company and this lead to a second planning application again approved (April 2008) on an on-balance basis, though it was acknowledged additional adverse local impacts would result.

Finally, on the 23rd October 2008, the Stadium Company announced their intention for both the Football and Rugby teams (sharing the existing stadium) to remain at the stadium during the build period, the build now being in phases over a longer period than originally intended. This contradicts the stated aim (in the Stadium Companies' own Statement of Community Involvement and at press conferences) of ground sharing elsewhere during the build.

Residents in the vicinity of the development site have communicated with Bristol City Council over the change in the way the redevelopment is to be built stating that this change must be subject to public scrutiny, all additional adverse impacts identified, and any necessary mitigation (through additional conditions or obligations) identified. Despite the concerns of residents Bristol City Council signed the associated S106 agreement on the 17th November 2008.

The change in the stadium build and the occupation during the build period will undoubtedly add additional hardship to the local communities over and above the level anticipated when the above two planning approvals were given.

The Council's newly adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), section 6, states:

"6.21 In all cases where the applicant requests significant revisions after permission has been granted, a new planning application will be necessary which will be subject to a fresh round of consultation.

6.22 The only changes that could be considered as an amendment to an approved scheme are those that are so minor that they would not in effect need planning permission."

Also the premise behind section 6 of the SCI is that Developers will be expected to involve the local community and Local Councillors in early discussion of the implications of their proposals and how these might be dealt with. As stated above changes to the proposed build were announced through the press without discussion with Bristol City Council, local Councillors or any community groups.

At the present time Bristol City Council does not seem willing to pursue the matter of a new planning application with the Stadium Company. Certainly the Council has not stated a clear position on this matter, even though many requests have been made asking them to do so.

We therefore now have a situation where Bristol City Council is failing to ensure the involvement of the citizens of Bristol in a significant amendment to major planning development and as such they are failing to comply with section 6 of the newly adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

So it appears Bristol City Council, one of the last, if not the last, Authority to adopt a Statement of Community Involvement will be the first Authority to fail to uphold the requirements of the statement.

The main point is who is actually in charge of the planning process, the Developer who makes significant changes to the way a development is built but decides not to go through the planning application process again, or a Council that should insist on a new planning application if significant changes to a development are identified. This issue could have implications concerning Statements of Community Involvement across the Country, not just Bristol City Council.

Phased Development Changes Conditions

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:16:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:20:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:59:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 03 May 2008 11:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:02:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:57:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:40:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:52:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:10:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (admin) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:53:00 +0000

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