We do not doubt that in some ways this is a better option than the last proposal, and it has some benefits, but the issue for those opposed is that those benefits do not out weigh the impacts and costs the store would bring. This is why some will continue to oppose it.

You can see the new blog at www.basicsashtongate.co.uk
and follow the debates.
You can sign up for email updates at:basics_ashtongate@hotmail.com and follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/basics_

Thanks

The key planning issues involved remain and this proposal is by no means a done deal. It will involve a brand new planning application, which means that those who object to it, will have to write a brand new objection letter.
It also means that you will have to write to your local Councillors again, and the details of where and who to write to are still on here.

We will keep you posted on developments as and when we find out details.

As is traditional, we also have a small gift to offer, as a token of our appreciation for the efforts put in by everyone during the campaign.

We now have a copy of the Ashton Gate Planners Draft Report
that was about to be submitted to the South and East Development Control Committee by planning officers. This report was due for publication the morning after the planning application was withdrawn.

It is important to note that it does not represent the settled view of the council (since the councillors didn’t vote on it), but gives you an idea of the planning arguements and issues that will be faced by any new application for a Sainsburys store. The planners were recommending to the committee that the application should be refused on a number of grounds.

We leave you to speculate whether the contents had anything to do with the decision to withdraw the application.

For those who find the prospect of reading a planning report over Christmas distinctly un-festive, we have selected some highlights for you below:

Objection Letters:
“At the time of writing a total of 940 representations have been received with approximately 72% objecting to the development and 28% in support of the development. The majority of comments received from within the BS3 postcode area objected to the proposal and the majority of comments received in support of the scheme came from outside of the BS3 postcode area.”

Internal comments from the Council’s Transport Development Management team:
“Winterstoke Road is a very busy road which is considered to be at or close to capacity. It varies from one to two lanes along its length but it is the one lane sections which dictate the capacity of the road, which is considered to be around 1450 vehicles per hour. This large development would be likely to take Winterstoke Road over its theoretical capacity at regular intervals, particularly on the weekday evening peak.”

Internal comments from STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (PLANNING POLICY TEAM)
From the DPDS report it can be concluded that the proposal would do nothing to support the existing centres in South Bristol and that it may well in fact harm the medium to long term quality of
Bedminster town centre.

“The report (DPDS) concludes that East Street in Bedminster would be hardest hit by the new store, followed by North Street. The town centre would experience reduced footfall, and, in time, investment plans leading to increased numbers of vacancies and more poorly maintained buildings. The quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of the centre would all suffer.”

“It should be recognised that the assumptions used (in the retail report) by the applicant are incorrect or have not been fully explained, and have resulted in findings that may well under-estimate the real impact of the store.”

Internal comments from PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR (AIR ENVIRONMENT) – SUSTAINABLE CITY GROUP (REGARDING
IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY) – Recommended the refusal of the application.

“Additional traffic entering and leaving the Parson Street gyratory system due to the proposed redevelopment of the stadium is likely to increase congestion and hence concentrations of key pollutants at receptors in this area, including Parson Street School. This area is already heavily polluted, with several diffusion tubes measuring an annual mean concentration of over 60 ugm-3 in 2008. This indicates a possible exceedence of the hourly mean objective for NO2. People living in this area are already subject to concentrations of air pollutants more than 50% higher than the annual mean objective for NO2. The Parson Street gyratory has been identified as a “pollution hotspot” in the detailed assessment of 2004 and is included in the current AQMA (Air Quality Management Area).”

“In addition to the point about vehicle emissions falling, the assertion that background concentrations will fall in future years should also be challenged, particularly in the context of South Bristol. A planning application has been received (15/10/2009) for 9,500 – 10,500 new houses as part of the Ashton Park development. An application has also been received for a new football stadium at Ashton Vale. A “South Bristol Link” is planned, and one option for this is a road. Extra traffic is predicted along the A38 to and from the Parson Street gyratory in the event of significant expansion of Bristol International Airport. All of these developments are likely to have adverse impacts on air quality in the future and therefore raise background levels of nitrogen dioxide, or at least, work against the reduction of background levels of this pollutant.”

Internal comments from POLLUTION CONTROL:
Enclosed Service Yard Noise (Night 23:00 to 07:00hrs)
“Predicted noise levels are based on one vehicle in a one hour assessment period. BS4142 would indicate that complaints are likely. Levels at bedroom windows of Raynes Rd are predicted to be
43dB LAeq which would give between 28 and 33dBA inside bedrooms. The W.H.O. gives a value of 30dBA to avoid sleep disturbance. Both W.H.O and BS8233 give a dB LAMax value of 45 for impulsive noise. This is also likely to be exceeded at night.”

Petrol Filling Station (PFS)
“Residents are only 30m away. The report identifies door slams as the most significant LAmax without further justification. Predicted noise levels from door slams will be equal to the limit of 45dB LAmax inside the nearest bedrooms. From experience such activity will be regular and will be variable. Some slams will be heavier than others. The report does not consider or explain the significance of other factors which will occur such as engine starts, horns, brake squeal, shouts or antisocial behaviour such as music played from cars. We are not confident that such noise can be controlled considering the close proximity of residents and therefore without significant justification we would recommend that the PFS does not operate at night.”

Internal comments from the URBAN DESIGN OFFICER:
“The urban design preference for the way this site should be developed would steer proposals towards a mixed use scheme, possibly including a significant residential element, that knits with theexisting community. This, by contrast, is a single use scheme for a major retail store.

Such a use will be involving significant car journeys which raises environmental issues – increased emissions, etc. The large car parking area is not described in the Design and Access Statement as
having any Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) treatment.”

Internal comments from SUSTAINABLE CITY TEAM – Object:
“Any appraisal of the sustainability of this proposed development must necessarily focus on the planned use and function. The proposal for a large retail store with no ancillary development in this location is unsustainable in several respects:
·the proposal for a single use large retail development is not an efficient use of land, and in this location residential development or a mixed use development including housing would be more sustainable
·the impact on the neighbourhood and smaller scale local retail provision is likely to be detrimental
·the proposed development will encourage car travel and so increase carbon emissions

Proposed measures to mitigate the detrimental impacts through sustainable design are welcome, but will not be sufficient to meet these concerns. If the developers wish to proceed with a retail development, the most significant benefits for sustainability could be obtained through bringing forward proposals for a mixed use development including smaller scale retail provision together with
housing.”

Employment:
“Employment Generation – The applicant refers to the creation of 100 construction and 400 long termjobs. However, the proposal would not increase retail expenditure in the area available to support more
jobs, and the long term jobs would be off-set by job losses elsewhere. This is one of the main ways inwhich retailers will adapt to the loss of trade. The Council should not give great weight to this matter.
Officers would reinforce that whilst the developers predict that the supermarket would generate 400 longtermjobs, the net impact of the proposals on job creation (including jobs lost from existing retailers) is
not acknowledged. As no need has been established for additional retail floorspace, the store wouldprimarily exist at the cost of trade lost from existing stores, with an attendant risk of job losses from these stores as a result.

Self-evidently the re-development of the site for employment use or for mixed-use development incorporating employment uses could have the potential to create a comparable or greater number of jobs. Jobs creation resulting from the construction process could equally emerge from the redevelopment of the site for other purposes.”

A superstore in principle at this site:
“In the wider sense however the proposals would do little to improve the character or functioning of the area as a whole. The potential re-location of the football club offers a substantial opportunity for a high density mixed-use redevelopment which could allow the creation of linkages between different uses, add to the vibrancy of the area, and allow urban regeneration which could improve the well-being of this community, in accordance with the guidance in PPS1.

By contrast, the proposed development would in fact perpetuate and reinforce the poor townscape quality of the surrounding area, dominated as it is by car parking, access roads and poorly defined spaces. The proposals would essentially replace one very large pavillion building surrounded by car parking with another large pavillion building, surrounded by car parking. Public views into the site from Winterstoke Road and from the Public Right of Way would be onto the rear elevation of the petrol filling station and car wash.”

Planning Policy:
“The proposals are considered to be contrary to policies B1, B2 and B5 of the Adopted Bristol Local Plan, to Policy VIS 2 and EN 4 of the Southwest Regional Plan (RPG 10) and to the design guidance set
out in PPS 1.”

Enabling Development:
The overall conclusion to draw from this is that without the value from the proposed supermarket at Ashton Gate, the proposed stadium development would be unviable, although the extent of the funding gap is widely disputed between the developers and the Council’s advisers. Consequently officers consider that whichever of these assessments is correct, in principle the enabling development argument
can be considered, in that without the funding from the supermarket, the stadium is not a viable project.

The public benefits of the proposed stadium would primarily be indirect and accrue across the city and region in the form of enhanced economic development, and the direct private benefits would primarily be experienced by the football club, its supporters and other football fans. The public disbenefits of the supermarket would be concentrated in South Bristol, in part in communities that are already identified as
being disadvantaged.

And Finally…..
“Officers acknowledge that a replacement stadium has the potential to deliver substantial benefits to the city as a whole. However, taking into account the relatively limited degree to which the stadium would be reliant on the funds generated by any granting of planning permission for this application (17.5 %), the tenuous link between the stadium proposals and the extensive harm that would result from the proposed supermarket, officers conclude that its value as “enabling development” would not outweigh the extensive harm that would be caused. Therefore officers recommend that this application should be refused.”

Thanks

At the meeting of campaigners earlier in the week, it was decided that if the application was withdrawn or refused BERATE would disband, to allow the residents and club time and room to engage fully on the new ideas for development at Ashton Gate.

The campaigners take little credit for the withdrawl of the application, but we have succeeded in our efforts to enpower the residents to engage fully in developments that affect their quality of life.

We strongly advise both the club and Sainsburys to make every effort at more meaningful engagement and consultation during the development of their plans for the future of Ashton Gate, and to ensure that, issues such as the fate of the Winterstoke road site, traffic management, opening hours and retail impacts are discussed from the start rather than being ignored.

We cannot guarantee that any new application will not attract opposition from residents, as we do not, and have never claimed to speak for everyone, but people will have to make up their own minds on reading the details of the application and decide if they think the impacts will be less, the same or more. For those who want to continue engaement on planning issues, the GReater Bedminster Community Partnership have set up an eforum, which can be found at:

http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/bemmy-forum

We would like to thank everyone who has supported the campaign with time, good will and contributions.

Given no changes to the status of the current planning application then as yet, there has been no material change in circumstances.

It appears from press reports that the current discussions include a proposal for re-locating the existing Sainsburys store on Winterstoke Road and the building of a larger store, with the existing site given over to housing.

This would necessitate a new planning application or applications with new retail, environment and traffic assessments.

Until such time as these details, and the fate of the existing Winterstoke Road site are confirmed, we are unable to comment on their suitability.

If any new application along the lines of those discussed is to be submitted, we strongly advise the club and Sainsburys to consult fully with residents and the wider community on the details before making their application.

Until the current application is withdrawn, we continue to urge residents and opponents of a new store to continue to object. We will post details of how to submit statements for the planning committee meeting on the 11th November shortly.

http://bit.ly/4rnDkO

Anti-Tesco Group will keep fighting Tesco planning application until rumours of Sainsburys deal is confirmed and existing planning application withdrawn

The EP headline this morning states “Anti-Tesco Group will keep fighting Bristol City Stadium” is inaccurate.

For the avoidance of doubt in case you are confused by the EP headline, BERATE are not fighting the NEW stadium plan. This has always and remains a seperate issue with many people supportive of the new stadium but objecting to the plan for a tesco store.

We are waiting to hear until the rumours about a Sainsburys deal with the club are confirmed and the existing planning application is withdrawn before deciding what position to take on it.

The existing application for a Tesco has not currently been withdrawn, and the planning and development committee meeting is planned for the 11th November. We do not know at this stage if the existing application will be determined there, or if it will be withdrawn.

We have asked the EP to change to a more accurate headline.

We would like to thank Dawn Primarolo MP (DP Labour), Mark Wright (MW Liberal Democrats), Mark Lloyd Davies (MLD Conservatives) and Charlie Bolton (CB Green) all four for taking the time to respond to allow constituents to see their views about this contentious issue

Opening words:
Mark Wright submitted the following opening statement to his response:

I reply in response to your questions in the letter below. I must point out to start with that the following opinions are entirely my personal opinions and are put in my capacity as PPC for Bristol South. They are not the opinions of the Council or the Cabinet. I would also point out for legal purposes that I have not pre-judged any Cabinet decisions that may follow on matters relating to this, and am still open to persuasion on all the key arguments. The decision on the planning application is the responsibility of the DC committee who act impartially.

Answers to numbered questions:

1. Do you support or object to the proposals for a new superstore development at Ashton Gate Stadium, and on what grounds do you reach your view?

CB: I object. It isn’t needed. It will damage local trade. It is a traffic nightmare. It will cause local pollution. It is unsustainable. It is exactly the wrong way to go in terms of producing a sustainable economy, where much more focus needs to be given to local production for local needs and promoting (not destroying) local small business.

MLD: I am supportive of the ambitions of Bristol City Football Club, but strongly object to the automatic assumption that these plans can only be fulfilled if Tesco is shoehorned in as a new superstore at Ashton Gate Stadium.

MW: I am very worried about the knock on effects of a new superstore at Ashton Gate, in particular the detrimental effect it could have on the viability of nearby retail areas of North Street. There are still different possibilities for superstores on this site, and they could have quite different knock on effects to the local area. My personal opinion is that having competing brand superstores in the area would probably be more detrimental to the wider retail market than just one brand because of the increased likelihood of aggressive pricing strategies.

DP: I would prefer to see housing on the Ashton Gate site, or a sustainable mixed development.

2. Do you accept or reject the conclusions of the independent assessment of the retail need/impact undertaken on behalf of Bristol City Council about the failure to demonstrate need and likely impacts of the development on other parts of Bedminster?

DP: I do not believe that there is a shortage of supermarkets in the area. North Street is close to Sainsbury’s at Winterstoke Road and ASDA on Bedminster Parade. In addition, Aldi is on North Street itself, along with McColls and a Tesco Express.

MW: The independent assessment of the retail need/impact looks sound to me, and I accept it.

MLD: I accept the conclusions of the report. In terms of retail need there is already a vibrant trading North Street, two superstores (ASDA and Sainsburys), an ALDI, LIDL and two Tesco Expresses in the Bedminster and Southville area. I fail to understand why the local area needs a third superstore.

CB:Yes, I accept the conclusions

3. Do you accept or reject i. The submission by the applicant that the new superstore development is a legitimate “enabling” development for the new stadium proposal and ii. That a new superstore is the only viable development that can fund a new stadium and that no other alternatives are available?

MLD: In respect to both points I am not convinced that the only option for a new stadium is the selling of Ashton Gate Stadium to Tesco. Tesco, after all, are an effective commercial operator and are unlikely to be just giving money away. With the right political will and support, I am optimistic that alternative commercial routes are open to Bristol City Football Club (BCFC). However, I advise local residents and campaigners to also come forth with other viable ideas to support BCFC.

MW: i) This is really a question for planning lawyers to argue over, and I understand that they are indeed doing that. Using an enabling development in this way would certainly be a novel move. I am hoping that more legal advice on this subject will be coming in the very near future, because it is a critical issue.
ii) It appears to me that following funding alternatives are business decisions. Without seeing inside the accounts of BCFC there is no way for me to know the underlying situation.

DP: i.) This is a matter for the Development Control Committee.
ii.) Bristol City Football Club has made the judgement that selling the land for retail space will give them most value for their land. I am sure they would accept a better offer if it were made.

CB: I have seen no detailed information on the financing of the stadium, but it is obvious to me that there are alternative stadiums and alternative financing possibilities which would mean the anser has to be that there must be other ways of doing it

4. Given an option, what type of development would you like to see at Ashton Gate, taking into account that 20% of the site is owned as a public asset by BCC?

MW: The current Local Plan allocates this site for future housing provision and mixed-use development. Because of the housing shortage I am a strong supporter of new housing wherever possible, and my preference for this site would be likewise

DP: Social housing with affordable housing available to buy.

MLD: I would need to give this a lot of thought, but affordable housing with a community hall, educational library etc., are initial thoughts. However, commercial viability for Bristol City Football Club is also very important.

CB: The more I think about it, the more I think that it is vital to preserve the amount of green space in the city. If green space is lost to the stadium development, it should be replaced elsewhere. Ashton Gate would be one such possibility. In terms of climate change, the existence of green space is going to become hugely important in order to allow cities to adapt, both in terms of cooling the city, and in terms of a place to capture rain (there will be many more extreme weather events, such as flash flooding). I happen to think the proposed stadium is in a bad place, too, mind. I am also aware, of course, of Greville Smythe Park being nearby.

In practice, we don’t get to choose what goes there, only to support or oppose a particular planning application. I’d be happy for it to remain as a football ground, and would consider other options eg housing on their merits

5. Do you think that the level and quality of the pre-application consultation as described in the Statement of Community involvement was sufficient for a development of this scale?

DP: I understand that the distribution of pre application information was patchy, which is not acceptable. Vehicle entrance from Ashton Road emerged after the pre-application consultation. I find it difficult to believe that local people clamoured for an entrance for cars on a residential road next to a park.

MW: I don’t think anyone would argue with the suggestion that the deadlines imposed by the World Cup bid has meant that many procedures have been moved through faster than normal and faster than would have been liked. I would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive pre-application consultation for the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). But having said that, in my planning experience I don’t think I have ever seen a pre-application SCI that was as extensive as desired, and this continues to be a considerable problem for the planning industry as a whole.

MLD: I think it could have been more extensive.

CB: I actually think SCIs will be used by developers to get what information suits them. They control the process, which will therefore be partial. I probably wouldn’t place too much weight on them myself.

Final words were submitted by:

MW: I would finally say that I fully support the principle of securing a regional football/sports stadium in Bristol, and I also support the goal of winning the World Cup bid and bringing the 2018 event to Bristol.

MLD: At a recent residents’ meeting in Southville I publicly made clear my opposition to the Tesco superstore as the automatic choice at Ashton Gate because we already have a vibrant North Street, Sainsbury, ASDA, Aldi and Lidl and two Tesco Express. I am supportive of the ambitions of Bristol City Football Club, but ask them to think again about shoehorning in a Tesco superstore. I am writing to the Council to make clear my objection and have already voiced my concern to the British Retail Consortium.

The campaign will be discussing the implications of all this early next week.

The representative body of the Church of England in Bedminster, known as
the Bedminster Parochial Church Council (BPCC), has written to Bristol
City Council to lodge a formal objection to the proposal.

The letter says Bristol City is acting “irresponsibly” towards the
community that has hosted it for so long, and is only interested in
money, not in the well being of people in Bedminster and Ashton.

It likens the money the club expects to receive from Tesco to the thirty
pieces of silver Judas received for betraying Jesus Christ.

In common with Berate, BPCC believes a Tesco superstore will lead to the
closure of local shops on North St, will create traffic and noise for
nearby residents and will generate pollution near Greville Smyth Park.

**************************************

The objection letter in full:-

As the representative body of the Church of England parish of Bedminster, we wish to register our objection to the proposed development of a superstore on the site of Ashton Gate stadium, should the club be successful in its application to build a new stadium on a green field site in Ashton Vale, or at some other location. This is on the following grounds –

1. The Impact on the Community
There is no need for a superstore, as the area is already very well supplied with shops. A superstore would undermine existing businesses, with the small shops in nearby North Street being particularly vulnerable. The North Street shops are a major factor in giving the area a strong sense of community. Any new jobs resulting from a superstore development would not compensate for the loss of jobs from other businesses. It would be much better for the site to be used for a development which is primarily housing, but possibly with some additional leisure and workspace/ small retail facilities. More people living in the area would add to the money flowing into the local economy. Money spent in the North Street shops very largely stays in the local economy, but the money spent in a Tesco or other superstore will not.

2. The Impact on the Environment
The building of a superstore with the associated very large car park would encourage the use of cars and there would be an increase in traffic from customer vehicles and delivery lorries, with resultant air and noise pollution. This is in an area which already suffers from regular traffic jams. If the new stadium is built in Ashton Vale, then on match days this will compound the problems even more. There will be considerable noise and light pollution as a result of the 24 hour nature of the proposed store, in respect to deliveries and customers using the store and associated petrol station.
The North Street shops are far more likely to have local suppliers. Therefore the number of food miles associated with their produce will be less than with Tesco or other superstore and the local economy benefited.
The proposal will increase traffic in what is a designate school route for children walking or cycling to Ashton Park School, with the associated increase risk of injury from accidents and the adverse affects of traffic fumes.

3. The Linking of Proposals
The proposals for the Ashton Gate superstore and Ashton Vale stadium should be dealt with separately, each dealt with on its own merit. It would be a very serious business if Bedminster suffered and economic and community decline, because it was put forward that the superstore at Ashton Gate is the only way in which a new stadium could be built. While we bear no ill will to Bristol City Football Club, and indeed many members of our parish are Bristol City supporters, we believe that the club is not displaying a proper sense of responsibility to the community which has hosted it for many years.
It does seem that the only real interest of the football club in this proposal is money and the reputed £20M which Tesco is offering for the site could be seen as equating to 30 pieces of silver.
We ask that the Council will not grant permission for a superstore to be built at Ashton Gate.

Bedminster Parochial Church Council