Bristol City Council's tricky pick with stadium project
THE handful of councillors who decide the fate of the proposed Sainsbury's superstore at Ashton Gate next week could put the council in a difficult position if they refuse to give consent.
That's because a refusal would open the door to the original scheme – turned down by the council last summer – being built instead.
In a twist which highlights the complications of the planning process, a refusal would force Sainsbury's arm to press ahead with an appeal on its original plan.
A planning inquiry has already been pencilled in to be held at the Council House in May if consent is not given on Wednesday night.
Sainsbury's believes it has a very strong case to win the appeal, which could land the council with a massive bill for compensation.
An independent planning consultant told the Evening Post as long ago as last August that it would be "a struggle" for the council to defend its refusal at an inquiry.
Indeed, council staff could find themselves with the task of arguing against the scheme at the inquiry – yet officers supported it with recommendation for approval in July.
The city council gave these reasons for refusal to the original scheme:
■ The proposed development would be an unsustainable form of development by virtue of the scale of additional retail floorspace proposed in an out-of-centre location
■ Due to its scale and location, the development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic on the highway network, would increase the need to travel and would reinforce car dependency
■ The application fails to demonstrate that the proposals would not be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the existing town centres at North Street and East Street.
Councillors normally refuse permission on grounds of policy but in this case, they used reasons relating to professional engineering and highway discipline.
In other words, it would be much easier to mount an appeal against reasons which can be measured mathematically in precise detail.
The proposed store is technically classified as "out of town" but it fails to meet this test by a mere 530 metres (579 yards) and would be located at the nearest possible site to the town centre (i.e. North Street).
The new store has passed what is known as the sequential test – in other words, everyone agrees there's no other site where it could be built.
Sainsbury's insists that although there would be an increase in traffic, it would not be "unacceptable".
The supermarket chain says its statistics show that Winterstoke Road would pass its "ice-cream test".This is the idea that shoppers to the new store would be put off if they got caught in traffic jams and their tubs of ice-cream melted before they arrived back home. And Sainsbury's says it is not in its interests to see this happen.
By their nature, supermarkets are car dependent because it is much easier to carry your weekly shop in a vehicle than carrying it on a bus or using a bicycle.
Even so, Sainsbury's would not be building the biggest car park possible and it is providing a more comprehensive bus service as well as installing more cycle parking and better pedestrian access.
It would also carry out road improvements to Winterstoke Road which would include the removal of the roundabout at the access to the existing store and creating a new lane for traffic into the new store.
It is worth noting that in its latest report which goes before councillors next week, the planning officers say they don't believe that traffic is an issue to worry about.
Indeed, they have ditched the grounds for refusal on the original scheme as their reasons to turn down the revised plan.
Sainsbury's is offering a package of measures worth £362,500 over five years to help existing traders in North Street and East Street.
This package, yet to be agreed, includes the possibility of a loyalty card or vouchers for regular shoppers in these streets. There might be an environmental warden who would carry out simple repairs, deal with graffiti and report damage.
This package would not be finalised until there was agreement with the community on the best way to spend the money.
The Sainsbury's store is known in planning as an "enabling development" which means it needs to be built in order for the proposed £92 million stadium at Ashton Vale to go ahead. The club is adamant that it must realise the most it can from Ashton Gate in order to help fund the stadium project.
27 Comments
View all
by Anthony Butcher, Long Ashton
Monday, February 28 2011, 12:36AM
“@Dog Walker
So what are those fans doing now then? The club should definitely try to get some spots in the Long Ashton Park and Ride - they can walk from there.”
by MM, Still Walking
Sunday, February 27 2011, 7:32PM
“Anthony. The parking claims were made at the planning meeting. There must be minutes, or you can watch the webcast on the BCC site. At the time you could park at this site and be bussed to Ashton Gate for games. Not any more!”
by Anthony Butcher, Long Ashton
Sunday, February 27 2011, 7:01PM
“@Dog Walker,
It would be a long walk from my house, although I have promised a spot on the drive to a friend who attends matches regularly.
One new fact I hadn't seen before is that the TVG inspector was appointed by Bristol City Council, not the Ashton Vale Heritage group - I am not sure if anyone else is under that misconception too.
Marathon Man, do you have a link for the South Liberty Lane info please - that could be quite important.”
by Dog Walker, Bristol
Sunday, February 27 2011, 1:07PM
“Anthony - may I suggest renting out your driveway for fans to park in on match days to raise a few quid (it is what I do already)...
Stillwaters - I have all the facts I need regarding the TVG, thanks anyway. Even if one accepts that the people gave 100% accurate evidence, the whole thing will hinge on significance as the law in the area is highly interpretative.
Personally I just look at Google maps and find the following:
1) 42 acre village green with 3 people on it - 2 of them on a footpath so they don't actually count as "use" for the application
2) Every other green space in Bristol - lots of people out enjoying themselves, walking their dogs, having picnics, getting drunk etc
That said I walk my dog there...”
by Marathon Man, Walking to the new stadium
Sunday, February 27 2011, 11:19AM
“Anthony. The town center refers to the Bedminster town center which is East St. The 530 meters, I have no idea what that means. As for the travel plan, BCFC claimed parking for 1,000 cars in South Liberty Lane. This site is now back in the hands of British Rail (if thats what they are still called) and used by them. It is no longer available as a car park. The overall parking is far short of what will be needed. Anybody without a space next to the stadium, of which there will be very few once you take out all the players, friends of, VIP's etc. and not able to park in Ashton Vale, Long Ashton, the A370 or the Flyover, are going to find they have a long walk to the ground. Few seem to realise this!”
by Still Waters, South Bristol
Sunday, February 27 2011, 12:52AM
“@ Dog Walker
The truth is, the TVG is not spurious at all. That's why a qualified lawyer found no holes in the case. If it was spurious, wouldn't you expect a lawyer with many years experience to see through a 'pack of lies'?
Would you like to know the full story of the the TVG application assessment, because I know you aren't aware of the the full story.”
by Still Waters, South Bristol
Saturday, February 26 2011, 10:59PM
“I suspect the 'current' council are trying to defer the decisions until after elections - they certainly like to sit on things that might upset the electorate so far!
That said, there is little they can do regarding the TVG decision, and we all know they'll choose the route that will minimise the political flack.
However, because (as usual) they aren't fully aware of the situation, events in due course will trip them up even further.
Watch this space.
(It's more interesting than the average BEP Stadium propaganda, or watching paint dry)”
by Dog Walker, Bristol
Saturday, February 26 2011, 8:27PM
“"Normally the BEP would take the town green issue very seriously, rather than seeking to undermine it"
Come on Anthony, The BEP, you, and I know that the TVG is a spurious notion. I have given you credit for not harping on about it (or actively supporting it) although obviously you would be happy if it was granted, and it suits you not to challenge it.
Months ago I posted that it is all academic and a decision just needs to be made. There is nothing worse than limbo. Anyone who has ever promoted themselves, their product, or their business knows that the biggest challenge is getting a decision or at least a commitment to make a decision within a certain timeframe.
BCC need to get on with this. That said, what on earth will BEPP write about once that happens?”
by Anthony Butcher, Long Ashton
Saturday, February 26 2011, 8:13PM
“@Dog Walker,
I tried to look up a definition of 'out of town' but couldn't find anything. I presume that it is simply the distance from the city centre.
Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that response document before. Even if we accept that asking different questions results in BCFC having double the number of car passengers compared to the national average (stretches credibility), the plan still doesn't work. That's the worrying thing - their numbers just don't add up, and there is absolutely nothing in place for when the stadium would receive capacity crowds. It is the fans who will suffer, every bit as much as the locals.
As for my 'politician's comment' I was merely highlighting the discrepancy in coverage. Normally the BEP would take the town green issue very seriously, rather than seeking to undermine it.”
by Dog Walker, Bristol
Saturday, February 26 2011, 7:38PM
“Call me thick, but I don't understand this statement:
"The proposed store is technically classified as "out of town" but it fails to meet this test by a mere 530 metres"
The store is out of town but it isn't?
Anthony, regarding the travel plans, have a look here: http://bit.ly/dZ2yHf which makes a lot of sense.
Just because a group fights for green space in general doesn't mean that their view must apply to every single green bit of land. That is very much a politician's comment and I thought better of you :)
I like green spaces but believe that as a city expands choices have to be made. I believe you know my opinion on the outdated notion that is greenbelt land - nonsensical.
@Jules is spot on though - a decision should have been made by now. Part of me think that this is being put off til after he local elections. I am starting to feel that even if everything is given permission the time will have passed and it won't go ahead anyway.”