Still Waiting and Watching

It has been a very long time since there has been significant activity associated with the proposed commercial, residential and stadium development at the Memorial Ground. It has also been a very long time since Rovers' board have made any meaningful announcements about the progress or lack thereof. The only frequent activity seems to be the shuffling of shares and directors in the web of companies associated with the club, its supporters, and the stadium.

Nick Higgs has suggested that he will make an announcement on the matter in July, HorfieldROSE will be listening with interest. What can there be to announce?

They don't appear to be any closer to discharging the conditions associated with the planning permission, although they have had their agents send a few documents to the council.

There are the frequently alluded to "interested parties" in secret negotiations with deals on the verge of being brokered. We all knew about Opal's involvement fairly early on, and this is a legitimate long term deal not some dodgy dealing, so why should this all be so hush hush?

There has been a bit of surveying around the stadium entrances with a possible view to changing the Filton Avenue Gloucester Road junction. Changing the access isn't needed unless they intend to change the plans which would require yet another application.

The idea of a phased development, which is contrary to the granted planning permission has not been formally presented to the council and would require yet another application.

Unite, one of the bigger student accommodation companies has been discounting rents on its Bristol properties which suggests that market is even more competitive than a few years ago. Any other kind of accommodation at the stadium site, would require a new application and was explicitly ruled out because of the car ownership restrictions.

The existing planning permission technically expires on 16th November 2011. Although this could potentially be extended, much has changed since permission was granted and the council is not obliged to extend it if they deem the situation has changed significantly,

Or maybe the board are just stalling to try and sell as many season tickets as possible before ruling out any progress on the plans (sales are down significantly and they have extended the 5% discount period).

We will all have to wait to hear.

More Developments More Student Accommodation

The primary reason HorfieldROSE objects to the proposed commercial, residential and stadium development at the Memorial ground is because of the adverse impacts on local amenity including an increase of congestion and pollution.

At the time of the applications we have pointed to the fact that the Memorial Ground development was only one of many factors putting increased pressure on the general area and the A38 Gloucester Road arterial route. The redevelopment of hundreds of homes along Filton Avenue were being completed at the time and have increased traffic. The then proposed super-hospital at Southmead has now been given planning permission. There have been a vast number of new housing units built along Ashley Down Road over the last couple of years adjacent to the Brunel College campus. And now the Gloucester County Cricket Club (GCCC) which is less than half a mile from Memorial Ground has been granted planning permission for expansion and the inclusion of yet more student accommodation.

Because the Memorial Ground development has not started, the area has been spared its impacts so far. But should Rovers' board ever find financiers for their white elephant, the area can expect daily traffic from 550 students, office workers, visitors to the conference centre in addition to potentially increased attendance at matches.

The issue of student accommodation is a problem for two reasons. First, the Memorial Ground student accomodation will raise percentage of non-family households to 32% which is well above the city average and well above the targets set in the council's own local plan. The second, is that nobody seriously believes that students can be discouraged from bringing their cars into the area. The idea that this can be enforced legally is questionable and there is little incentive for whoever runs the accommodation to police or enforce this.

The decision to ignore this issue when granting permission for the developments at the Memorial Ground has set a bad precedent. In 2008 a development in Fishponds which included "25 student cluster flats" was refused permission by Bristol City Council as follows:

The proposed development fails to cater for the needs of vehicles associated with a student (residential) scheme of this scale and in this location. The lack of on-site car parking would lead to increased pressure for on-street car parking to the detriment of residential amenity and highway safety. The proposed use is therefore considered to be contrary to polices M1 (iv), B8 and H10 of the adopted Bristol Local Plan (December 1997), policies M1 (iv), B8 and H10 of the Proposed Alterations to the Bristol Local Plan First Deposit (Draft for Consultation) (February 2003), and the advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: 'Transport' (2001).

However the developer appealed and the refusal was overturned because

The Council have already allowed student accommodations at the Mem with a car ownership restriction to be written into the student tenancy agreement, then there is no justification to refuse other student accommodation developments due to increased parking problems, when similar tenancy agreements can be put in place.

Now with approval of the GCCC plans we have seen yet another block of student flats approved. This potentially further distorts the makeup of the population in the ward, increase demands on transport and other facilities in the area and will affect many of the same streets and residents as the Memorial Ground developments.

HorfieldROSE is not fighting the Gloucestershire County Cricket Club application, other groups and individuals are doing that. But we do note that that application can only make the circumstances in which the Memorial Ground might be expanded even worse than when planning permission was granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.