Phased Development Changes Conditions

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

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.