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.