Sainsbury's have now got round to revealing details of their proposed store for Ashton Gate. For comparison here is the previous application;
So what's different? Well......it's orange. And it is much bigger, in fact the new store is big enough to be two stores, for example;
Existing Sainsbury's = 5,126 sq metres
Existing Asda = 4,733 sq metres
Total Floorspace = 9,859 sq metres
New Sainsbury's = 9,300 sq metres
But maybe that's the cunning plan (Baldrick is a City fan after all), maybe they think that if they say it's not a new store just a relocation of an existing store that the planners won't notice how big it is, and will change their mind about their conclusion stated in the officer's report (pdf) for the withdrawn Tesco proposal that "no need has been identified for the proposed store, and the locality of the site is already very well served for convenience shopping with two large superstores located within a mile of the site and numerous other smaller stores". Shame it will be bright orange or will orange be rebranded as Sainsburys Red ready for next seasons new kit?
They will of course be building houses and workspaces on the old Sainsbury's site which will look like this:
Oops, my mistake. That's George Ferguson's proposal for Ashton Gate.Building houses and workspaces apparently won't work at Ashton Gate, it will only work at the current Sainsbury's site 500 metres away because it obviously makes sense to knock down a stadium to build a new supermarket and then knock down the old supermarket to build houses - that is much more sensible and sustainable then just knocking down the stadium and building the houses whilst keeping the existing store. Here is the mixed used development of the type that won't work at Ashton Gate;
The real reason why mixed use won't work at Ashton Gate is that Bristol City FC need to sell Ashton Gate for £20m as a supermarket as enabling development to fund the new stadium (apparently BCFC didn't consider to ask Sainsbury's how much they'd be willing to pay to NOT have a rival supermarket there, and then for the club to invest that in developing Ashton Gate themselves as mixed use). The problem here is that the planners have already said "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" So the store will have to be approved on its own merits as a superstore.
Which brings us back to whether planners (and the members of the planning committee) will perform an abrupt U-turn and approve a superstore that, to quote the BBC will, at 9,300 square metres "be larger than Asda at Cribbs Causeway which, when it was built 10 years ago, was the biggest supermarket in Europe" even though they have already said in regard to the earlier Tesco application that "no need has been demonstrated for additional convenience or comparison retail floorspace, either in qualitative or quantative terms" and that Bedminster 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 and its vitality and viability would be further undermined."
It may well be that the most important document in all this is the one referred to in the Officer's Report for the previous application;
"The Council has commissioned a report to assess the existing centres in South Bristol, and the potential for the creation of a new or improved centre or centres. This will be used to develop the retail strategy for South Bristol and inform the further development of draft Core Strategy policy BCS 1, but this will not be completed until late November 2009 after the application has been considered by Committee."
If that report concludes that additonal retail floorspace in the Bedminster/Southville/Ashton Gate area can be provided without affecting those areas where "the Council have identified a disparity of retail provision across the south of the city, with many disadvantaged communities further to the south being poorly served in terms of access to facilities" then planners may feel that they have reason to perform a u-turn. Let's hope however, that they don't make the mistake of "providing additional retail capacity in advance of an identified need" in such a way that "the proposals may fetter opportunities for the Council to intervene in the market and provide a new or improved retail centre or centres to address these issues of deprivation" in other parts of south Bristol.
It would be embarrassing for the council if, in their efforts to promote the regeneration of South Bristol, they succeeded in competely undermining their efforts to truly regenerate South Bristol.
If you are a motorist who lives in Long Ashton, any of the towns on the A370, Ashton, Ashton Vale,Bedminster Down, Bedminster, Highridge, Withywood, Hartcliffe and Bishopsworth, at some time, probably quite frequently,you will use Winterstoke Road and the Flyover. Now think of the prospects. New supermarket with 850 car parking spaces, a stadium for 30,000 supporters, a planning application for 9,500 new homes,The Council touting for the new Arena, hundreds of new homes on the old supermarket site, and all dependant on Winterstoke Road and The Flyover for access. Surely, until an alternative option is in place, this is a recipe for chaos. The point i'm making is that there are far more people affected by these plans than those living on the doorstep, and it could end up with those the area is out to attract actually avoiding the place!
ReplyDeleteHi Tony
ReplyDeleteI've just managed to stay awake while reading your mischievous ramblings.
The reason both parties want to move is because they want to increase their customer base.
This is not possible for Sainsbury's at the present site and not possible for city at their present site, whilst having ambitions to host bigger events in a new stadium.
Please let's not have the same old arguments again.
Rich
Rich says.....
ReplyDelete"The reason both parties want to move is because they want to increase their customer base"
And the reason why we have a planning process is to ensure that the "wants" of developers are balanced with the "needs" of other interested parties.
"This is not possible for Sainsbury's at the present site"
Why not? Forget for the moment that planning officers have already accepted that no demand has been demonstrated for the additional retail floorspace, what are the reasons why Sainsbury cannot expand their existing store? Or do you feel that you simply saying it can't be done should be enough to convince everybody else to accept it as fact? If so, you shouldn't have bothered to stay awake.....
As for the rest of your comments, they are exactly the same old arguments that you say you don't want to repeat so I won't either, especially as they have already been assessed and dismissed by planning officers in terms of their relevance to the granting of permission for a superstore at Ashton Gate when they considered the previous application and recommended its refusal.
Tony
ReplyDeleteYou have dismissed my statements about why the two parties want to move, fair enough you are entitled to that opinion.
Could you offer a reason why both parties want to relocate.
You question why it is not possible to build a bigger store at Sainsbury's present site.
I believe they have tried on a couple of occasions to expand and have been knocked back by the planners because of the physical restraints of the site, obviously if they only wanted a small increase in size it might be possible but it wouldn't meet their requirements?
I am told that they are over trading and need to increase the shop floorspace and storage areas, if you have ever been there you would know of the frequency of a full car park and congested store.
You misrepresent things to back up your case,
such as referring to my comments in the plural, I have only made one comment which has been repeated elsewhere and that comment about a new stadium has categorically not been dismissed by the planners.
You say that the planners recommended the Tesco plans for refusal, that is a misrepresentation again.
The planners made a draft report which at the time was going to recommend it for refusal.
That draft report did not include revised transport plans and only took into account the representations from the public that were registered at the time of the draft report, it did not include a petition in favour of the scheme of some 5,000 signatures, so this Draft report was inconclusive, the officers did not have the relevant information to make a recommendation and is irrelevant.
You refer to it as a refusal which is another misrepresentation of the facts.
If as you say the planning officers have recognised that there is no demand for more retail space in south Bristol, then where is the problem? it's their money they're investing, so let them waste it.
So Tony, as you say the planning process is there to process the wants of the developer and the needs of other interested parties, my "wants" are to see my club achieve success in it's plans for the future, as an interested party, what are your "needs" in this issue being as you are a resident of South Gloucestershire?
Cheers
Rich
Isn't it good how wants and needs are portrayed differently depending on who it is wanting and needing, just an observation though.
Rich, I am often bemused by your insistence on absolute accuracy in those with differing views to your own whilst you are more than happy to make broad, sweeping generalisations in support of your own views.
ReplyDelete"You misrepresent things to back up your case, such as referring to my comments in the plural"
Somehow I doubt that failing to correct a reference to “comments” after rewriting a quick response amounts to a particularly devastating misrepresentation of your case.
"You have dismissed my statements about why the two parties want to move"
No, I did not and you are now the one guilty of misrepresentation. I made no comment on the veracity of your reasoning for why the two organisations wish to expand - it is quite clearly because they want to attract more customers. What I said was "And the reason why we have a planning process is to ensure that the 'wants' of developers are balanced with the 'needs' of other interested parties" - highlighting that the planning process is not designed to merely consider a developers desire for business expansion in isolation, it is also there to consider the wider impact of those aspirations on others.
The arguments about whether City actually “need” to build a new stadium as opposed to “want” to build is one of those old arguments that you don’t want to have again but it is indeed, as you say, interesting how “needs” and “wants” are often used interchangeably, hence why I put those terms in quotation marks. Whether Sainsburys “need” to expand their existing store is another area of debate. The planning officers have interpreted the data as not demonstrating a need for expansion referring to a shopping survey that showed almost 77% of those living in the area closest to the existing Sainsbury responding that they had nothing to dislike about their shopping destination, concluding that “this is strong evidence to suggest that the majority of shoppers using these stores are satisfied with their experience.”
You have also said that your “comment about a new stadium has categorically not been dismissed by the planners.”
Let me make myself clearer; as far as the new stadium is concerned it has "already been assessed and dismissed by planning officers in terms of ....relevance to the granting of permission for a superstore at Ashton Gate”.
The officer’s concluded in their report for the previous supermarket application that, in reference to the stadium: “officers conclude that its value as “enabling development” would not outweigh the extensive harm that would be caused”. So whether or not City "want" or "need" a new stadium, the conclusion was that this should have no bearing on the decision to grant or refuse planning permission for a proposed superstore.
Finally you ask what my "needs" in this issue are as a resident of South Gloucestershire?
As a South Glos resident, just like a substantial proportion of those who signed your e-petition in support of a superstore at Ashton Gate, I would say that my immediate “needs” are minimal in respect of a proposal for a supermarket at Ashton Gate.
However, as a member of a Bristol family who was born and brought up in south Bristol with several family members who live much closer to the proposed development than you do in Knowle, family members who will have to co-exist with any disbenefits as well as any benefits of any proposed development, my “wants” are that whatever decision is made is based on independently assessed factual evidence looking at both short-term and longer term issues and not overly-influenced by matters such as who can shout the loudest or get the best press coverage.
Oh My God. You put an unnecessary apostrophe in one sentence: "The officer’s concluded...". I think it's pretty clear from that that everything you say should be utterly discounted and BCFC should be able to do what they like.
ReplyDeleteHi tony
ReplyDeleteI am even more bemused than you that you are bemused by my insistence on accuracy when we have hardly had any correspondence to date, my insistance as I pointed out, was that you implied I made more comments than I actally did. I am also bemused by the amount of words used by yourself to say so little, you claim I make broad sweeping statements and generalisations, please enlighten me to these.
These are all derogatory comments made by you in an attempt to gain the moral high ground, which is quite amazing when it comes from someone suggesting that BCFC try to obtain monies from Sainsbury's to stop a rival developing on Ashton gate, so you suggest bribery?
I did not say you misrepresented my case, I said you misrepresented the facts.
You did dismiss my comments when saying,
"by you saying it can't be done should be enough to convince everybody else to accept it's a fact? if so, you shouldn't have bothered to stay awake".
So no misrepresentation on my part.
The only misrepresentation is yours, when referring to planners refusing planning permission, which they have not done as regards Ashton gate.
As a member of a Bristol family brought up in south Bristol and actually living here, with members of my family living in Ashton gate much closer than you in Chipping sodbury, they and I feel they will benefit from the proposals for the whole of Ashton and south Bristol in general, I feel confident the relevant authorities will recognise that there are benefits, as indeed you do and give the relevant approvals.
At the end of the day both parties want to expand in their relevant market places. For some unknown reason you don't want them to, I can only speculate as to why that is.
The facts as I see them are, only a part of your argument to these plans is based on the ecological effects, yet you have created a vast amount of so called other reasons after delving so deeply for them, why the plans should not be approved, this leads me to believe it is for personal "needs" you oppose them.
Why do you oppose these plans so vehemently?
I await your next extensive misrepresentation of my comments and avoidance of answering a questions.
Rich
What a surprise,
ReplyDeletelosing the argument so he now goes for the ulterior motive angle
How pathetic!
Rich,
ReplyDeleteIt is quite obvious that you see what you want to see when reading my responses.
You say that I avoid your questions...well, as one example, you asked me what my "needs" in this issue are as a resident of South Glos?
I answered that question. Your problem appears to be that it wasn't the answer you wanted, and now you are apparently speculating on some other reason for my opposition to the plans.
Now I see, you are also attempting to revise what you've previously said on this thread......
You originally said "You have dismissed my statements about why the two parties want to move"
I pointed out that I had not and in doing so responded to another question of yours, so you have now rewritten your complaint to say that;
"You did dismiss my comments when saying, "by you saying it can't be done should be enough to convince everybody else to accept it's a fact?"
which, in fact, references a separate response questioning your unsupported statement that Sainsbury's couldn't expand at their existing site - only now have you linked the two separate references and therefore conflated the issue of why the parties want to move with the one of why one of the parties cannot expand at their existing site.
In response to your answer about why Sainsburys cannot expand at their existing site, I will merely point out that the two sites (Ashton Gate and the existing Sainsburys) are of a similar size, accessed from the same road and separated by just 500 meters – so it will be interesting to see how the physical restraints affecting one are resolved at the other to the satisfaction of planning officers and committee members.
Finally, it is ironic is it not that whilst accusing me of avoiding your questions, you have, for all your comments, accusations, and pedantry, still failed to address the issues raised in my initial post including;
That the size of the new store will involve adding retail floorspace almost as large as that provided by the existing Asda.
That no case has been made for a need for any additional retail floorspace in the area to the satisfaction of the planning officers.
That this lack of need applies in both qualitative and quantative terms
That the knocking down of one stadium to build another stadium 700 metres away to be part funded by the knocking down of a superstore to build another superstore 500 metres away is inherently unsustainable.
That the reason why a mixed used development at Ashton Gate is unacceptable to BCFC is purely for financial considerations related to the concept of the superstore being enabling development for the new stadium.
That the planning officers felt that the enabling development argument did not outweigh the extensive harm that would be caused by a superstore at Ashton Gate.
That the planning officers felt that a superstore at Ashton Gate would undermine the vitality and viability of Bedminster town centre.
That the provision of additional retail capacity in advance of need could undermine efforts to regenerate other parts of south Bristol that suffer greater levels of deprivation.
It is therefore, blindingly obvious why you want to believe that the draft officer’s report would have been substantially altered in the short time between its initial publication and the date of the scheduled committee meeting that would have decided the previous superstore application. You refer to an additional transport plan but this affects none of the conclusions made above which are not dependent on transportation issues, and you refer to 5,000 signatures on a petition (which would be added to the 8,000 or already received).
To use a football analogy your expectations that the draft officers report would have been dramatically rewritten based on those later additions is a bit like……well, a bit like being 6-0 down at home with injury time about to start and believing that two late goals might alter the overall result.
Hi Tony
ReplyDeleteJust saying that I haven't answered a question or that you have answered a question doesn't mean it's true.
It is obvious you take what you want then twist my responses to mean what you want, answer a question that's not been asked because that's the one you can answer.
Let me explain in simple terms for you so you can understand.
The existing sainsbury site is considerably smaller than the Ashton gate site, even if you say it isn't, it has only one access route for vehicles, one for pedestrians and one for cyclists it is also further away from the main area of population of Greater Bedminster, with the added disadvantage of a major road isolating it from this area.
The Ashton gate site has four access routes for all modes of transport.
In the new plans there are provisions for two vehicle routes, four access routes for pedestrians and cyclists, the site is also closer to the main population areas, giving it easier access, this must be better for the movement of people to and from the new site as opposed to the existing site.
That is why they want to move to this site.
Now, no doubt you will claim this to be a sweeping statement, so be my guest if it so pleases you, I see things as they are.
They could not build the proposed store and parking on the present site because it is too small for what they "want" regarding their retail expansion.
That is a fact that cannot be explained away using figures taken from a report twelve years out of date when you refer to the retail needs of south Bristol.
Since that report was published in 1997 the retail needs of south Bristol have changed and there could possibly be less retail outlets serving south Bristol now than then, I know there certainly is in knowle, Knowle West, Bishopsworth, Ashton, Southville and Bedmister.
What we need is a new report, one which takes this into account plus the increased population and expected population growth, which again has changed dramatically since then.
The other statements you make about not proving the need for the store, refer to a previous application by Tesco, Sainsbury's may well prove that need.
You are again twisting things to make it sound like I expected the officers report to be substantially altered and the conclusions to be different. I said no such thing.
I said the report was inconclusive and was only a "Draft" report, this could have changed, with further information affecting the planners decision making regarding their recommendations, as such it could have been less decisive in it's conclusions, please note I used the words could and not believe.
As we all know the planners recommend things based on planning law, it is up to the committee to weigh up the bigger picture when making their decision.
Many recommendations by planners have been ignored by the committee making the decision, such as the recent one made by North Somerset.
So the Draft report conclusion could have been ignored by the committee, we don't know do we.
You quote a recent shopping survey about exiting shoppers as evidence partly substantiating your claims that no new store is needed. 77% of people that could be bothered to respond to the survey said they were happy with the existing shopping, so what, what does that prove, how many bothered to respond?
When analysing figures from petitions, it was found that over 90 percent of locals were not opposed to the planned store at Ashton gate.
I ask again, why are you so vehemently opposed to this scheme?
Using a football analogy, it's a bit like gloating over one of your rivals latest results, say losing 6 nil. Only to find your own team do a similar thing by losing 5 nil to an even lesser club.
Sally
I have always thought that Tony had an ulterior motive for his campaign, it's just starting to come out now.
So your comments are noted but considered pathetic.
Cheers
Rich
Sorry to break into this debate, but on the point of petition numbers Rich ,what you say is not correct.
ReplyDeleteWe know that just under 3000 people signed a petition against the store. We know that about 2500 of them were from Ashton, Bedminster and Southville.
We do not and cannot know whether the remaining population of those three wards opposed or did not oppose the store. We only know that they chose not to make their view known.
Saying that 90% of the local population did not oppose the store is playing fast and loose with the stats!
Back to your debate...
"I have always thought that Tony had an ulterior motive for his campaign, it's just starting to come out now."
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate, I'm intrigued... or are you just going to hide behind inuendo? I am interested what ulterior motives a self-employed builder promoting a building scheme and getting plenty of free publicity on the Bristol City FC website might think is driving somebody else to oppose the scheme.....
Rich, I am travelling due to work commitments so may not be able to respond over the next few days to any further comments until after the weekend.
ReplyDeleteMany of the objections raised by planning officers in their report are generic and thus unlikely to be resolved simply by changing the name of the retailer above the store, and as for comparing the size of the two sites mentioned - people are quite capable of using their own eyes and, helpfully, Sainsbury's provided a diagram on one of their exhibition boards allowing people to directly compare the two sites;
http://www.sainsburys-ashtongate.co.uk/exhibition-material
As for access, I think everybody is fully aware that the key point regarding access is that for road traffic from Winterstoke Road.
You refer to "using figures taken from a report twelve years out of date when you refer to the retail needs of south Bristol" and that "What we need is a new report".
Well, firstly a new report is being produced. I referred to it in my initial post at the top of this page. The fact that you appear to have not seen that reference tends, I think, to support my earlier comment that you only see what you want to see. I am told that the report will be available in the next month or so.
Secondly, the retail study that has been used by planning officers to assess the level of retail need in south Bristol was published by DTZ in 2007 not 1997, and its findings were largely supported by the DPDS study commissioned by planning officers to independently assess the retail study provided by NLP on behalf of Bristol City FC.
It is this last study by NLP that has so far been the only retail study to highlight a need for additional retail floorspace and thus a need for any new Tesco store, or, for that matter, any large-scale expansion by Sainsburys. It's conclusion that this demand existed was based substantially upon the results of the shopping survey that you have just referred to when you said "so what, what does that prove, how many bothered to respond?.” I think your comments neatly and succinctly, if inadvertently, sum up my own opinion about the calibre of the research conducted to support the retail assessment produced by NLP.
Regarding 6-0 and 5-0 results. Living in South Glos where, despite the numbers from this part of the world that signed your e-petition, several of my neighbours are Gasheads, I suspect that my appreciation for the efforts of Orient is considerably greater than your own. It is unfortunate however, that I am currently travelling to Cardiff to give the second part of a presentation having earlier reminded my Welsh attendees of Baahdiff's abysmal record at AG.
As for "ulterior motives", not sure what you think these are or how they are becoming clearer. But please feel free to indulge any conspiracy fantasies you may have. If you consider a recommendation to refuse planning permission as "inconclusive", I am sure that your speculations will be equally "creative" in this area.
Hi tony
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out that I could compare the two sites, I have previously done that and instantly saw that the Ashton gate site is considerably larger.
You may be comparing the outlined site of the present sainsbury store with Ashton gate, this outlined site includes the roads and roundabouts on winterstoke road and the roads to UBM, these of course couldn't possibly be developed as they provide access to other units.
This and the proximity of the houses in Ashton drive ultimately prove a major restriction of the site, as I've previously stated.
I disagree with you about the main traffic issues, the opponents of this scheme constantly refer to the Ashton road entrance as their biggest concern. Another concern was the lack of pedestrian and cycling routes in the Tesco proposal, the Ashton gate site is infinitely better in this respect, as I've pointed out before.
As these points are now being ignored by the opponents, it makes one wonder if people are coming up with objections just for the sake of it
You missed my question about why you are so vehemently against this plan, perhaps you might care to answer.
You appear to use the shoppers survey to back your argument in one statement and then question the calibre of the same survey in another statement, you can't have it both ways.
As for the 2007 survey, I believe that the DTZ report was made using retail floor space figures taken from the Bristol local plan of 1997.
It's good that a new survey is taking place. This will no doubt include the revised population forecasts. At the time it forecast increases in population of 5 percent, taken from the ONS but in fact was then changed to 10 percent after the survey was published. This has since been increased again with an expected increase of nearly 40k by 2026 of which I believe 13k is forecast for south Bristol, equivalent to a town the size of Clevedon, and not including the south Bristol urban expansion.
With reference to numbers signing from south Glos, are they not allowed to support the proposals, just as you have opposed them?
I also will be unavailable for a few days but look forward to speaking again next week.
My fantasies do not include thoughts of you Tony.
I can't believe you are the same Tony Dyer that spoke in the first meeting of Berate at St Francis church hall, when claiming to be a city supporter. Perhaps I am wrong.
Cheers
Rich
Sally
ReplyDeleteWho is hiding behind innuendo now?
Should I forward my details to BCFC offering my services for the proposed stadium and supermarket plans?
I do have a drill, level, hammer and van which could prove invaluable for these jobs.
Perhaps a foreman position beckons me.
This free publicity I had, did it include my contact details for prospective customers?
I think you should join the real world.
Anonymous
Petition figures.
Over 400 of them were not from the area on the e petition.
I was told in discussions that there were about 1,200 on the paper petition and there was definitely only 1,072 on the e petition, of which 57% were from the area according to Tony's figures.
If the figure was close to 3,000 as you say and not inflated and I was generous with allowing say 70% of the signatures from the local community then it would equate to 2,100 which is only 10% of the local population as defined by Berate when referring to Bedminster and Southville as the area they represent.
So I am more correct than you.
Thanks whoever you are.
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDeleteYou've pretty much repeated what Anonymous said about the petition. Around 2,100-2,500 people from a local population of around 21-25,000 signed a petition against the supermarket proposal. I think you have both taken this as 'around 10%', which seems fair. Only you have gone a step further and extrapolated that 90% weren't against the proposal. That's the fast and loose bit.
I don't know how many 'locals' signed pro-petitions; call it 1,000 or 5% for the sake of argument. Could we therefore claim that 95% of locals aren't in favour of the proposal? That's what you've done. So Anonymous is more correct than you on this point.
Carry on.
Ali R
Rich Just for information on population growth, as I understand it. Land Trust have applied for planning permission to build a new town, likened to the size of Clevedon, which they call Ashton Park, and will be 9,500 new homes. Bristol University have applied to build 1,000 new homes on what was the old Research Centre. In total this makes about 25,000 new people. This is all on Green Belt land so is dependant on The Governments Regional Spacial Strategy being passed. At present it is stalled by legal objections. The Tories say that they will scrap it if they come to power. Both North Somerset and Bristol City Councils oppose these developments and will mount there own legal challenges if the Government tries to force the RSS on them! As you can see, it would be very difficult to make any assessment of future population growth untill this is settled. My fist game at Ashton Gate... City v Fulham John Atyeo v Johnny Haines. Lucky enough to be one of the 39,000 plus to see Sir Stanley Mathews and to see my country at Wembley in 1966 World Cup finals.City v my 2nd fav team Spurs with Ossie Ardiles and Riki Vila... sorry, getting boring...
ReplyDeleteAli
ReplyDeleteYou are of course quite correct, I was pointing out the way figures can be massaged as they are on this subject.
But in the case of petitions you seem to forget that my petition was unavailable to the majority of locals to sign, unlike the Berate one which was available in the shops and at meetings and probably a whole host of other venues.
Now given that there were plenty of references to the anti Tesco petition locally, such as posters, rally's, meetings, films, blogs, Womens Institute promises of nudity, plenty of time for people to sign it, plus an army of volunteers to push it, I do think it was a case of the 90% that didn't sign it actively not bothering to oppose it.
In other words "not opposed to it" because they weren't.
My Paper petition was aided by six or seven people on one occasion and four on another occasion within very limited time slots, an outlet in the club shop and me asking people to sign when I had the opportunity. I still managed to get a figure approaching 1,000 signatures on my own.
So not too bad as it wasn't available in the area for signing.
Carry on.
Paul
Did you not notice that I omitted the new town figures for Ashton vale.
The figures I quoted are for within the existing city boundaries.
Unfortunately I never got to see the great man John Atyeo play, anyway I have no memory of it.
I started going properly in 66/67. so probably missed him.
Cheers
Rich
OK Rich,
ReplyDeleteI have just been sent details of the existing Sainsbury site, and it is described as covering 4.07 hectares, compared to the 3.87 hectares of the Ashton Gate site (including the council owned land currently used as a car park). Whether the area covered by the road access is included in this (I suspect it is) and if so if removing this would take it significantly below the size of the Ashton Gate site I guess we will find out, as I suspect that greater details will be provided at a later date.
Even if the road takes up as much as 20% of the area of the site that will mean that the part of the site available for redevelopment is approximately 3.2ha. If that is too small for the level of expansion that Sainsbury desire than that leads me to conclude that, as the Ashton Gate site is also only 3.2ha without the council owned land, this makes the council owned land considerable more important than as merely a car park (and as expected despite some saying it will remain as a car park it is intended to use it to also provide a Petrol Filling Station – contrary to the current conditions of the lease)
“You appear to use the shoppers survey to back your argument in one statement and then question the calibre of the same survey in another statement, you can't have it both ways.”
I will merely repeat this is the survey that you dismissed (“so what, what does that prove, how many bothered to respond?”) despite substantially relying on it to justify any need for expansion of retail floorspace in the area. You can’t have it both ways either, if the survey is valid than all of it is valid including the data showing that most shoppers appear to be happy with the existing stores, if it is invalid then there is little supporting evidence to show that there is a need for any substantial expansion of retail. So do you consider the survey to be valid or not?
“As for the 2007 survey, I believe that the DTZ report was made using retail floor space figures taken from the Bristol local plan of 1997.”
The DTZ survey is based on figures from the previous six months prior to its publication in 2007(so mainly 2006), this is made clear in the report itself, and also in the Town Centre and Retail Statement provided by NLP to support the application for a superstore at Ashton Gate.
“With reference to numbers signing from south Glos, are they not allowed to support the proposals, just as you have opposed them?”
Indeed they are, and the planning officers are free to judge whether signatures on a petition from people in south Gloucestershire either in support or in opposition to a superstore at Ashton Gate should be given the same weight as those signatures from residents of the Ashton Gate, Southville and Bedminster areas either in support or opposition to a superstore at Ashton Gate. I’ll remind you that it was yourself who introduced the topic of people living in South Gloucestershire getting involved in discussions about a superstore at Ashton Gate into this thread.
PS As expected I took quite some stick from the Cardiff members of my audience on Friday, but today they are considerably more muted following their 5-1 defeat at Newcastle last night. It just goes to show that football is a funny old game.
Rich,
ReplyDelete“I can't believe you are the same Tony Dyer that spoke in the first meeting of Berate at St Francis church hall, when claiming to be a city supporter. Perhaps I am wrong.”
I don’t claim to be a City supporter. I am a City supporter. Full stop. (unlike Paul I am too young to remember the great Atyeo although both my father and my father-in-law often described how good he was. My earliest memory of a specific game that I “officially” attended was the 1974 FA Cup tie against the mighty Leeds United who at the time were unbeaten at the top of the league). As a City fan, however, I do not believe that other people should be forced to suffer unnecessary disbenefit just so I can benefit from my favourite leisure activity.
As for speaking at the BERATE meeting at St Francis church hall, Ashton Gate. The honest response is that I should not have spoken – the meeting was for local residents. At the time I believe I expressed my concerns at the financial implications for Bristol City FC of trying to sell their stadium in the midst of a recession given that there is no acute demand to do so. However, in hindsight, any potential financial difficulties the club may get into are for the club’s board and it supporters to worry about – it is not fair to place the burden of the clubs financial future on local residents not all of whom are Bristol City fans.
“You missed my question about why you are so vehemently against this plan, perhaps you might care to answer.”
I thought I had already answered this question but it appears that the answer I gave didn’t satisfy you. The reasons I object to the supermarket plan are very clear and have been laid out in comment after comment both on this blog, and elsewhere, however, my primary concern is, as I have already stated, that “whatever decision is made is based on independently assessed factual evidence looking at both short-term and longer term issues and not overly-influenced by matters such as who can shout the loudest or get the best press coverage.”
To, yet again, reiterate some of the specific concerns I have regarding the plan;
That the size of the new store will involve adding retail floorspace almost as large as that provided by the existing Asda but no case has been made for a need for any additional retail floorspace in the area to the satisfaction of the planning officers.
That this lack of need applies in both qualitative and quantative terms.
That the knocking down of one stadium to build another stadium 700 metres away to be part funded by the knocking down of a superstore to build another superstore 500 metres away is inherently unsustainable.
That the reason why a mixed used development at Ashton Gate is unacceptable to BCFC is purely for financial considerations related to the concept of the superstore being enabling development for the new stadium.
That the planning officers felt that the enabling development argument did not outweigh the extensive harm that would be caused by a superstore at Ashton Gate.
That the planning officers felt that a superstore at Ashton Gate would undermine the vitality and viability of Bedminster town centre.
That the provision of additional retail capacity in advance of need could undermine efforts to regenerate other parts of south Bristol that suffer greater levels of deprivation.
I am sure you will now try to find something in my response which will allow you to dismiss my comments based on who has said them, rather than addressing the issues themselves, the issues that were included in the post that started this thread and which you have singularly failed to address in any of your comments.
Having responded, again, to your questions, perhaps you will now care to explain why you are so vehemently supportive of a superstore at Ashton Gate, and how you would address those same issues?
Hi Tony
ReplyDelete1. I have not used any survey to "substantially rely on it to justify retail floor space in the area" as you say.
I dismissed part of it as you did, even though it was you that quoted from it and then in a later statement questioned it's calibre. you try to gain advantage by false accusations.
2.My figures show Ashton gate including the car park which will be part of the overall development as 11.2 acres.
The sainsbury site is 10.0571 acres.
A substantial amount of this site cannot be developed, probably about 20% as you agree. This would make the Sainsbury site only about 8 acres for development which as I've said before is considerably smaller.
The existing Ashton site already has large structures which would enable a large structure to replace it under planning law.
Another factor for Sainsbury is that their existing store would continue trading during construction, so no loss of revenue.
3. As far as the DTZ report goes then, they were only using retail trading figures and not floorspace to make their assessment and relied upon the Bristol local plan of 1997 for floorspace figures as I said.
4. Why are planners able to decide which group
are able to comment and be heard whilst ignoring others who may use an areas facilities, it's shops, it's parks, travel through it, run their business their. Basically be part of that community, yet others that reside there yet only in name can dominate, by being more organised, by way of their ability to oppose things.
There are many areas which could benefit from this store yet because of a postcode lottery they have no voice and are ignored in the planning process.
I have said many times on this and other blogs why I support this scheme.
It is I believe the best plan for the football club to help pay towards a new stadium.
It is the best site possible for Sainsbury's in the area.
It has far superior access than the present site. It gives the opportunity for the city of Bristol and south Bristol in particular the chance to have something to be proud of whithout a massive injection of public funding.
As for the issues you raise, I don't think they are as grave as you would like people to think. So we will just have to disagree on those points.
It's nice to hear of your moral concerns for the local residents, I do question your morals regarding your suggestion that BCFC demand monies from Sainsbury to prevent another competitor building at Ashton gate.
I also notice you have not campaigned against George Fergusons new bakery which is obviously unfairly competing with the present bakers, whilst also increasing the retail outlets at the same time. Or is that because he is on your side?
Cheers
Rich
Tony
ReplyDeleteI am away for a few days so won't be available for comment for a while. I look forward to your reply.
Pleas excuse my spelling and punctuation in our correspondance, I'm still learning.
Cheers
Rich
Rich, we can swap accusation and counter-accusation for ever via the comments on this blog, and in the end we will just go end up going around in ever decreasing circles.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, a considerable element of the validity for any superstore proposal must surely be the potential for the catchment area to support the level of additional retail proposed. It’s a similar argument to the one for why City are looking to build a 30,000 seat stadium that can be expanded to 44,000 seats, as opposed to a 50,000 seat stadium that can be expanded to 75,000 – it’s about the capacity of the market to support the development proposed.
The DTZ study concluded that there was no such substantial potential in south Bristol. The DPDS study commissioned in response to the NLP retail study supporting the previous, eventually withdrawn, application for a superstore at AG agreed with that conclusion.
The only study that has identified any potential to support any substantial additional retail in the area is the NLP study which largely based its conclusion on the responses to the shopping survey discussed.
Any doubts about the validity of the shopping survey conducted also casts doubt on the NPL study, and as this is the only study that supports the contention that there is potential to support any substantial increase in retail provision in the area the logical conclusion is that the proposal to redevelop Ashton Gate as a 9300m2 store is also of doubtful validity.
As I’ve mentioned, a new study has been commissioned by Bristol City Council to look at the retail needs for the area and any potential for expansion. If that is ready before the Sainsbury application is considered by the relevant planning committee, I am sure that it will have considerable weight upon their decision. Until it is published, the planning officers can only make their assessment based on the studies already published, as they did in the draft officer report where the conclusion was that no case had been made for additional retail.
In response to your second point, the Sainsbury site is indeed 10.0571acres (or 4.07 hectares) as we are now both agreed.
However, when calculating the size of the Ashton Gate development site you appear to have inadvertently added the size of the council owned car park to the size of the Ashton Gate development site without realising that the figures given for the latter already included the Bristol City FC owned land. As a result you have double-counted the council owned car park.
The Planning Statement accompanying the proposal for the Ashton Gate site to be developed as a superstore states that the development site (including the council owned car park) is 3.87 hectares (or 9.56 acres). This is also confirmed on the planning application itself.
Of these 3.87 hectares (9.56 acres), 0.697 hectares (1.72 acres) is the council owned land. This means that without the council owned land, the Ashton Gate site would, at 7.84 acres, be smaller than the existing Sainsbury site (whether we used the overall figure or the 8 acres figure), would have no access to Winterstoke Road with only Ashton Road providing any vehicular access and would be tightly confined by housing on three sides. Even including the council-owned land, and assuming that 20% of the Sainsbury site is not available for development, this would make the Ashton Gate site less than 20% larger but having to cope with a superstore 80% larger than the existing Sainsburys.
As I have said before;
1) It will be interesting to see how the physical restraints that have already apparently restricted expansion at the existing site are resolved at AG to the satisfaction of planning officers and committee members.
2) It is obvious that the importance of the council-owned land is considerably more than just that of providing car parking.
I will respond to your other points in a separate comment.
Rich said;
ReplyDelete"3. As far as the DTZ report goes then, they were only using retail trading figures and not floorspace to make their assessment and relied upon the Bristol local plan of 1997 for floorspace figures as I said."
I am at a loss at to how you arrive at this conclusion. I suspect it has more to do with your reluctance to admit that you made an error than anything else. The floorspace figures used for the DTZ report comes from surveys made, and databases updated in 2006/07. The DTZ report does not reference the 1997 Local Plan for floorspace figures - not least because, as far as I can establish from looking through my copy, the 1997 Local Plan does not provide actual figures for floorspace.
"4. Why are planners able to decide which group are able to comment and be heard whilst ignoring others who may use an areas facilities, it's shops, it's parks, travel through it, run their business their. Basically be part of that community, yet others that reside there yet only in name can dominate, by being more organised, by way of their ability to oppose things.
There are many areas which could benefit from this store yet because of a postcode lottery they have no voice and are ignored in the planning process."
Why are developers allowed to appeal against a decision that goes against them but affected third-parties are not, an almost unique condition in Europe? Why can central government decide that some planning decisions should be taken out of the hands of local planning authorities’ altogether?
I cannot think of anybody who is completely happy with the way that the planning process works, if for widely differing reasons. But that is the process that is in place, and we have to work within that whether we like it or not, until it is changed.
To be honest Rich, I think you are being quite disingenuous here and suspect that if the positions were reversed and your petition had actually had the local support you want to assume it would have got if it was somehow more easily available, whilst those opposing the store had drawn most of their support from outside the area you will be jumping up and down and saying how unfair it is that the opinions of “outsiders” are being given equal weight. In fact, I can remember you expressing pretty much that view on the OTIB site when complaining that none of the signatures on the NO online petition were from Ashton Gate until it was pointed out to you that they were grouped by council wards (i.e Southville and Bedminster) rather than a more local neighbourhood - in the meantime some have tried to portray those opposed to the new store as being “outsiders” in their own area of residence!
In the end, planning officers and committee members have to make a judgement about whether equal or differing weight should be given to petition signatures from, for example, somebody who lives immediately adjacent to a proposed development and spends the majority of their time in the area as opposed to somebody who lives in South Glos and may only visit the area 30 times a year for a couple of hours each time.
Rich,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your questioning of my morals:
You appear to believe that there is nothing wrong with;
1) stating that a report was published 12 years ago without checking the facts;
2) then when told it was published in 2007 saying that its figures were taken from 12 years ago again without checking the facts;
3) and then when it is pointed out that, no “the figures were from the six months prior to its publication in 2007” still continuing to insist that the report “relied upon the Bristol local plan of 1997 for floorspace figures as I said”, yet again without checking the facts as made clear above;
It is quite clear that you are happy to make statements without any concern as to checking whether those statements are true, I think therefore that making moral judgements about what others have written is something you should steer well clear of.
For my own part, I am happy that it is prudent for a business like Bristol City FC to consider whether a major retail giant like Sainsbury’s might be interested in buying land regardless of whether they are able to get planning permission for it as a superstore as it may have a higher value to them as something other than retail than it might to another non-retail developer. Alternatively, Sainsbury’s might have considered investing alongside the land-owner in developing the site as non-retail in order to generate a level of asset realisation that would return the level of funding the club has said it requires from the site to finance its overall objective of building a new stadium. This is not “bribery” as you misrepresent it; this is sound economic business sense promoting co-operative working between two equal business partners and reflects an approach which does not involve the club apparently putting all of its eggs in one basket.
In response to your comments about George Ferguson's bakery proposal:
As a supporter of an increase in retail provision in the area, should I presume that you will be backing George Ferguson’s proposal for a new baker? I have not yet noticed any signs of your campaign? Will you be starting an e-petition?
Will you also be active in the campaign to turn the Friendship Inn in your area of residence at Knowle into a Tesco supermarket? Can we expect an e-petition for that?
Or is it the case that neither of the above have any link to the provision of a new football stadium and thus hold no interest for you either as an apparently involved visitor to one area or a resident, perhaps “only in name”, of the other?
I see no point in opposing development just for the sake of opposing development. I do not know the full details of Ferguson’s bakery proposal but will be interested in what constitutes “obviously unfair” competition (or is this just maliciousness on your part because Ferguson has not fallen in line to support the superstore proposal?), however, any opposition from me will be based on the proposed development’s benefits and disbenefits, and will be regardless of whether it will make any financial contribution towards a football stadium for my favourite football club.
I now think that I have responded in some detail to your points. So far your response to the several issues I have raised, both in the post that started this thread, and raised again on two other occasions during the course of the debate on this thread have been dismissed by you with;
“As for the issues you raise, I don't think they are as grave as you would like people to think. So we will just have to disagree on those points”
In other words, you do the very same thing that you accused me of doing in your second comment on this thread, you simply dismiss the issues raised and refuse to address them. I am left with the image of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
On a minor point, for your info the new bakery is a/ not a proposal and b/ not George Ferguson's. It is a working baker, owned and run by a guy called Mark (it's called Mark's Bread) and it's excellent, if quite pricy. It is located in The Brewery, the fomer car repair place on North Street between the Tobacco Factory and the park. GF has a lease on the Brewery and has sublet part of it.
ReplyDeleteAli
Thanks Ali,
ReplyDeleteThat would explain why I haven't seen any other details about GF opening up a bakery apart from those by Rich!
Funnily enough, Mark's Bread unit was pointed out to me on Sunday as a new baker but I didn't connect it with Rich's comment about George Ferguson having a proposal for a bakery. Duh!
Hi Tony
ReplyDeleteJust back from Benidorm so I'm a bit groggy.
I will reply later, I'm awaiting confirmation of my figures.
Ali
I did not say it was proposed.
I used a collective term when saying the bakery was Georges.
I've now taken the nails out of my wrists and ankles.
It is however, in George Fergusons property, he is the landlord, he gains from it being there, he knew what it was going to be and allowed it.
I was making a point about him not being worried about competition to North st traders when he's gaining from it, which he most certainly is.
Hypocrisy I believe you call it.
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDeleteIt was Tony that said it was proposed and you that said it was his bakery. As points of information I was clarifying both of those. As a further point of information no, I don't believe I do call it hypocrisy.
Ali
ReplyDeleteObviously you wouldn't call anything George Ferguson does as hypocrisy, as the sun must shine from his rear end.
The man objects to competition from a supermarket, then allows a shop to open on his premises and provide competition to those he supposedly supports (it is expensive).
He has opened a giant bar in North st, obviously providing competition to existing traders.
He is a businessman first and foremost, whilst also portraying concern for others in the vicinity.
The thing is, that doesn't stop him.
I think that is hypocritical.
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDelete"Obviously you wouldn't call anything George Ferguson does as hypocrisy, as the sun must shine from his rear end." Grow up. It is possible to have a more nuanced view than "everything this person does is good - everything that person does is bad".
(What does seem incontrovertibly hypocritical to me is BCFC's chief executive telling people publically that George Ferguson is a pain in the club's arse while continuing to take his money - the Tobacco Factory has sponsored the club for a few years now. I'm sure you've seen the ads in the programme.)
Ali
Ali
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you also know that George Fergusons bar takings are considerable on match days, so I'm told, mostly from City fans.
So he would advertise in the programme wouldn't he.
And the next one please.
On another point.
Are you in favour of banning the club from joining the GBCP?
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't care less what his motives for sponsoring the club are and they've got nothing to do with CS's hypocrisy in taking his money at the same time as castigating him publically.
I don't really know anything about the GBCP but the club are a valuable and important part of 'GB' so I don't see why.
Ali
ReplyDeleteWho is taking and gaining the most while doing the opposite of their convictions.
One comment from CS is merely a drop in the ocean when compared to George and Alice's opposition to the club, the club that feeds them.
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDeleteI think this is becoming one of those internet conversations that gets increasingly mad as it gets further on. It's also buried so deep (I suspect only you, me and possibly Tony bother getting down here) that we may as well stop?
Best wishes
Ali
I'm still reading, Ali, though mainly to see if Rich actually responds to any of Tony's substantive points.
ReplyDeleteBen
ReplyDeleteI will when I have my figures confirmed.
It's no good going around in circles.
As I have limited time I like to put it to best use.
Rather than reading posts from somebody trying to prove they are right and then repeating it three times in different paragraphs in different ways, which does have the effect of making statements seem believable, even though they don't contain any proof, only statements claiming proof.
I am reliant on other people for information,
I don't get mine sent to me by other people helping to win a debate.
Believe it or not I'm on my own.
So when my figures are confirmed I will reply.
Rich
Hi Tony
ReplyDeleteNice to meet you the other night.
Unfortunately I have so far been unable to find exact site figures for Ashton Gate and the present Sainsbury's site.
The planning application for Tesco's is no longer available online.
I have requested the information but so far it has not been forthcoming, for whatever reason.
I seem to have overlapped my arguments when referring to the twelve year out of date local plan of 1997.
This of course was the plan used and referred to by the planning officers in the draft report when making their conclusions.
I appolgise for the confusion.
I haven't got your contacts, or indeed patience to troll through endless correspondence. So for now I'll use the Sainsbury's figures which state, both sites are 4 hectares. Whether this includes the car park in these figures I do not know, but I believe not.
So now, back to the original points.
You questioned why the two parties couldn't carry out there respective developments on the existing sites.
I offered reasons for this and you dismissed those reasons, you never proved those reasons were wrong, you only argued against them on different grounds.
So here goes again.
Sainsbury's cannot build their desired store at the present site. This is because the site is not able to have a structure of the desired size on it, because of the physical and planning restrictions as I have said, you have not disproved this.
You have agreed that the site does have less acreage of developable land, than Ashton gate.
They also keep the existing store going during construction so no revenue is lost.
The Ashton gate site "is" able to have a structure of this size, has a better location, is closer to the main areas of population and has better transport links.
These are all facts, the fact that you do not accept them as fact is neither here nor there.
We know that the redevelopment costs of Ashton gate (£62m) are roughly equal to building the new stadium (£65m). No revenue can be gained from redeveloping the existing stadium, other than sponsorship and this proved difficult when trying to raise funds for just one stand, in fact revenue is likely to reduce during redevelopment.
Now before you say it the, figures quoted recently (£92-£100m) are for overall development costs on the new site and not the stadium.
By the time the revenue from the sale of Ashton gate for a supermarket and the other developments are taken off, there is a shortfall considerably smaller than if redevelopment took place at Ashton gate.
So the bottom line is that these are both businesses and have to make sensible reasoned
decisions when considering capital outlay.
The fact you cannot accept this, confirms that it is you and not me with the outlook of an ostrich.
I on the other hand accept that there are genuine concerns by various people and they should all be taken into account, along with the benefits these developments will obviously bring.
Is that enough for you Ben S? probably not.
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDeleteIt was good to meet yourself prior to the planning committee meeting, as it was to also meet the many concerned residents of the Ashton Vale area.
Despite your comments above about my patience, I am afraid it is not infinite.
You have yet again failed to respond in any meaningful fashion to the issues raised in the article that begins this thread and instead appear to be now trying to avoid facing the fact that the Ashton Gate site is actually smaller than the existing Sainsbury's site, and the ramifications that entails. That is a shame.
As you have been provided with plenty of opportunity to do so, I can only conclude that your reason for not addressing "the original points" raised in the article is simply because you are unable to argue against those points, and would prefer to discuss different ones instead - unfortunately whether two sites of similar size with similar restraints just 500m apart have, in your view, widely differing capabilities of supporting a giant superstore fails to address the underlying issue of whether there should be a giant superstore in the first place as identified n the first three points below.
For the benefit of others, the points that Rich has repeatedly failed to address are;
1) That the size of the new store will involve adding retail floorspace almost as large as that provided by the existing Asda.
2) That no case has been made for a need for any additional retail floorspace in the area to the satisfaction of the planning officers.
3) That this lack of need applies in both qualitative and quantative terms.
4) That the knocking down of one stadium to build another stadium 700 metres away to be part funded by the knocking down of a superstore to build another superstore 500 metres away is inherently unsustainable.
5) That the reason why a mixed used development at Ashton Gate is unacceptable to BCFC is purely for financial considerations related to the concept of the superstore being enabling development for the new stadium.
6) That the planning officers felt that the enabling development argument did not outweigh the extensive harm that would be caused by a superstore at Ashton Gate.
7) That the planning officers felt that a superstore at Ashton Gate would undermine the vitality and viability of Bedminster town centre.
8) That the provision of additional retail capacity in advance of need could undermine efforts to regenerate other parts of south Bristol that suffer greater levels of deprivation.
In addition to those points, I can now also add the following;
9) That the Ashton Gate site with or without the council-owned land is actually smaller than the current Sainsbury's site.
10) That the council owned land has an importance beyond that of a mere car park which needs to be taken into account if any decision is made to dispose of it to support a superstore application.
11) That the DTZ retail study is based on data and surveys from 2006/07 not 1997, and its findings were also supported by the DPDS study commissioned to assess the developer's own study.
12) That a planning authority has to consider the wider effects of a development including both benefits and disbenefits (or concerns about those benefits and disbenefits) of all those affected not just those of the developers.
I look forward to a response from Rich that addresses those key issues in a meaningful way.
Hi Tony
ReplyDeleteIt appears you are accusing me of not addressing certain points.
1. It is not possible to build the new store on the present site.
2. You have failed to prove that this development could take place on this site due to the smaller developable site available.
3.You use old data from a flawed survey, one that took it's findings from a telephone survey. This following section is taken from the planning officers Draft report.
In relation to the DTZ study, the conclusions as to quantitative need were drawn in part from a telephone survey of 1500 people from a wide catchment area, stretching from Wells and Street in Somerset up to Stroud in Gloucestershire and Chippenham in Wiltshire. Whilst such a wide area probably does reflect
the catchment area of the city for comparison shopping (for example the regional draw of a shopping area such as Cabot Circus) people tend to travel much shorter distances for convenience (food) shopping. Consequently, the Council accepts that whilst the the DTZ study predicts no need for additional convenience floorspace until 2021, this headline figure may still hide variations in convenience provision at a local level.
Therefore it is not possible to conclude there is no quantitative need based on
this information alone.
So the survey is flawed in it's assessment and as such should be ignored for this development. You failed to say this Tony.
4. As for convenience food shopping, the areas population has increased more than expected and the forecasts for future population growth in the area have also been increased since this flawed survey was carried out. It also did not take into account passing trade from people approaching or leaving the city.
5. The case to prove the need for this store is now that of Sainsbury's planning team.
Your whole argument so far has been based on that of Tesco's application.
This new application is of course a different scenario, so your arguments are in fact pointless, until we have a new retail survey and it is used for this new application.
Of course this new application will be one were there will not be an extra supermarket, one where there will be no loss of trade or jobs from sainsbury's, one where the retail floor space will not be as big, one where there will be housing and work units.
6. I did address the points about the mixed use development at Ashton gate not being acceptable. That decision is based on financial reasons as previously explained, even if you do suggest bribery, the plan put forward by George Ferguson would not return the same levels of revenue as the supermarket deal.
7. Knocking down the stadium may well be in your eyes unsustainable, but it will have to be done regardless and a replacement built at some point, whether on the present site or the new one, so that argument again is irrelevant.
8.Now although I haven't got as many numbered items as you, Most of your points relate to an officers report based on flawed figures and an extinct application.
9.That is apart from the enabling development issue. As costs for this development have increased due to certain factors and part of the development has been removed, this will of course increase the percentage of contribution towards the new stadium, thus changing the importance and therefore possibly the officers recommendation.
I'm bored now.
Rich
Tony
ReplyDeleteI've tried reasoned argument and It doesn't work.
Now you prove to me, how those two parties can achieve their aims by staying where they are.
We know that both Sainsbury's and Asda are overtrading, so by having a bigger store on a better site, that overtrading can be addressed.
Provisions would also be in place for increased trade in the future, due to population increases, which if you had your way would be lost forever.
In your sustainable world, it does not seem possible for any new development, as this would obviously cause some negative impact on the environment.
I do agree that we need to have a rigorous planning policy to prevent unchecked development.
Having seen the process in operation, it is obviously not flawless, though I have been impressed with it's thorough democratic process, when allowing the small person to address issues, even if those small people are the same ones but represented by several different groups as in this case.
Rich
Rich,
ReplyDeleteI will do you the courtesy of addressing your numbered points one by one but these will be my last posts on the subject in this thread. It is perfectly obvious that neither of us is going to change the other’s mind and I have more important things to do than simply argue for the sake of argument.
“1. It is not possible to build the new store on the present site.”
The point is not whether it is possible to build a 9300m2 store on the present Sainsbury’s site of 4.07ha (a “strawman” argument which you have misrepresented as my viewpoint) but;
a) Whether there is a need for such a large store in the first place,
b) Why, if the current 4.07ha site is not capable of supporting the 9300m2 store, do you believe that planning officers will consider it is possible to build a 9300m2 store on a 3.87ha site 500m down the road given that the officer’s draft report had at the time of its publication recommended refusal of a 5500m2 store for that site.
So far you have largely dismissed a, and given very flimsy reasons for b. The planning officer’s will have accurate figures for the size of both sites, how much of each site is available for development and the capacity of the area to support the additional retail proposed. If the developer’s do not try to push through the application before the new retail study is available, planning officers will also have an additional set of data that cannot be dismissed as “old”.
“2. You have failed to prove that this development could take place on this site due to the smaller developable site available.”
Which is essentially repeating point number 1 but written in a slightly different way.
For somebody who has stated that he now does not have exact figures for the size of the two sites, how can you draw conclusions on exactly how much of the site is developable?
The Ashton Gate site is smaller than the Sainsbury’s site, and this is even more pronounced if the council-owned land is excluded. Even if we accept a rough guesstimate that 20% of the Sainsbury’s land is not available for development due to the need to provide road access (and it is worth pointing out that road access is needed at both stores) AND include the council owned land at the AG site, there is only 20% difference in size to accommodate an 80% larger store.
I find it illustrative that a couple of months ago you were arguing that the stadium could not be expanded at its present site because of the restriction of housing on three sides but now it appears that for a superstore development those restrictions are of little import when comparing it to a site that is only restricted by housing on one side. Again, the planning officers will be aware of the restrictions at the Ashton Gate site and will judge its ability to support a 9300m2 superstore accordingly.
Cont'd
“3.You use old data from a flawed survey, one that took it's findings from a telephone survey. This following section is taken from the planning officers Draft report.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the DTZ study, the conclusions as to quantitative need were drawn in part from a telephone survey of 1500 people from a wide catchment area, stretching from Wells and Street in Somerset up to Stroud in Gloucestershire and Chippenham in Wiltshire. Whilst such a wide area probably does reflect the catchment area of the city for comparison shopping (for example the regional draw of a shopping area such as Cabot Circus) people tend to travel much shorter distances for convenience (food) shopping. Consequently, the Council accepts that whilst the the DTZ study predicts no need for additional convenience floorspace until 2021, this headline figure may still hide variations in convenience provision at a local level. Therefore it is not possible to conclude there is no quantitative need based on this information alone.
So the survey is flawed in it's assessment and as such should be ignored for this development. You failed to say this Tony.”
This, I think, illustrates your entire approach. You first imply that the DTZ study was based entirely on a telephone survey before including a quote from the draft officer report which clearly says that the telephone survey only partially informed the conclusions of the report. You then once again refer to it as “old data” despite the fact that the DTZ study is based on data from 2006/07 and is of equivalent age to the data used by other studies that you have used to support your arguments, for example the 2006 ONS figures on population projections.
Just to be clear the quote does not say that there IS a quantitative need just that it is not possible to rule out the possibility of local variations “on this information alone”.
Which is why the planning officers went on from the small part of the assessment that you have selected for your quotation to look at further evidence, including population projections, the mix of main food vs top-up shopping, estimates of consumer spend, impact of stores beyond the catchment area, and so on.
As a result, the final conclusion from the assessment of retail need from which your selected quotation is only a part was;
“No need has been demonstrated for additional convenience or comparison retail floorspace, either in qualitative or quantative terms. The immediate area is well-catered for in terms of large format food stores, and no convincing evidence has been submitted to demonstrate consumer dissatisfaction with the supermarket provision available in the area.”
So the survey is not “flawed in its assessment and as such should be ignored” as you insist but it findings should be taken in conjunction with other evidence, and when done so the final assessment leads to the planning officer’s conclusion that “No need has been demonstrated for additional convenience or comparison retail floorspace, either in qualitative or quantative terms” which you failed to mention, Rich.
“4. As for convenience food shopping, the area’s population has increased more than expected and the forecasts for future population growth in the area have also been increased since this flawed survey was carried out. It also did not take into account passing trade from people approaching or leaving the city.”
In fact, in contrast to what you say, the report criticises the developers for using out of date population forecasts that fail to reflect the current situation and also for failing to take account of external trading influences, for example that some shoppers within the catchment area shop outside the catchment area.
Cont'd
“5. The case to prove the need for this store is now that of Sainsbury's planning team.
ReplyDeleteYour whole argument so far has been based on that of Tesco's application.
This new application is of course a different scenario, so your arguments are in fact pointless, until we have a new retail survey and it is used for this new application.
Of course this new application will be one were there will not be an extra supermarket, one where there will be no loss of trade or jobs from sainsbury's, one where the retail floor space will not be as big, one where there will be housing and work units.”
My argument has largely been based on the principle that no need has been demonstrated for a large-scale expansion of retail floorspace in the Bedminster/Southville/Ashton Gate area. This is irrespective of whether this additional floorspace is provided in the shape of a new store or in the shape of an 80% extension to a relocated store. Adding several thousand square metres of additional retail is not suddenly made acceptable to planning officers simply by changing the name on the application.
The new application is not an entirely different scenario as many of the issues raised by planning officers when considering the previous proposal are equally applicable to the new proposal. I would prefer it if the planning application was not submitted until the new Retail Study is completed so that it can be assessed against the very latest data but the date of submission is up to the developers not myself. If the new study is not ready (and I understand it is due to be completed in mid-March) than planning officers can only use the data they have available.
You do not appear to have considered the ramifications of your statement that Sainsbury’s will now not lose trade or jobs. The implication is that the expected loss of trade or jobs will therefore be taken from elsewhere, almost certainly the rest of Bedminster Town Centre therefore increasing the negative impact of the development.
The housing and work units is the one additional factor that you mention that may be seen as a “positive” factor in comparison to the Tesco-based application and I am sure that planning officers will certainly take in to consideration whether the benefits of the housing proposal will be enough to outweigh the disbenefits of building a 9300m2 superstore at Ashton Gate. Housing and long-term jobs have been identified as what south Bristol needs much more than they need yet more retail floorspace.
“6. I did address the points about the mixed use development at Ashton gate not being acceptable. That decision is based on financial reasons as previously explained, even if you do suggest bribery, the plan put forward by George Ferguson would not return the same levels of revenue as the supermarket deal.”
In other words, ignoring your childish “bribery” slurs, you agree with exactly what I stated in the article at the beginning of this thread, “That the reason why a mixed used development at Ashton Gate is unacceptable to BCFC is purely for financial considerations related to the concept of the superstore being enabling development for the new stadium.”
And as I have tried to explain, financial considerations are not a material planning issue except when the enabling development argument is used. As the planning officers have already stated in the draft report that the enabling development argument does not outweigh the disbenefits in relation to the provision of a superstore at Ashton Gate then, I am afraid, financial considerations will carry no weight with the planning officers unless there is a considerable change in the proportional contribution to the stadium costs that is generated by the Ashton Gate proposal thus bringing the enabling development argument back into play.
The proposal that will deliver the most revenues at Ashton Gate is the one that gets planning permission.
Cont'd
“7. Knocking down the stadium may well be in your eyes unsustainable, but it will have to be done regardless and a replacement built at some point, whether on the present site or the new one, so that argument again is irrelevant.”
ReplyDeleteThe sustainability argument is a key argument in the planning process and therefore IS relevant and in fact lack of sustainability was one of the reasons given in the draft officer’s report as to why they had concluded a recommendation of refusal. You may wish this was not so, but it is.
Knocking down the stadium is not in itself necessary unsustainable – I have already stated in this thread that I see no point in opposing development just for the sake of opposing development (although you appear to believe that I should). You appear to have a view of sustainable development that is overly simplistic.
What is unsustainable is knocking down a perfectly adequate superstore to build a much larger superstore when no need has been demonstrated for the much larger superstore.
“8.Now although I haven't got as many numbered items as you, Most of your points relate to an officers report based on flawed figures and an extinct application.”
Rich, it doesn’t make any difference how may times you write the word “flawed” when referring to the DTZ study, the fact is that the DTZ study is considered by planning officers as robust and the benchmark against which the development will be assessed with additional information being provided by the new study if it is available in time. I consider that the judgement and expertise of the planning officers is considerably more reliable than yours when assessing the validity of the DTZ study.
As for the “extinct” application, many of the conclusions drawn by the planning officers in response to that application remain applicable to the new proposal. It is obvious that because those conclusions are overwhelmingly prejudicial to your own preferred outcome that is why you wish to pretend it has no relevance.
“9.That is apart from the enabling development issue. As costs for this development have increased due to certain factors and part of the development has been removed, this will of course increase the percentage of contribution towards the new stadium, thus changing the importance and therefore possibly the officers recommendation.”
Are you really the same Richard Lane who vehemently argued a few months ago that the linking of a superstore proposal at Ashton Gate with the stadium at Ashton Vale was a deliberate ploy set up and promoted by BERATE and the Green Party to undermine the proposals and that the two should be treated entirely separately? Now here you are apparently arguing that the link between the two is an important consideration in the decision as to build the superstore.
Unfortunately, you have made a basic and critical misunderstanding of the enabling development argument here, Rich. The key point is how much the Ashton Gate development will contribute in funding towards the Stadium project as a percentage of the total funding required - if the costs of the stadium project have increased but the expected funding from the Ashton Gate proposal is still the same then that will reduce its percentage contribution towards the new stadium’s funding, therefore reducing its importance as enabling development, and thus reinforcing the officer’s recommendation that the enabling development argument carries insufficient weight as a planning consideration.
I think I have now responded to your points both in the last few comments and previously in considerable detail.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to seeing you at the next BCC planning meeting involving Bristol City FC.
Tony
ReplyDeleteThanks for your exhaustive post on this subject.
You have taken your quotes, attributed them to me and then rubbished them, here follows an example:
This, I think, illustrates your entire approach. You first imply that the DTZ study was based entirely on a telephone survey before including a quote from the draft officer report which clearly says that the telephone survey only partially informed the conclusions of the report. You then once again refer to it as “old data” despite the fact that the DTZ study is based on data from 2006/07 and is of equivalent age to the data used by other studies that you have used to support your arguments, for example the 2006 ONS figures on population projections.
I did not use the ONS figure for that year to back my argument, I said they were not accurate and had since been changed.
This makes the inclusion of this section of the DTZ survey in the planners assessment for the draft report irrelevant.
Here is a simple explanation as to how they can build a bigger store at Ashton gate as opposed to the present site.
They put it up in the air and have parking underneath.
The structure will still not be higher than the existing stadium, so will not overshadow and have an impact on the existing housing surrounding Ashton gate.
This is not the case at their present site which has a single story building and has been refused permission to increase in height in the past.
The car park has a right of way to the stadium and will still have, so the council will not be able to hold the owners to ransom (something you frequently suggest as common practice), as they already have that access.
As we all know the plans drawn up by GF are not being considered by the planning department for this site. They will however take into account that a sustainable development will take place as a result of this development going ahead.
It will only go ahead if the Sainsbury site is available due to them relocating.
I look forward to your next mischievous making post,
oh look I've just spotted it above.
Rich