It’s finally going to
happen.
Tomorrow night (kick off 6pm) will see Bristol City Council’s
Development Control (North) Committee meet to consider our planning
application for the revamp of the Blackthorn End.
Much will depend
on the recommendations of the Council’s
planning team, and they have delivered their crucial thoughts via
a 30-page report which can be found here.
For
those of you who can’t be arsed to wade through it all,
gasheads.com provides a summary below and if you can’t be bothered
to go through that then these are the words that suggest that we
may finally be getting somewhere:
“Given the citywide benefits of developing sporting
clubs within the city (and the local community benefits associated
with this application) combined with the mitigation measures
proposed by the applicant it is considered that planning permission
should be granted”.
1. RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY AND COMMUNICATION
1.1 Objections
Objections from local residents were split into three categories:
- Altered Landscape/Visual Amenity: this covered a range of things
from the general impact the stand would have on the landscape
to worries about loss of sunlight and stand windows looking into
people’s
back gardens/windows
- Traffic Congestion/Parking: All the issues that have been discussed
to death, though there was one interesting assertion by a resident
that “football fans park in precarious places” (of
course no one else does).
- Noise/Crime: pretty-self-explanatory.
- Need for Increase in capacity: According to one resident the
stadium is not full on matchdays so we don’t need to
increase the capacity.
1.2 Support
This section set out the reasons given in support of the application.
A range of reasons were given, most of which have been discussed
before (e.g. current facilities are poor, enhanced facilities will
benefit the local community etc.). However, we’d like to buy
the person who wrote this a pint: “As a local resident living
next to the ground, we have always found match days to be a pleasant
experience that add a little colour and vitality to the area.”
1.3 Internal Advice/Comments
The final part of the section on consultation was for comments
by various public bodies who had some interest in the application
or expertise in key areas. There were three interesting points made
here:
- Worryingly, the Public Health and Safety Team pointed out that “the
size of the seats were not specified nor were the spaces between
them, and there appear to be too many seats per row”. It was
made a condition that amended seat plans are submitted. Could this
result in yet another reduction in the overall capacity of the stand?
We’re already down to 4,900 when 5,500 was initially being
spoken of.
- The Forestry section raised no objections to the proximity of
the stand to two rows of Corsican Pines, one of which is protected
by a Preservation Order.
- The Council’s Sports and Leisure section stated that following
the collapse of plans for a joint stadium they had said they would
support both Bristol’s league clubs in developing and improving
the spectator accommodation at their existing grounds. They confirmed
that this was still the case.
2. KEY ISSUES
The report identified a number of key issues and gave its verdict
on them. The main points are briefly summarised below
2.1 Is The Principle Of The Proposal Acceptable
In Land-Use Terms?
- The stadiums
within the city (Mem, Ashton, County Ground) are
valuable assets to Bristol and not only provide opportunities to
view top class sport, but also contribute to the overall economic
growth within the city.
- The
Council will ensure that the community’s opportunity
to participate in sport is not eroded. It will
do this by taking a positive approach to development proposals
that directly or indirectly enable the principal sporting
activity to continue on sites.
- The proposal will result in an improved stadium
and will facilitate improved public safety.
- Furthermore, the proposal
will generally improve the quality of the spectator/visitor
experience.
- In
community terms the proposal will include a commercial health/fitness
suite that can be used by residents and the hospitality suites
include two classrooms/lecture theatres that will be
utilised through an agreement that the stadium company has with
the City of Bristol College.
2.2 Do The Proposals Satisfactorily Address Transport
And Movement Issues
- The main transport concern is that additional
spectators will add to matchday congestion in the area.
- In order to offset this, a condition has
been approved that would restrict the use of the ancillary facilities
(e.g. health/fitness suite) on matchdays.
- “Illegal” parking
occurs on non-matchdays and matchdays
- Even at well-attended
games, there are some available spaces on-street within a kilometre
of the ground.
- To mitigate the effects of pressure on on-street
parking, Rovers have agreed to a number of contributions and
travel plan measures.
- In addition, Rovers have agreed to a
monitoring programme that will assess spectator travel modes.
If more cars than agreed arrive then Rovers will be subject to “failsafe” payments up
to £40,000 over five years
- Formalised Controlled Parking
measures are not deemed necessary at the moment. However, it
may be an option in the future if “failsafe” payments
are triggered.
- Overall it is considered that provided that
the agreed measures are implemented then the transport impacts
of the proposed capacity increases are not likely to lead to
a significant worsening of local conditions. Subject to conditions,
there is therefore no transport reason
to refuse this application.
2.3 Would This Development Be Detrimental To The
Residential Amenities Of Neighbouring Occupiers Of The Site?
- Proximity/Height
issues: It was stated that the proposed building would be unlikely
to appear significantly overbearing by reason of the distances
between the rear elevations of the properties on Filton Avenue
and the proposed stand (33-41 metres).
- Overshadowing/loss of light: It was considered that some harm
may be caused to neighbouring local residents in terms of overshadowing
and a loss of light, but that this would only be for a few winter
months of the year when natural daylight is generally dimmer.
Therefore, it is deemed to be insufficient to reasonably justify
a refusal of planning permission.
- With regard to overlooking issues, it has been stipulated that
the windows to the northern elevation of the stand must be glazed
with high level obscured glass and be sealed shut to prevent
noise emission.
- Noise: Conditions will be imposed on the hours of use of all
the ancillary facilities on weekday evenings and Sundays (though
they’re
not that harsh).
- Light Pollution: A revised floodlighting system will need to
be submitted.
2.4 Would The Proposal Have An Adverse Impact On
The Visual Amenities Of The Area?
- According to the planning team, “the
design of the proposed North Stand would represent a considerable
architectural improvement upon the existing collection of tired utilitarian
buildings and structures. The proposed design would convey the necessary
scale and presence expected of a primary sporting facility within
its citywide context”.
- The Stand “would enrich the local skyline, whilst clearly
identifying the location of this landmark facility”.
2.5 What Impact Would The Proposal Have On The
Landscape Quality Of The Site?
- The two rows of Corsican Pines and a self-seeded Sycamore are
the only mature trees in the area and “provide relief to a very
austere environment and act as an effective screen between the stadium
and the houses on Filton Avenue”. Therefore they are considered
to hold significant amenity value and must be adequately protected
during any future development.
2.6 Would The Proposal Raise Any Issues
Of Safety And Security?
- The ancillary facilities will lead to an increase in activity
on the site. This will increase natural surveillance and should
reduce the opportunities for crime.
- The general external lighting would increase security on the
site.
3. CONCLUSION
Policy L2 of the Bristol Local Plan (adopted 1997) recognises the
city-wide importance of developing sports stadia. The policy takes
a positive stance and supports the redevelopment of the Memorial
Ground, a well-used sports ground that is considered out-of-date
and unable to meet modern sporting requirements.
The application has been very contentious and has resulted in an
overwhelming number of objections of residents from this part of
the city and letters of support from fans of both the rugby and football
clubs, some of which are local residents. It is acknowledged that
because of the increased numbers of spectators that will result,
there will be increased potential for disturbance and highway related
concerns. The applicant has agreed a number of measures to mitigate
against the local impacts and it is proposed that these be secured
through the S106 agreement and through planning conditions attached
to any permission for this phase of the development. These measures
will need to be reviewed should future applications be submitted
to further develop/expand the ground.
The proposed development represents the first phase of the redevelopment
of the ground and is considered to strike a sensible balance between
improving facilities at the ground and mitigating against local impacts.
Given the citywide benefits of developing sporting clubs within the
city (and the local community benefits associated with this application)
combined with the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant it
is considered that planning permission should be granted.
|
