I’m no lawyer so can’t verify how legally watertight this really is. But why let technicalities get in the way of us having a damn good laugh?

Anyway, it turns out that one of the consequences of Bristol City Council’s brilliant defence of the Castle Park Town green application is that the public are officially free to go anywhere at anytime on Castle Park without hindrance.

Yes, that does mean that any corporate, private or pay events on the park are in fact free to you and me!

Ho, ho!

News is drifting in about how Bristol City Council has gone about CONsulting on their planned closure of most of their customer service points or area housing offices as we used to call them before the loonies took over.

Apparently the Council had planned to end the CONsultation on this on November 19 after a mere two ‘public’ meetings (actually invitation only at the Create Centre and Council House, which they weren’t planning to tell the general public about).

But now the story’s leaked to the Evening Cancer they’ve generously extended the CONsultation period … for a whole week!

When the point was raised by staff to managers that customers – or the general public as we call in them in unfashionable circles – might quite like to know what the plans are for their local customer service points, council managers appeared not to have thought of this beyond providing these secretive ‘invitation only’ meetings for carefully selected local tenant groups and organisations.

Indeed, glaring omissions from the list of invitees has raised alarm among frontline staff who believe that the plans are being deliberately rushed through and are not being properly discussed with all the concerned parties.

Now staff are being told that they can provide feedback forms to customers if they ask for them (ie. if they have seen the story in the Evening Cancer) but cannot actively promote them to the public, which seems to be contrary to the point of a proper CONsultation really.

This is some sort of progress though, because – before the leak to the Cancer – staff weren’t allowed to say anything specific about the plans at all, putting them in the odd position of being able to tell customers that a CONsultation was taking place but not what it was about.

The Blogger now learns that it is the overwhelming opinion of most of the frontline staff delivering the service that council management are pushing this CONsultation through as quickly as possible and avoiding telling as many people as possible so they can get on with closing the service as soon as possible.

Meanwhile the council’s homelessness workers are also up in arms.

During the spring The Hub – the council’s homelessness unit in St Paul’s that deals with all homeless applications for Bristol from people without dependents or children – decided that all their homeless “customers” must approach one of the nine Customer Service Points around the city for initial advice and a referral to the Hub – at least if they’re allowed to by the untrained, overworked, stressed-out Customer Service Point workers.

Then in May 2009 the city council shut its Customer Service Point in St Pauls and Easton because, apparently, “customers” won’t mind walking to Cabot Circus instead.

Now the latest idea from the city council is leaked to the Evening Cancer setting out plans to close all but one Customer Service Point accompanied by a vague plan to maybe build two more of these somewhere or other …

So what happens to any single homeless people then? Joined-up local government at its best isn’t it?

Meanwhile over in Hartcliffe a few eyebrows have been raised about the loss of their Customer Service Point in Symes Avenue.

Is this the same Symes Avenue that won the city council an Evening Cancer regeneration award (pdf) two years ago this very month? An award for turning around a boarded-up and shuttered old shopping centre wasn’t it?

So guess who’s the first to close the shutters for good at the new regenerated Symes Avenue? Er … The award-winning regenerators Bristol City Council!

And finally, fear not, because one of the city’s leading politicians has bravely arrived to explain this totally fucking embarrassing u-turning reverse ferret shambles of a cock-up to us.

Step forward the Liberal Democrat’s very own Tory evangelical looney who can’t speak English, “Biggles” Popham. He tells the Cancer, “If we can save money, we should but it’s not the motivating factor. It’s about transformation.”

Eh? It’s all about an abstract noun then? Or more accurately an abstract theoretical business school construct. That’s really gonna help the poor isn’t it?

Intellectually-challenged primary school teacher and only person dumb enough to lead that pointless rump of out-of-touch middle class idiots who now make up the remains of Bristol Labour Party, Helen Holland, did what she does best on Wednesday night … Piss people off!

The Blogger learns Ms Holland spent the whole of the stadium planning meeting making eyes at Colin Sexstone and applauding vigorously every time a positive comment was made about Colin’s enormous potential erection and the possibility of him getting it up on Ashton Vale.

This peculiarly partisan behaviour at – what was sold to us as – a non-partisan “quasi judicial” meeting didn’t go down particularly well with the residents in what used to be rock solid Labour Ashton Vale, apparently.

And after the meeting at least one rather harmless looking older female resident of Ashton Vale marched up to Holland and announced, “if you ever come on my doorstep I’m going to fucking slap you”!

Excellent. Who needs a stadium with spectator sport that good on offer? Perhaps the Labour Party could let us know when they intend to canvass Ashton Vale next so we can all come and watch?

Bristol City Football Club are to get a new stadium on the city’s greenbelt at Ashton Vale after councillors voted 7-2 in favour of the controversial development last night.

At a very long meeting featuring a very short debate – skillfully dominated and dictated by Labour old-stager John Bees – the lack of experience of some members of the committtee proved to be a predictable problem.

Lib Dem rookies Fi Hance and Simon Rayner, both clearly unhappy with substantial elements of the plans, failed to ever really assert themselves or their views much at all during the debate allowing Bees to seize the meeting by the scruff of the neck and force a result for the football club with the minimum of fuss.

Ultimately, Rayner and Hance failed to convince their own Lib Dem colleagues – let alone the Labour and Tory establishment figures who were always unlikely to turn down the application – of their genuine concerns.

However, the football club didn’t get it all their own way, the councillors followed officer advice and turned down the ‘Southlands’ housing ‘enabling development’ section of the application that might leave the football club with a funding headache.

The meeting also helped draw out a few facts about the considerable levels of public subsidy going in to the project.

After considerable pressure from councillors, planning officer Richard Mathews finally agreed that waiving £7.5m of s. 106 planning gain payments represented “a public subsidy”.

“If you want to call it that,” he insouciantly told the meeting revealing an odd attitude to large sums of public money and very little interest in the importance of properly funded public services.

Well yes actually Richard, we do want to call it that. If developers are not paying for basic public services like transport, education, health, libraries and so on then the public have to. We can’t just go without them. Therefore developers are being subsidised.

It’s not like most of us are on senior planning officer wages so can afford private education for the kids and private healthcare for ourselves and are in a position not have to give a toss. The majority of people need public services to exist and new, large scale housing developments without them represent an expense for us all to cover.

Under further pressure, when he resorted to making little sense, Matthews appeared to admit that the land at the council-owned Alderman Moore’s former allotments, which will be turned into a housing estate called ‘Moorelands’ by the club, is worth at least £5m and he indicated that this land would be given away by the council to the club for nothing.

That’s £12.5m of public subsidy floating around there then.

Meanwhile, it was something of a personal nightmare evening for Matthew Cockburn, the council’s transport development supremo.

Either poorly briefed or with a lot to hide, he apparently had little idea of the cost of anything to do with transport on the development, and stumbled and mumbled hopelessly through his presentation and then questions from councillors.

However he did eventually confirm – when pressured – that a stadium development would add £5m to the cost of the proposed BRT across the stadium site. Although he claimed some of this cost would be offset by land the football club was setting aside for the BRT route. When pushed on what the value of this land might be, he gave no answer beyond saying that avoiding compulsory purchase of the land would save us some money in legal costs.

So what? It doesn’t even cost in the hundreds of thousands let alone millions to pay lawyers to compulsorily purchase land. Compared to the £5m costs involved, we’re getting little in return if we believe – the admittedly unreliable – Cockburn.

He was equally vague about the impact of the club’s totally flawed transport and travel plans too and offered little in the way of enlightenment about what we might be paying for in terms of transport at the site.

Although most of us probably went away from the meeting with some vague impression that the club would be paying something towards something to do with something transporty at the stadium.

On the basis of this woefully inadequate performance on our behalf, perhaps Mr Cockburn should consider taking a job a little more suited to his abilities? Working on the council’s Park ‘n’ Ride hotline maybe? He certainly shouldn’t be planning complex and costly transport solutions for major developments that’s for sure.

I wonder how much Mr Cockburn’s vagueness and waffling is going to cost us? It’s in the millions anyway.

Bristol City FC are ratcheting up their pretty blatant efforts to lobby members of Development Control (South and East) Committee in advance of the crucial stadium planning meeting on Wednesday. They’ve even gone and put together a little ad campaign (above).

This follows hard on the heels of the club’s Chief Executive, Colin Sexstone’s desperate public pleas from the pages of the Evening Cancer and the club’s website about their random ‘Southlands’ housing development at the back of their Ashton Vale stadium site, which has been recommended for planning refusal by city council officers.

Is Sexstone trying to use the media to bypass planning officers and talk “directly” to councillors who will be making the decision by any chance? And is he perhaps trying to persuade them to ignore the officer recommendation over the “Southlands” development?

But is talking over the heads of planning officers and directly to officially objective members of a planning committee really such a wise idea?

If this “Southlands” site is so crucial to the development and the club thought that their financial appraisals proved that, then wouldn’t the developers be confident of overturning any planning decision on appeal?

But one of the extraordinary features of this whole affair, so far, has been the ease with which Bristol City Council have allowed Lansdown and Sexstone to shroud their financial plans in absolute secrecy.

The situation is so absurd that the councillors sitting on the planning committee are being asked to make complex financial judgements on the basis of a short report of an appraisal of a business plan.

Of course, were this application to go to appeal then it would become part of a judicial process and it’s highly unlikely a member of the judiciary will share the city council’s daft view that a soppy little business plan for a crappy little housing development should be kept secret.

This means Lansdown’s controversial “financial appraisals” are likely to go into the public domain and get torn apart. Particularly as there’s a £50m disagreement over valuations implied in the officer’s report to the planning committee.

However, perhaps what the club doesn’t realise is that if the members do as the club seem to want and decide to go against their officers’ recommendation – negating the need for an all-revealing appeal – officers have made it quite clear that members can only do so on the basis of the ‘very special circumstances’ where the benefits of the stadium project clearly outweigh the harm.

The ‘very special circumstances’ for the “Southlands” housing element of the stadium project is as an ‘enabling development’ or “that it is development necessary to assist the funding of an intrinsically unviable stadium”.

This is essentially a financial consideration and if members approve it contrary to officer advice they are effectively saying that the officer’s view of the financial appraisal is flawed.

Here is some guidance on this type of ‘enabling development’ from English Heritage;

“Financial considerations are fundamental to any decision about enabling development. From this follows a need not only for financial justification to be submitted, but also for its critical assessment by appropriately qualified professionals. The local planning authority should ensure that it has sufficient information to make an informed decision upon the application. If it fails to do so, its decison may be vulnerable to judicial review, and less likely to be supported on appeal.”

“The information supplied should cover all financial aspects of the proposed enabling development, at a sufficient degree of detail to enable scrutiny and validation by the local authority and its professional advisers.”

This means that if the planning committee members go against the officer recommendation they are effectively saying that the financial assessment by their planning officers and their professional advisers is in some way flawed or that the financial information was insufficient or that the assessment was incorrect.

This then offers up the potential for judicial review in the courts and – just like an appeal – the financial appraisals will be put in the public domain.

Moreover, if a judicial review finds against the council then, it could make the council liable for damages to the developers if their decision is overturned.

The councillors on the planning committee will certainly have all been trained and fully briefed on the legal implications of their role. So it would be very surprising if they put the council at risk of being taken to judicial review and effectively get shot by both sides with a hefty bill for the pleasure.

Better to go with the officer’s recommendation and let the developers go to appeal (if they really believe their financial case is strong enough) where the decision is then made by an independent inspector and the council’s financial commitment is limited to the costs of the appeal rather than the potentially open-ended costs involved with being found guilty of maladministration at a judicial review.

Indeed, campaigners have assured the Blogger that should members disregard officer advice on Southlands then they have lawyers waiting in the wings …

This was a comment posted on Saturday’s ‘Mixed reaction to council backing for new Bristol City stadium bid’ story in the Cancer. It maybe deserves a wider audience as a nice illustration of the kind of tripe they’re printing in their support – at any cost – of the city’s wealthiest man.

In the ‘Diary’ section on page 11 of today’s Evening Post (which doesn’t seem to be on-line) there is an implication that Avon Wildlife Trust don’t know what they are talking about because they refer to otters at Ashton Vale. The article says ‘aren’t they as rare as hens teeth?’

Yes they are rare and should be protected. But are they at Ashton Vale?

The answer is in the Ecology Chapter of the Technical Study submitted with the [stadium] planning application.

It says, “Detailed survey provided evidence of both otter and water vole.”

So yes they are they are at Ashton Vale and it is a reason why Ashton Vale Site of Nature Conservation Interest should be protected and shouldn’t have housing built on it.

I suppose that it is too much to hope that the Evening Post will apologise to the Avon Wildlife Trust?

Some more from this stadium planning report (pdf):

Let’s have a look at page 64 then, which is proving to be a bit of a bone of contention:

The Southlands housing and hotel and food and drink uses are proposed as enabling development to assist the funding of the stadium. The very special circumstances put forward are that the value generated by these parts of the development are necessary to assist the funding of an unviable development.

There is a disagreement about the extent of the funding deficit but at best this is a marginal scheme even with the enabling development.”

[.....]

The Southlands housing element is not supported by your officers because there is a weaker enabling case due to the poor physical and functional relationship with the stadium and this is not compensated by the relatively higher financial contribution that it would bring to the delivery of the stadium.

This weaker enabling case combined with additional harm to the openness of the Green Belt on this part of the site, coupled with the additional local plan open space protection afforded to this open area leads the officers to conclude that this element of the scheme is not acceptable.

As set out earlier in the this report, if members wish to take a different view and support this element, this would have to be on the basis of the very special circumstances of the stadium project clearly outweighing the harm.

Your officers would, therefore, recommend a scheme that included only the stadium site and the associated hotel and food and drink uses on the Green Belt land. The applicant should be invited therefore to resubmit a propsal based on this principle and the recommendation is set out in these terms accordingly.

This little lot immediately sparked a response from Bristol City FC who posted on their website:

Clearly we are disappointed and surprised that a recommendation on the Southlands housing has not been achieved. This has always been an integral part of the application, enabling the stadium to be funded. At no point until a few weeks ago had we been aware of any problems or opposition to this. We will put our case strongly to the planning committee as this is essential to the financial viability of the stadium project.

Let’s ignore, for now, how far up your own arse your head has to be for you to be completely unaware of any opposition to building houses on the green belt and move on instead to the ever-loyal Evening Cancer where Sexstone adds:

“This was a key part of the planning application and it will be another gap that we will have to fill. The value of this residential plan to the whole scheme could be up to £10m. What else is going to fund the stadium? It won’t grow by magic.”

£10m eh? But the report, based on the findings of an independent evaluation of the football club’s financial appraisal says, “Not allowing Southlands would add a deficit of £5.5m to the project. In relation to the total cost of the stadium this accounts for approximately 4.5% of the funding”

Of course, we can’t actually look at the club’s financial appraisals to make our own judgment on who’s right or wrong because, of course, the club has insisted on their plans being secret. As a result £5.5m can “grow by magic” into £10m!

Maybe at this point we need to take a step back and consider what is really happening here.

As reported on this very blog nearly seven months ago, a company called Ashton Vale Project LLP of 70 Prince Street, bought a large chunk of land from Ashton Vale Land Ltd, also of 70 Prince Street for £990k.

I think there is enough in this report to keep a small army of bloggers happy

Tony D

Indeed. So let’s get the ball rolling with this from page 59 then:

In summary, the council’s advisors disagree significantly with the applicant’s conclusion that there is a development gap of about £49.5m (i.e the difference between the development cost and the value of the project)”

[......]

“The main reason why the council’s advisors disagree with the applicant are;

1. The applicant has not included the enhanced value to Bristol City Football Co Ltd caused by the positive revenue impact of the new stadium on ticket revenue and other revenue streams. Therefore the appraisal underestimates the value of the completed project.

2. The applicants’ have valued the Ashton Vale site significantly above market value. It is understood that the figure used in based on a recent acquisition of an equity interest in the site. This is not considered to have been an arms length transaction and given the current planning policy on this land the value of the site is much lower. It is not reasonable to include other than current value of the land as a cost in the appraisal and therefore the applicant’s appraisal over-estimates the land cost.”

“The applicant has responded to the council’s scrutiny of the development appraisal by adjusting their assessment of the development shortfall down to to £30.3m.”

[.....]

“The Council’s advisors have reviewed the revised appraisal from the applicant but do not accept this reduced level of deficit, confirming their earlier advice that the project is near break even.”

And what the fuck does that all mean then?

Our man with a head for planning scams says:

“Basically Lansdown has tried to take the council for a ride to get a public subsidy of land and avoid planning obligations by trying to claim a funding gap of nearly £50m.

“He’s done this by getting Bristol City FC (chairman and major shareholder, Steve Lansdown) to undervalue the value of its new stadium while at the same time agreeing a value for the land that the stadium will be built on (landowner , Vence LLP: directors Steve Lansdown and his son) that is vastly inflated.

“When they got their hand caught in the cookie jar by the council they tried to bargain by dropping the gap down to £30m but planning officers have still said ‘no dice’”

So that’s how Bristol’s richest man carries on. More soon ….

Looks like Stevie Lansdown and his football club Chief Exec, Colin Sexstone might just have gone and hoisted themselves with their own petard or, at least, from their 30 foot high billboard.

Today’s revelation from Jones the News that Tesco have pulled the plug on the £20m Ashton Gate supermarket deal means there’s no longer a food store in the equation. Does that mean no stadium as well?

It’s not looking good for Lansdown, who’s still ploughing on with his planning application for a major supermarket on the stadium site even though it seems doomed to failure.

It’s an open secret that this application stands no chance in planning terms and relies, instead, on being backed on the basis of the £20m contribution it could provide to the new stadium as an’enabling development’.

Alas, with no Tesco, there’s no £20m on the table and therefore no ‘enabling development’ argument to make any more.

And forget the people clutching at straws claiming Sainsbury’s are ready to step in, move across the road and save the day. They might well be vaguely interested in the site but they won’t be paying top whack for it. And certainly not the £20m quoted.

Why would they? With their chief competitor publicly stating their lack of interest, the huge price tag attached to the site has collapsed. Lansdown will be lucky to get £10m for it now.

An Ashton Gate food store as ‘enabling development’ for a new stadium appears to be no more. Is it time for plan B?

This weekend’s Cancer ‘EXCLUSIVE‘ by Ian “The Tumour” Onions claiming Stevie Lansdown has ditched his Tesco on Ashton Gate plan in favour of a Sainsburys on Ashton Gate plan asks more questions than it answers.

Like where the hell did this story come from? Is it true? And who was the source?

The story certainly didn’t appear to come from the club who initially met Onions’ story with a firm “no comment” and then kicked the story further into the long grass today, assuring fans on their website that the existing ‘Tesco’ application is set to go to a planning meeting on November 11.

Nor did the story come from the Supporters Club who told the Blogger on Saturday, “[We] can confirm that the existing application has NOT been withdrawn.”

Why on earth would the club give the Cancer a story and then decline to comment on it beyond rejecting one of its central claims? Namely, that “[the] planning application which was due to be heard next month at a special council meeting is expected to be withdrawn.”

So where else might this story have come from?

Well, Bristol’s Lib Dems seem happy to talk about it. Their Deputy Leader, “Sweaty” Cook appeared on BBC Points West on Saturday evening merrily commenting on the non-story.

He then popped again in today’s Cancer. “I can’t really say anything,” he announced before er, saying quite a lot more on the topic!

Meanwhile on this blog over the weekend Gary Hopkins smugly told us: “Well I did warn you to expect suprises (sic).”

Well, I suppose it is a surprise of sorts Gary, that the Lib Dems are now telling the football club who to sell their ground to from the front page of the Evening Post.

Although it’s somewhat less of a surprise that the club’s ignoring you.

Who’s idea was all this then?