DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE – 16 January … · LOCATION PLAN: 07/01/13 13:55 Committee...

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE – 16 January 2013

ITEM NO. 1

WARD: Bishopston CONTACT OFFICER: Peter Westbury SITE ADDRESS:

The Memorial Stadium Bristol Rovers Football Club Filton Avenue Bristol BS7 0BF

APPLICATION NO:

12/02090/F

Full Planning

EXPIRY DATE: 3 August 2012

Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of the stadium and all related structures, and erection of a foodstore with under-croft car parking, 65 residential units (houses and apartments) and community/commercial floorspace. Associated works comprising hard and soft landscaping, enlargement of vehicular access to Filton Avenue and the creation of a mini-roundabout on Filton Avenue, involving the demolition of nos. 29 and 31 Filton Avenue, and improvements to road junctions at Filton Avenue/Gloucester Road and Filton Avenue/Muller Road. (Major application). RECOMMENDATION:

Refer to the Secretary of State

AGENT:

WYG Planning & Design Ropemaker Court 12 Lower Park Row Bristol BS1 5BN

APPLICANT:

Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd 33 Holborn London EC1N 2HT

The following plan is for illustrative purposes only, and cannot be guaranteed to be up to date. LOCATION PLAN:

07/01/13 13:55 Committee report v3.0706

Item no.1 Development Control (North) Committee – 16 January 2013 Application No. : The Memorial Stadium Bristol Rovers Football Club Filton Avenue Bristol BS7 0BF

7-Jan-13 Page 1 of 84

SUMMARY This is an application for full planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Memorial Ground site, including the demolition of all buildings on the site and their replacement with a mixed use development comprising a food store, with undercroft car parking and 65 dwellings (including houses and apartments) including 40% affordable housing and community/commercial floor space. The proposals also include associated works comprising hard and soft landscaping, the enlargement of the vehicular entrance including the demolition of 29 and 31 Filton Avenue and improvements to junctions at Filton Avenue/Gloucester Road and Filton Avenue/Muller Road. The proposals for the redevelopment of the site are an important part of the overall objective of enabling the Football Club to relocate to a purpose built Stadium in South Gloucestershire, which at the time of the preparation of the report had a resolution to approve. It is accepted that there are benefits for Bristol in the Club relocating to a purpose built stadium within the Bristol area. There are therefore grounds to make an exception to development plan policy L8 that seeks to protect the Memorial Ground as a sports stadium. In terms of retail impact, regard has been paid to the impact on the vitality and viability of Gloucester Road Town Centre (GRTC). The current health of this centre is good and the prediction is that it will continue to be good in the period to 2022. The predictions of both the advisors to the Council and the Applicants are that even with the supermarket in operation, GRTC continues to grow (but at a slower rate). In addition, it is predicted that although there will be levels of trade diversion from stores in Gloucester Road, particularly the convenience goods sector, including the potential for store closures and reducing footfall, there will be far greater impact on existing out of town convenience stores (Golden Hill for example), which are located at a further distance from the GRTC. There is a difference of opinion on the level of linked trips that would arise from the proposal, but mindful that there are likely to be more linked trips between the proposed store and GRTC (than from Golden Hill) and mindful that there is mitigation proposed (including secured free parking for three hours), the impact on GRTC will be further reduced. With a package of mitigation measures designed to promote GRTC, it is considered that the application proposal will not have a significantly harmful impact on Gloucester Road. In terms of impact on highways, the advice received is that the proposed development will lead to additional traffic within this part of the road network. It is not considered significant when compared against the impacts of consented development, such as Southmead Hospital. Without mitigation, it is predicted that there would be increased queuing, increased use of alternative routes and delays to bus journeys. Therefore to mitigate the traffic impact, a range of mitigation over and above the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution has been negotiated. The mitigation measures include alterations to signal timing at Filton Avenue/ Muller Road, Muller Road/ Gloucester Road and measures to increase bus priority and measures to increase safety for cyclists. Alongside mitigation to address the impact of traffic, there are measures in place to secure ongoing monitoring of air quality and penalties if air quality targets are missed. In terms of design, the application site is a large (3 hectares) site surrounded by predominantly two storey residential development. This means that a bespoke design solution is required. While the Council’s City Design Group (CDG) have expressed concern that the design of the scheme does not meet urban design principles, the proposal will facilitate the development of a highly sustainable building on the site that taking into account the existing condition of the site and the introduction of landscaping would improve the character and appearance of the site and the wider area. Overall, the proposals raise issues particularly in relation to retail impact and traffic impact. However these concerns must be weighed against the benefits of enabling the development of improved sporting facilities for the benefit of the Greater Bristol area.



SITE DESCRIPTION The Memorial Stadium at Filton Avenue, Horfield, is the home of Bristol Rovers FC and Bristol Rugby Club. The Stadium currently provides a capacity for 12,000 spectators including 2,837 seats with the remaining areas providing terraced standing areas for spectators. The Ground is used on average twice a week. The site is surrounded on all sides by residential properties. The Memorial Stadium site is close to the junction of Filton Avenue and Muller Road in Horfield. It has an area of 3.3 hectares. The edge of the site (at Strathmore Road) is approximately 325m from the edge of the Gloucester Road Town Centre, as defined in the Site Allocations and Development Management Document. Policy Context / Planning Designations In terms of planning designations, the site is designated in the Adopted Local Plan as a sports stadium (Policy L8) and is safeguarded from other development. As a consequence the proposals for the redevelopment of the site for retail use are considered to be a departure from the Adopted Development Plan. In addition, the proposals exceed 5,000 sq.m. of retail floorspace in an out-of-centre location. Consequently, for both of these reasons, should the committee be minded to approve the application, it would need to be referred to the Secretary of State to allow for a possible call in for his decision. The site is designated as being within Flood Zone 1 where there is low probability of flooding. The site is not within a conservation area and is not designated as a site of special scientific interest (SSSI). There are trees in the northern part of the site which are the subject of a tree preservation order. The gates to the site which are located at one of the access points to the site from Filton Avenue are Grade II listed. SITE HISTORY Extant permissions Application 08/00061/F - Amendments to regeneration of existing stadium to provide a new 18,000 seated (18,500 Capacity) stadium and ancillary accommodation, hotel (84 rooms), 99 student flats (546 rooms), restaurant, convenience store, offices, associated car, coach and cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. Granted on 17 November 2008. It is now the subject of an application for its renewal (Application Reference: 11/04047/R) which is pending consideration and has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of this application. Proposal for a replacement Stadium in South Gloucestershire South Gloucestershire Application PT12/0888/F for the erection of a 21,700 seater new sports stadium (Class D2) and ancillary Club Shop (500m2), Supporters Club Bar (784m2) and Offices (198m2), with associated Convenience Store (Class A1) (465m2), Gymnasium (Class D2) (1,280m2), Banqueting facilities (Class D1) (1,006m2), Media Study Centre/UWE Teaching Space (Class D1) (2.114m2). Construction of car park (1,000 spaces) and new vehicular access. Depositing of excavated material resulting from construction process, landscaping and lighting on land between Long Down Avenue And University Of West Of England, Stoke Gifford is currently pending



consideration.

The Applicants have indicated that should planning permission be granted, then the intention would be for the replacement stadium to be constructed before the existing stadium is vacated.

29 and 31 Filton Avenue

There is no planning history for either 29 or 31 Filton Avenue. APPLICATION This is an application for full planning permission for a comprehensive mixed use development comprising the following three key elements:

- Supermarket - Residential Development - Community facility or commercial floorspace

Supermarket The proposed supermarket would be 11,838 sq m. (gross) foodstore (including a covered service yard) of which 4,851 sq. m. will be net tradable floorspace and the provision of 572 parking spaces (including 27 disability spaces). Provision will be made for 47 cycle spaces. Of the net floorpsace 70% (3,396 sq. m.) is proposed for the sale of convenience goods and 30% (1,455 sq. m.) is for comparison goods. The supermarket would include an ancillary café. In comparison with other supermarkets in the north of Bristol: Application Proposal 4,851 sq. m (net) Sainsbury’s, Fox Den Road, Filton 4,698 sq. m. Tesco Extra, Eastgate Road 4,652 sq. m. Sainsbury’s, Whiteladies Road 2,538 sq. m. Tesco, Lime Trees Road 2,451 sq. m. The proposed supermarket at Ashton Gate would have a floor area of 9,290 sq. m. (net retail floor space). The application form indicates that the proposed store would be open between the hours of 0700-2300 (Monday to Saturday) and 1000-2000 (Sunday and Bank Holiday) with potential for 24 hour deliveries. The application form indicates that there would be 350 employees (105 full-time employees and 245 part-time employees). Sustainable Design The Applicants’ have placed particular emphasis upon achieving a highly sustainable development within the site. The proposed supermarket would be designed to target BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and would include high levels of insulation. It would be designed to minimise air leakage rates (to be tested further at detailed design stage. The proposed residential development has been designed to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. The overall scheme incorporates a variety of additional



measures designed to ensure that it is highly sustainable. Residential Development The application proposal includes the erection of 65 residential units to be wrapped around the proposed supermarket. The mix of residential development would be as follows: 5 x one-bedroom apartments 26 x two-bedroom apartments 8 x two-bedroom houses 26 x three-bedroom houses It would include the provision of 23 affordable units (40%) to be distributed as follows: Market Social Rented Intermediate 2 x Bed Houses 6 0 2 3 x Bed Houses 15 9 2 1 x Bed Flats and Maisonettes 5 0 0 2 x Bed Flats and Maisonettes 13 10 3 3 x Bed Flats and Maisonettes 0 0 0 A total of 65 parking spaces would be provided for the residential element of the scheme. The submitted plans also indicate the provision of parking spaces to the rear of properties in Filton Avenue to replace those lost on Filton Avenue itself. The residential development would include a mixture of three storey single aspect housing to be wrapped around the supermarket building and two and three storey terrace, semi-detached and detached housing to the rear of the proposed supermarket on land close to existing terraced residential development in Alton Road and Ellicott Road. In addition, it is proposed that three, three storey apartment blocks including apartments would also be wrapped around the supermarket building. Community Building or Commercial Floorspace The application proposal includes the provision of 410 sq. m (gross) floor space for use as either a community facility or commercial floorspace at ground floor level with residential apartments above. Access The proposal includes a single access from Filton Avenue via a mini-roundabout, facilitated by the demolition of 29 and 31 Filton Avenue. In addition, the proposal includes alterations to the junctions of Muller Road and Gloucester Road and Filton Avenue. During the consideration of the Application, the plans have been amended to incorporate alterations to the road layout in the vicinity of the site. Specifically the alteration of the junction of Filton Avenue and Gloucester Road to enable vehicles heading south on Gloucester road the ability to turn left. With reference to 29 Filton Avenue, Council planning records indicate that the property is a house. During the consideration of the application it has been drawn to Officer’s attention that the property is used for supported living. There is not necessarily a requirement for planning permission to be gained for this and as it is regarded as a house, there is no planning justification to resist this application on the grounds of its loss. Public Open Space



The application proposal includes the provision of a public open space to be located in proximity to the existing Memorial Gates. This would be referred to as the Memorial Square. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) A screening opinion was issued in regard of the proposed development and the need for EIA. Officers considered that the proposals would not give rise to environmental impacts of such breadth or complexity that an EIA would be required. Amended Plans In addition, amendments have been made to the design and height of proposed House Type 5, which is located immediately adjacent to No. 25 Alton Road. In addition amendments have been made to the proposed finishing brick for House Type 1. In support of their application, the Applicants have submitted:

- Technical Notes (Highways) - Design documents/ clarifications - Amended Air Quality Report - Retail Impact Mitigation Statement (November 2012)

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Applicants’ Statement of Community Involvement catalogues their initiated community consultation undertaken ahead of the submission of this application. This included the distribution of letters to 275 nearby residential properties confirming details of the Applicant’s intentions. In addition, four resident drop-in sessions took place in January and February 2012, meetings with ward councillors, liaison with key stakeholders and Gloucester Road traders. Fundamental Outcomes of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) The Applicant’s SCI identifies the following changes which came out of the engagement with the local community:

- Incorporation of a community centre into the development. - Creation of a community garden for residents at the south east corner of the site with the

removal of six houses. - Creation of more open space at the north of the site with the removal of the commercial units. - No vehicle access from Alton Road (pedestrian and cycle only). - Covered service yard - Increased emphasis on landscaping throughout the home zone area and in particular on site

boundaries. - Proposal for Memorial Square drawn up in agreement with Bristol Former Players Society.”

RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION In respect of formal consultation undertaken on the application, site notices were displayed on 30 May 2012, with an expiry for receipt of comments on 20 June 2012. A press advertisement was also undertaken with the same period for comment. Letters were sent to local residents and businesses that surround the site on 29 May 2012 with an



expiry date for receipt of comments on 19 June 2012. At the time of the preparation of the report, in response to the consultation a total of 1374 representations had been received, of which 888 representations support the application and 476 object. 10 representations made general comments on the application. Matters highlighted in support of the application The representations were made in support of the application are summarised as follows: Impact on existing sports provision (See Key Issue A) Representations received highlighted that the proposal will enable Bristol Rovers and Bristol Rugby to move to a purpose built 20th Century stadium at the UWE site, bringing a higher standard of sports facilities to the area which would provide benefits to the University itself in terms of a greater sports offer, as well as benefiting the overall city and region by boosting tourism. Retail Impact (See Key Issue B) Local businesses on Gloucester Road are aimed at a different market to Sainsbury’s and mostly comprise of pubs/bars, charity shops, coffee shops, alternative clothing stores and small grocery stores. A new supermarket like Sainsbury’s moving into the area would be highly convenient by some respondents as ‘there are no supermarkets in this part of Gloucester Road’ and it was felt proposals would not negatively affect local shops as they have a loyal customer base. The proposal would lead to retail growth in the locality and attract people from outside the local area which could have benefits on Gloucester Road. Principle of residential development (Key Issue C) The proposal was seen to be sympathetic to the local community and positive in that it ‘provides low cost housing needed in the area’. ‘The housing scheme which has been placed around the supermarket is attractive and I like the fact that (as a resident of Strathmore Road) that I do not have to look onto the back of the main building’. Highway Issues (See Key Issue D) One respondent highlighted national government research which identifies that lack of parking is a key reason why High Streets lose business. ‘This has been raised at a recent Neighbourhood Partnership meeting. Sainsbury’s is considering three hours free parking, instead of just two, so customers could also use Gloucester Road. Sainsbury’s is also considering regularly advertising Gloucester Road businesses for free’. Respondents generally stated that the proposals will ease congestion on match days and although traffic would still be of some concern, amendments to the road layout will work well. There will be improvements for local residents in terms of parking and a new bus stop. Many residents will be able to walk or cycle to the site, Sustainability (See Key Issue E) A number of respondents stated that the location is ideal for a supermarket because it is surrounded by dense housing and so for many it will reduce the need to use their cars, reducing petrol consumption. A number of responses highlighted the benefits for nearby elderly or disabled residents



who could manage the short walk to the store. It was also stated by a respondent that ‘Sainsbury’s made clear at their consultation that the trend is for more on-line shopping and less people visiting stores’ and it was noted that the proposal has been designed with sustainable principles in mind, with reference made to the BREEAM rating. Design – Impact on the wider area (See Key Issue F) It was felt by a number of respondents that the area needs this ‘exciting’ ‘mixed-use’ development to act as a ‘community hub’ to benefit the local community, rejuvenate the area (including Gloucester Road), and make best use of this site, which for some respondents looks ‘uninviting’ at present and is of a use that is considered by one respondent to be ‘detrimental to the local community’. It was felt that this is a good opportunity to move the stadium away from a primarily residential area and would bring Bristol closer to other cities in terms of amenities. The proposed Memorial Square will greatly enhance this important part of the site’s history and the proposal would help to retain the Memorial Gates and through landscaping increase greenery in the locality. Economic Regeneration (See Key Issue G) Respondents supporting generally felt that in a time of recession it is positive to see a company like Sainsbury’s are willing to invest in the area to regenerate this part of the city, providing many full and part time jobs, both in the supermarket and in the construction industry hence boosting the local economy. Amenity of neighbours (See Key Issue I) Respondents felt that the introduction of a superstore in place of the football stadium would remove football fans from the area, and eradicate the anti-social behaviour associated with such fans, thus improving the area. One comment stated that once the store is built there will be no further disruption. A number of representations stated that traffic utilising the supermarket would be no more intrusive than that at present caused by traffic on existing roads; particularly on match days when large volumes of vehicles cause congestion and pollution. The proposed underground car park would reduce the impact on the wider area and benefit local residents as customers would not require on-street parking in the surrounding residential area. Other comments A new stadium at UWE would be fantastic for Bristol, it would help Rovers to fulfil their ambitions, encourage young people to get into sports and would benefit the economy of Bristol as it is behind compared to other cities in the provision of arenas and facilities. A number of respondents stated that while a supermarket would not be their first choice of use for the Memorial Ground, they would prefer it to an expanded stadium and felt it could increase the value of surrounding properties. Some respondents commended Sainsbury’s involvement of local neighbours and were also impressed with Sainsbury’s initiatives to be eco responsible and support local businesses. ’The City of Bristol have no interest in promoting sport or leisure so this would be an excellent way to achieve their ambition to get rid of all of the professional teams under their jurisdiction’. Matters raised in objection to the application



The representations have been received in objection to the application are summarised as follows: Impact on existing sports provision (See Key Issue A) The proposal is contrary to retained policy L8 from the Bristol Local Plan. The proposed Sainsbury’s development on the Memorial Ground would result in a loss of the stadium to the local area, and is not an acceptable development for this site given that the ground was left in perpetuity for sporting and recreational purposes. Green spaces, recreation and sport are so much more important for the health and wellbeing of the community. Retail Impact (See Key Issue B) Gloucester Road is known throughout the city as having many independent thriving shops. Respondents felt there are already too many supermarkets in the local area and the addition of supermarkets and other multinational companies, would put this individual road at risk. One representation stated ‘to crassly destroy Gloucester Road by bringing in a model that has been proven to destroy our delicate commercial ecosystem would demonstrate that the planning authority do not understand the community you serve’. Principle of residential development (See Key Issue B) The site should be developed entirely for affordable housing as this is what the area needs. Highway Issues (See Key Issue C) It was felt that this development would generate a large number of additional trips by vehicle including delivery vehicle movements. The road network is already congested, and in particular respondents felt that the Muller Road and Filton Avenue junction cannot cope with the additional traffic a supermarket would bring. There was concern about the proposed mini-roundabout access Filton Avenue; it was felt the proposal was likely to cause congestion and the location of a mini-roundabout close to the local bus stops could be dangerous. A number of respondents were in favour of a one-way system along Filton Avenue. Concern was also expressed about alterations being made to the width of surrounding pavements to facilitate the movement of heavy goods vehicles, and the resulting impact on school children. Design – Impact on the wider area (See Key Issue F) One respondent stated ‘the proposed development is ill considered in terms of its site planning and significant[ly] departs from a number of key urban design principles which ultimately would have delivered a high quality urban design’. Further criticism of the design includes reference to the ‘monotonous imposing boundary with little architectural merit’ on the Alton Road elevation. Other responses expressed concern regarding over-intensive development, harm to amenities of adjoining residents, and the demolition of properties along Filton Avenue. It was also felt that the overshadowing diagram contained within the Daylight Assessment was incomprehensible given its scale and does nothing to alleviate concerns about the proposal. Economic Regeneration (See Key Issue G) The proposal would lead to the loss of local jobs rather than an increase. Supermarkets provide low wage jobs for some residents but add no real gain to the overall economy



of the locality. Air Quality (See Key Issue H) Gloucester Road is an Air Quality Management Zone as it has air quality worse than EU guidelines and this development can only exacerbate environmental and health risks as the volume of traffic increases as a result of this development. Air quality in the vicinity is already poor and below European recommended levels and does not need to be worsened by increased traffic. Amenity of neighbours (See Key Issue I) One respondent stated: ‘whilst there is a recognition that the Memorial Ground will be redeveloped and that there could be wider public benefits to the redevelopment of the site, the adverse impact that this will have on the amenities of adjoining residents should not be overlooked’. It was felt there would be harmful impact on residential amenity with respect to increased traffic, congestion, reduction in air quality, increased noise, vibration and loss of privacy. Crime and Disorder: Concern was expressed regarding the impact of the proposal on Alton Road. The representation refers to the benefit of cul-de-sac development. If opened up it would increase potential for crime and noise. Concern too that the proposed ramp would be used by skateboarders. Other comments A number of respondents felt that there could be a far greater benefit in alternatives to a supermarket on this site, for example a mix of low impact self build housing, new school, community supported farm, or workshop area. One commented: ‘must we always bend over backwards and allow the big supermarkets to play their turf wars’ and there was more general criticism regarding building on a war memorial. Some concerns were raised regarding loss of value to property in Filton Avenue and one respondent stated that the football club would not going benefit from having larger capacity for its number of spectators. Petitions The Council’s E-Petitions website indicates that four petitions have been submitted which are relevant to this application: Petition in favour: “We support the Sainsbury's Horfield redevelopment at the Memorial Stadium.” 1,647 signatures at the time of the preparation of the report. Petition against : “No to a supermarket at the Memorial Ground in Horfield”. 611 signatures at the time of the preparation of the report. Petition against: “We believe that the supermarket development is not, in any way, a fitting tribute to the heroes of World War I. The Memorial Ground continues to…” 38 signatures at the time of the preparation of the report. Petition against: “No To New Supermarket on Gloucester Road” 147 signatures at the time of the preparation of the report.

http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/community/petition/1935

http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/community/petition/891



Residents of Alton Road also organised and submitted a petition with 33 signatures stating: “The residents of Alton Road strongly object to Sainsbury’s plans to change Alton Road from a cul-de-sac to pedestrian and/ or vehicle access to the proposed housing development. This supports the letter sent to Sainsbury’s outlining resident’s outlining resident’s concerns of the proposal.” RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT Councillor Bev Knott (Bishopston Ward) Comments as follows: “Rovers need to move to their new stadium in at UWE. But this Sainsbury`s application is very clearly not the right and proper way to do provide the finance. The basic problem with the application is that the proposed Supermarket is too big, - expected number of customers per year is 1,960,000 - twice the size of Tesco Golden Hill, bigger than Tesco, Eastgate - biggest carpark of freestanding supermarket in North Bristol - projected catchment area from Filton in the north to Broadmead in the south This will lead to unacceptable consequences in traffic and harm to local retail. TRAFFIC. The memorandum from Traffic Officers was full of uncertainties and unanswered questions. This cannot possibly form the basis of a responsible way forward. Questions submitted about this memorandum have not been answered. Therefore it is not possible to support this as a way to accept this application. RETAIL. The Council`s own retail consultants , GVA, have stated clearly that there would be harm to traders on Gloucester Road and elsewhere. I have demonstrated how this would be `significant`in my email to the case Officer. If`significant`, then National Planning Framework is clear the application must be refused. Any recommendation otherwise would not be responsible.” Councillor Dr David Willingham (Bishopston Ward) “Having reviewed the evidence, the conclusion that has been reached is that although there are a few slightly positive elements to this application, there are significantly and overwhelmingly outweighed by the serious detrimental impact the proposed development would have on the local area.” Recommended that in the strongest terms that the application be refused for the following reasons: Detrimental effect on viability of Gloucester Road Detrimental effect on Traffic flow Detrimental effect on Air Quality in the locality Detrimental effect on the setting of Grade II listed structure Detrimental effect on Mental Healthcare provision in Bristol Detrimental effect of proposed housing on effective provision of school places in the locality Detrimental effect on provision of sports stadia within Bristol Given the length of Councillor Willingham’s representation, it is included at Appendix C. Councillor Peter Levy (Horfield Ward)



“In essence I would like to support this application. As a neighbouring councillor I have attended every consultation meeting and have found the applicant to be communicative and open to suggestions to change as they have been raised. I believe that the changes to areas of the development such as they layout as well as the addition of the community facility have all been as a result of effective public consultation. I'm aware that we have heard of some opposition to this scheme and whilst I respect these concerns the potential benefits of such a development must be looked at in context to the wider issues. I would have liked for this area to have been used for a range of other endeavours such as affordable housing, a school or even a memorial park. However, we have to be realistic and practical. Finally as a former member of HM Forces I am assured that the 'Memorial' element of this development is being honoured and a feature will remain in place to continue to serve as a reminder to residents of the former players who gave their lives for their country.” Councillor Anthony Negus (Cotham Ward) “I am objecting to this application for a superstore on this site as the councillor for Cotham Ward and a member of the Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Neighbourhood Partnership. I am convinced that the figures produced within the report and those within the response submitted by the NHS clearly show the damage this will cause to the wonderful nearby shopping street that is Gloucester Road and other local shopping streets including those in Cheltenham Road, Zetland Road, Chandos Road and Whiteladies Road/Cotham Hill that are within my ward. These are very fragile retail streets that nevertheless are essential to the physical and community life of these areas. The Neighbourhood Partnership has put much time and money into schemes for their sustenance for this reason. There has to be separation of the need for a solution to a serious problem which affects Bristol as a whole and this solution which will be the cause of so much immediate and long-term continuing damage to a widespread part of the City. I wish it was not needed but I support the need to maintain the sporting life of this city and to realise the value of the clubs present land value. I do not accept that this application represents the only viable financial model for this transition for this site. The damage is just too great. This is the wrong site for a superstore in its own right but with the collateral damage to the surrounding areas it will be a disaster. This application should be refused and urgent consideration given to a plan that may not be so profitable for all the various parties but will nevertheless facilitate the maintenance of the football club and hopefully the continued beneficial association with other organisations. There are many players in the overall solution that could combine to finding a solution certainly far less harmful and very possibly much more beneficial overall. I urge you to pause this process and permit this broader conversation to take place for the longer-term sustainable benefit of the city.” INTERNAL CONSULTEES RETAIL ADVICE Given the complexity of the this retail assessment, the Local Planning Authority has retained a retail consultant (GVA) to provide independent advice on the retail issues relating to the application and in



particular, to assess the retail impact assessment submitted by the Applicants in support of their application with a view to answering the two requirements of the NPPF set out above. Comments summarised within Key Issue B. TRANSPORT (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT) TEAM: Comments summarised within Key Issue D. Full Copy attached at Appendix B. CITY DESIGN GROUP - URBAN DESIGN AND CONSERVATION TEAM: Comments summarised within Key Issue F. BCC CONSERVATION TEAM The site contains the memorial gates, which are grade II listed, at first glance the impacts of the scheme on these are relatively minor. In that no physical works are proposed to these gates, the development would however affect the setting of these features. The existing stadium and pitch may be regarded by the local community as non designated heritage asset bearing in mind the cultural value of the site to as a sporting venue associated with Bristol Rovers. I would suggest that early consultation would be prudent to assess if there are such perceived values held by local residents. It would be prudent to consult the Twentieth Century Society in view of the age of the buildings and confirming if the building have any degree of architectural merit which has yet to be established. Officer Note: The Twentieth Century Society was consulted but no comments were received. BCC ARCHAEOLOGY “Apart from the listed gates which are to be retained and enhanced, the site would appear to contain little of heritage value. The sports ground was constructed in 1921 and has been substantially remodelled since then. The original construction would have effectively removed or severely truncated any archaeological material that may have been present prior to 1921. However, the archaeological assessment considers. probably correctly, the site would have been of low archaeological potential, with little indication of anything other than agricultural use of the site for a considerable period.” BCC ECONOMY, ENTERPRISE & INCLUSION, BRISTOL FUTURES The Economy, Enterprise & Inclusion (EEI) Team object to the proposal to build a new Sainsbury's supermarket on the Memorial Stadium site. This out of centre proposal is contrary to the Portas Review into High Streets and the Government's response (March 2012), National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and the Bristol Core Strategy (June 2011). The EEI Team is concerned about the impact of such a development on existing centres in the retail hierarchy, especially Gloucester Road and Filton Avenue. From speaking to traders and a representative of Gloucester Road Traders' Association there is a general concern that Sainsbury's will have too much of a negative impact on existing local traders. Concern was expressed about the existing and growing number of supermarket/convenience stores in and around Gloucester Road. Co-op has recently opened on Ashley Down Road, Morrison’s is due to open on Gloucester Road and Tesco is planning to open on Filton Avenue. Independent businesses already feel squeezed and under threat from multiples.



From speaking to Gloucester Road traders, there is also concern about a lack of parking and the current parking restrictions/enforcement. Information from Business Rates suggests that the vacancy rates for Gloucester Road have remained static at 5.2% for May, July and October 2012. The citywide rate for October 2012 is 8.6%. This suggests that Gloucester Road is currently performing reasonably well. The Lockleaze (Gainsborough Square) vacancy rate has remained consistent at 10% over May, July and October 2012. The Filton Avenue vacancy rate is of concern, it has increased to 23.8% in October, up from 4.5% in May and 4.8% in July 2012. If this proposal is granted, an appropriate level of mitigation should be provided to all nearby retail centres. Whilst Bishopston and Horfield have levels of unemployment below the city average (2.4% and 3.5% respectively, compared to 4% for the city as at September 2012), the proposed site is accessible to Lockleaze and Southmead, both of which have unemployment levels above the city average (4.8% and 5.9% respectively). The EEI therefore welcomes the additional jobs created during the construction phase (350-400) and the supermarket (up to 245 full time and 105 part time jobs). We welcome the commitment to enter into a Local Labour Agreement with Bristol City Council and Job Centre Plus. However, we are concerned about the potential loss of jobs within existing businesses who may be negatively impacted. The Bristol Citywide Retail Study (2007) identified the high level of independent stores operating in Bristol, around 70% of units were occupied by independent businesses. Support for the independent sector is therefore vital. Bristol City Council is in the process of developing a Retail Action Plan, which will set out the council's and its partners support for high streets. The Council and its partners have so far shown strong support for community based initiatives such as the Bristol Independents campaign and the local currency scheme, the Bristol Pound. The Gloucester Road Traders' Association has recently been awarded £10,000 by the Department of Communities & Local Government to progress some of their improvement ideas. The Council will be assisting the Association with this going forward. BCC AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT: Comments summarised within Key Issue H. BCC POLLUTION CONTROL (NOISE AND LIGHT): Refer to Key Issue I. BCC SUSTAINABLE CITY TEAM: Refer to Key Issue E. BCC FLOOD RISK MANAGER: No objections and support the Environment Agency's comments as of their letter dated 11 June 2012. Conditions as suggested by the EA must be applied if planning permission is granted. BCC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: Comments summarised within Key Issue C. BCC NATURAL CONSERVATION TEAM: Comments summarised within Key Issue J. BCC LANDSCAPE DESIGN TEAM: No comments received but see comments of BCC Aboricultural Team and City Design Group (See Key Issues F and J). BCC ABORICULTURAL TEAM



The proposals would require the removal of 26 trees. Of these, 6 have been classed as Category U under the BS5837 classification, and thus would need to be removed regardless of development proposals on the basis of poor condition. There is no objection to the removal of the remaining 20 trees. These are mostly young self-sown specimens located in an area of rough ground to the east of the site, and make an insignificant contribution that could be mitigated by replacement planting. Under the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard that determines mitigation for removed trees required under policies BCS9 and NE3, 22 replacements would be required. The Soft Materials Plan (1-4) (Drawing Nos 40101-LP(90)007-010) provides 70 new trees, which more than meets this figure. However, in terms of the details of the planting, and whether it includes trees of "appropriate scale and species" (NE3), there are doubts about the sustainability of the planting in the shared residential spaces along the southwest and south-eastern site boundaries. The species specified along the south west are Norway maple (Emerald Queen). These attain an ultimate size of 10-15m trees with a breadth of probably at least 8 metres. Those along the east are birch, which have a narrower crown but are fairly tall trees. Both types are positioned just 2.5 m from the houses, which only have windows on one side. It is anticipated that ultimately these trees will not be sustainable in these locations due to physical conflict with the building, excessive shading and claims of nuisance from leaf drop etc. There is also no detail about how these trees would be separated from vehicles parking and driving along the shared paving, i.e., edging or kerbs, or any details of the pits bar their dimensions. The trees if planted in these locations would need to be protected from conflicts with vehicles. It will be important to have trees in the residential areas to break up the monotony of the extensive hard landscaping, but I suggest that trees are located away from the houses nearer the site boundaries to avoid conflict with the houses and vehicles. This would have the additional benefit of allowing the creation of more hospitable planting beds for the trees, rather than restrictive tree pits. The planting along the eastern boundary is rather disjointed. Trees along this boundary will be important in screening the supermarket from the adjacent residences; something more linear and formal would be most appropriate rather than the mix of species proposed. In terms of retained trees, the most important are the TPO pines on the north-western boundary. These are currently growing in a narrow strip of grass and are bounded to the southeast by hard standing. The Arboricultural report suggests that the trees will not be rooting under the hard standing. It is agreed that there are likely to be fewer roots in this inhospitable terrain, but there may be some that have exploited moisture seams beneath the surface. It would appear that hard landscaping works are proposed within the work carried out within the root protection areas (RPAs) of these trees. The Tree Protection Plan lays out some general principles of how works should be conducted within the RPAs, but I would there would need to see a detailed Arboricultural method statement as to how such works are to be carried out to be persuaded that these trees would not be harmed . Further the Aboricultural Officer is not satisfied with the alignment of tree protection fencing; it does not appear to be feasible, especially if works are to be conducted with the RPA. These details could be secured by a suitably worded pre-commencement condition. Please let me know if you would like me to contribute some wording. STATUTORY CONSULTEES SPORT ENGLAND Do not wish to raise an objection to this application. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY



Raise no objection to the proposal but recommend that if planning permission is granted that relevant conditions on surface water drainage and prevention of pollution are imposed. WESSEX WATER Recommend that a condition be imposed requiring the submission of a foul and surface water drainage strategy. NATURAL ENGLAND No comments received (see BCC Nature Conservation comments) HEALTHY LIVING/HEALTH IMPROVEMENT OFFICER - BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL/NHS BRISTOL - HEALTHY URBAN TEAM Although there are many positive elements to the proposal, there are significant concerns with the development and therefore it is recommendation that the application is refused on the grounds of: - Adverse impact on the local economy and local employment (NPPF). “People in employment are

healthier… We estimate there will be a net job loss of between 133 and 197 retail jobs” - Adverse impact on the character, diversity, vitality and viability of local centres (policy BCS7 and

NPPF): “Local centres can have an important role in providing places for social interaction, community cohesion and giving places a sense of identity. This helps promote social capital and well being. We estimate there could be a loss of up to 62 smaller shops, with the losses concentrated on Gloucester Road and Whiteladies Road.” In support of this, NHS Bristol state: “shops on Gloucester Road range in size from 30 sq. m. to the Co-operative store at 1,410 sq. m. (Source: Goad retail data) with an average size of 150 sq. m. So an additional 9,346 sq.m gross floorspace is likely to lead to a loss of 62 shops.”

- Adverse impact on active travel and encouraging car dependency (policy BCS10 and NPPF): “The proposed development is car dependent and the application shows no real commitment to promote active travel and sustainable transport” as it includes a 572 space car park, which will in turn lead to greater car dependency. Emissions from transport can have a serious effect on people’s health.

- Adverse impact on ravel to and from Southmead Hospital (policy BCS3): “The proposed development will generate significant extra vehicle traffic that will cause greater congestion in the area, particularly on Gloucester Road (A38)”.

- Adverse impact on the quality of place (BCS21 and NPPF): “It is disappointing that the opportunity for an imaginative mixed-use development in keeping with the urban grain of the area has not been taken.”

- Adverse impact on food security and resilience – domination of the four big supermarkets (Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and Morrison’s). Officer note – this is not a material planning consideration.

- Adverse impact on climate change (policies BCS13 and NPPF) In terms of the housing proposal: “The proposed housing development is of a good quality, other than it backs onto a superstore car park.” However play spaces should be provided and the amount of secure, convenient cycle storage is not clear. Notwithstanding these objections, the representation states if the development is to go ahead there will be an extra demand on local health services and therefore a financial contribution should be sought to meet the additional capital costs. Using the Health Urban Development Unit model to calculate the financial consequences of the health needs of the residents, a contribution of £7,532 per dwelling should be sought on each of the 65 dwellings.



Officer Note: The requirement to meet the financial consequences of the health needs of residents is now covered by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). AVON AND SOMERSET POLICE – CRIME REDUCTION UNIT Comments mainly relate to the mini roundabout and the potential need for waiting restrictions to ensure that larger vehicles can pass around it / into the site, and to ensure that the roundabout isn't obscured by parked vehicles. There may be an access issue with the lumber yard (on Gloucester Road) if that is still operating but that is an existing issue not one raised by the development.

The bus access area should work well although delivery access is not clear.

Although the store site is not going to operate 24/7, access will be 24/7 for the new flats so lighting at night onsite and vehicle movement may be a road safety issue. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES GLOUCESTER ROAD TRADER’S ASSOCIATION Having consulted our members, the response is overwhelmingly against Sainsbury's proposal. As the local trader's association, our main concern is that a radical change of use from a football stadium to a large supermarket will damage the already vulnerable retail trading at the North end of what someone has called Gloucester Road's Golden Mile of mainly Independent traders. We are also concerned about the impact on the road as whole as there are 2 Sainsbury’s stores trading already not to mention the numerous other chain store brands operating in a similar capacity. The kind of retail outlet proposed is designed to attract shoppers by car who make bulk purchases under one roof. Shoppers by foot or car will bypass the existing high street shops and will inevitably decrease the footfall on Gloucester road and lead to further decline of the local high street. What also concerns us is more car journeys will also mean more air pollution and more traffic congestion. We have held meetings with Sainsbury's, looking in detail at the scope for damage limitation through Section 106 funding, but have come to the conclusion that no projects that could be funded in this way would solve the fundamental problems that would be caused if the planning application is granted. TESCO’S A representation has been received from Tesco’s highlighting the following issues:

- We are aware that the proposal is enabling development to facilitate the relocation of the Football Club

- The proposed mixed-use scheme will lead to a more intensive use of the site on a daily basis involving 526 parking spaces, a new bus turning facility and 10 HGV movements each way each day.

- The submitted Transport Assessment predicts (Table 7) that the proposed development will attract the 246 during weekday morning peak hour, 1185 during weekday evening peak hour and

- 898 Saturday peak trips. This compares with a typical match day total of 557 vehicles between noon and 1800 hours. Our view is that this represents an over development of the site.



- 65 dwellings does not meet the site’s full potential to assist in delivering housing in Bristol in accordance with the NPPF. The entire site should be developed for housing.

- The site is out of centre and linkage between the proposal and the defined centre as a whole is likely to be minimal.

- Sainsbury’s gained permission in May 2010 to extend their store at Fox Den Road, Stokes Gifford by 2,200 sq. m and have indicated that they are working with others to bring forward proposals for new District Centre at this location to serve the North Fringe of Bristol.

- The PCA is too widely drawn for an urban area and so not extend north of the A4174. We consider the PCA as drawn excludes the planning permission (PT11/2290/F) granted in March 2012 for additional retail development at Abbey Wood Retail Park, for what is understood to be an Asda. This omission and the widely drawn PCA cast doubt on the robustness of the assessment of impact.

- Tesco’s prediction of trade diversion from their own stores at Lime Trees Avenue and Eastville are £3m and £4m respectively. The difference between the Applicant’s prediction and Tesco’s prediction of trade diversion from Lime Trees Avenue is £14.5m.

THE CO-OPERATIVE GROUP (TCG) A representation has been received from TCG highlighting the following issues:

- The TCG stores in Gloucester Road Town Centre perform an integral role in the vitality and viability of the Centre.

- It is recognised that there would be community benefits accrued from relocating the Memorial Stadium, but this should not cloud the judgement in determining the 9,346 sq.m. store in an edge of centre location.

- The addition of this store would have a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of local residents.

- The Applicant notes that Gloucester Road Town Centre attracts only 7% of main food shopping expenditure from within the catchment area, highlighting that trade is leaked to larger stores such as the two Tesco stores in Lime Trees Road (18%) and Eastville (15%). It should however be noted that these stores are located in close proximity to Gloucester Road and it is clear that this loss of expenditure has not manifested itself in a negative impact upon the town centre.

- The Applicant notes that Gloucester Road is a linear centre and effectively divided in two sections. The addition of 4,851 sq. m. (net) food store to the north of the Centre will create an imbalance. Shoppers will utilise the free car parking offer and gravitate to one end of the Town Centre. The foodstore will create a single destination to the north with limited linked trips to the south of the Centre. The proposals should therefore be refused on the grounds of Policy BCS7.

BRISTOL URBAN DESIGN FORUM Note that the scheme represents a significant improvement to the previously approved scheme and employment benefits. The Panel recognise the scale of investment that the project represents and applaud the sustainability standards identified for the scheme, but have the following concerns:

- Impact of Traffic Measures on Filton Avenue, in particular the introduction of a roundabout. - Traffic Organisation around the site. - Retail Development scale and operation: “The Panel were concerned over the long term

nature of change in the area linked to a large and potential inflexible built form. The site planning appeared to impose an expensive and monolithic solution that forced peripheral spaces into constrained and in the case of boundary planting, a rather miserly response which the Panel considered would not be successful in the long term.”



- Quality and viability of housing: Concern that the proposed housing has been designed as a buffer between the supermarket and surrounding housing and “the new supermarket to reduce the impact on views onto the site and blur the boundary between the scale and rhythm of the existing streets and the monolithic bulk of the supermarket.” In addition little provision is made for amenity space. For these reasons, and given the constraints to the site, it is recommended that the housing is omitted.

- The Panel were concerned that at this late stage the use of the community venue is unknown. Will it be viable?

THE BISHOPSTON SOCIETY Comment that the proposals are a “significant improvement over the previous permission for the site.” The bulk of the proposed supermarket has “tended to squeeze the new housing and home zone to the very edge of the site, softened by only a narrow strip of shared space”. As a result, it is asked would a satisfactory living environment be created? The proposals will give rise to a poor quality of architectural design with a lack of “any convincing character and link with the surrounding area”. The homezone looks like “1980’s council housing, with its severe treatment and lack of any rhythm or obvious dialogue with its surroundings.” The supermarket “when exposed on the car park elevation is a dull portal frame affair”. The commercial block – “whilst handsome in its own right, serves as a very bland backdrop to the Memorial Square, which itself seems a very neutral space with no obvious strong character.” SUSTAINABLE BISHOPSTON Sustainable Bishopston is concerned about the increase in poor air quality from this development. Gloucester Road is already a Air Quality Management Area and the volume of shoppers traffic is likely to increase rather than decrease air pollution. Excessive air pollution is a public health hazard. UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND (UWE) UWE wrote to give their full support to the project as an enabling development for the UWE Stadium. BRISTOL SHOPMOBILITY The proposed community facility will be advantageous to local residents and if a Shopmobility Unit is include, mobility impaired residents will benefit from being able to visit not only Sainsbury’s but also local shops and amenities in the Gloucester Road area. An interest in principle is therefore offered. BRISTOL RUGBY FORMER PLAYERS Note that the Memorial Ground was given in trust to the Bristol Football Club (RFU) as a memorial to those Bristol rugby players who lost their lives in WW1. Each year a memorial service is held as close as possible to November 11th. The Group support the application because the proposed retention of the gates and the development of a Memorial Square would ensure that the original dedication is maintained and will continue as a memorial to all rugby players who have given their lives for their country. RELEVANT POLICIES Joint Replacement Structure Plan Adopted September 2002



Policy 2 Locational Strategy Policy 1 Principles of Sustainable Development Policy 33 New Housing Provision Policy 40 New Retail Development Policy 19 Cultural Heritage Bristol Local Plan, Adopted December 1997 M15 Parking: Commuted Payments M14 Parking: Commuter Parking ME2 Location and Design of Developments ME4 Controlling the Impact of Noise NE3 Trees and Woodlands (including tree planting and the Community Forest) M1 Transport Development Control Criteria M3 Public Transport Provision for Large Scale Developments M16 Cycling and Pedestrians L8 Sports Stadia B2 Local Context B5 Layout and Form B6 Building Exteriors and Elevations B16 New Buildings Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy – June 2011 BCS5 Housing Provision BCS7 Centres and Retailing BCS8 Delivering a Thriving Economy BCS10 Transport and Access Improvements BCS11 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions BCS12 Community Facilities BCS13 Climate Change BCS14 Sustainable Energy BCS15 Sustainable Design and Construction BCS16 Flood Risk and Water Management BCS17 Affordable Housing Provision BCS18 Housing Type BCS20 Effective and Efficient Use of Land BCS21 Quality Urban Design BCS22 Conservation and the Historic Environment BCS23 Pollution Bristol Development Framework Site Allocations and Development Management DPD (emerging) DM6 New Retail, Leisure and Hotel Development DM21 Transport Development Management DM24 Local Character and Distinctiveness DM25 Layout and Form DM26 Public Realm DM27 Design of New Buildings DM31 Pollution Control, Air Quality and Water Quality DM33 Noise Mitigation



DM29 Heritage Assets National Planning Policy Framework – March 2012 Supplementary Planning Documents SPD4 Achieving Positive Planning through the use of Planning Obligations (October 2005) SPD5 Sustainable Design and Construction (February 2006) SPD6 Economic Benefits from New Development (October 2005) Supplementary Planning Guidance PAN 1 Residential Guidelines (November 1993) KEY ISSUES (A) ARE THE PROPOSALS CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF THE LOSS OF THE EXISTING SPORTS STADIUM? POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY The NPPF places an emphasis upon the promotion of healthy communities and notes that the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. NPPF paragraph 70 requires local planning authorities to plan positively for the provision and use of sports venues and guard against the unnecessary loss of facilities. LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT Saved Policy L8 of Bristol Development Plan states that the application site will be protected from development which would erode the community’s opportunity to participate in sport and will be promoted for use as a sports stadium. The supporting text to the policy states that the Memorial Ground is a valuable asset to Bristol, not only in providing opportunities to view top class sport, but also contributing to the overall economic growth within the city. In order to ensure that the community’s opportunity to participate in sport is not eroded, the city council will help to secure the future of all three facilities by taking a positive approach to development proposals which directly or indirectly enables the principal sporting activity to continue on the site. ASSESSMENT For many years the Football Club have been seeking to upgrade their facilities. The City Council have consistently recognised that the Club would benefit from improved facilities. Indeed, in 2008 the DC (North) Committee resolved to grant planning permission for replacement facilities at the site. The planning permission for the redevelopment of the application site as a stadium underlines this ambition. Financial reasons have prevented the Club from being able to implement their permission for this redevelopment of the application site. This current application forms part of an overall strategy to relocate the Football Club to a new purpose built stadium (with 21,700 seats) on a site in South Gloucestershire. The planning application for this replacement stadium has been considered by the relevant committee of South Gloucestershire



Council and they have indicated that they are minded to grant, subject to the successful completion of a legal agreement. At the time of the preparation of this report, the legal agreement had not been completed. It is accepted that the replacement stadium will have significant benefits both for the Football Club and the Bristol area and would represent a significant improvement for spectators than they currently enjoy at the Memorial Ground. It will also have benefits for UWE. The representations received in support of the application underline the benefits of a new stadium for the Football Club and the unsatisfactory condition of the existing stadium. The Officer’s site visit confirmed that the current stadium site is a mixture of buildings of a variety of conditions and styles and without significant investment many of the buildings will need to be replaced. Given the benefits of a new stadium and its proximity to the application site, there are grounds to recommend an exception to Policy L8 can be recommended. The Council can therefore entertain the principle of the loss of the Memorial Stadium in the interests of assisting the creation of improved sports stadium facilities for the Bristol area and in the interests of benefiting the Club and its supporters. The application to redevelop the stadium has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan because of the wording of Policy L8. Were the Committee to resolve to grant this application, this would form a reason why it would need to be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to decide whether to call-in the application for determination. If permission were to be granted both for this application and the replacement UWE Stadium, the Memorial Ground would not be vacated or demolished until the new stadium had been made available. This would ensure continuity for the Football Club. If Members were minded to grant permission, this could be secured by legal agreement. Your Officers are satisfied that there are grounds to make an exception to Policy L8. There are clear benefits for both the Football Club and the Bristol area that would be realised from the creation of a purpose built new stadium. Therefore an exception to Policy L8 can be recommended. The remainder of the report will address whether the development would represent an acceptable alternative development for the site. (B) ARE THE PROPOSALS CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF RETAIL POLICY? Key to the determination of this application proposal is whether the proposed supermarket would have a significant impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a town centre in the catchment area of the proposal; and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade. The key centre in the catchment area of the proposal is Gloucester Road. In the event that the Council determine there would be a significant adverse impact on Gloucester Road, then there would be grounds to refuse the application. POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY The NPPF provides the framework for the consideration of whether the application proposal is acceptable in terms of retail policy. It advises at paragraph 23 that local planning authorities should adopt policies that are positive and promote competitive town centre environments. The NPPF therefore maintains the “town centre first “approach to retail planning policy set out previously in PPS. Retail development should wherever possible be focussed on the promotion of competitive town



centre environments, recognising that town centres are the “heart of their communities” and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality. When assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, the NPPF paragraph 24 states that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. The NPPF (paragraph 26) requires that an impact assessment accompany a planning application for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres. The NPPF identifies that planning applications should be assessed against the following impacts on centres: 1) The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a

centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and 2) The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice

and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.

NPPF paragraph 27 states that when an application fails to satisfy this sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY Policy BCS7 sets out the Council’s retail policy. It states that development will be of a scale and intensity appropriate to the position of the centre in the hierarchy and to the character of the centre. Where proposals would be “significantly larger in scale than existing uses, it should be clearly demonstrated that the catchment the development will serve is in keeping with the role of the centre”. Gloucester Road is identified as a town centre. Emerging Policy DM6 states that: “Retail or leisure development outside of centres will not be permitted if it would be liable to have a harmful impact on the vitality, viability and diversity of existing centres, including impacts on existing, committed and planned investment.” ASSESSMENT Are there more central sites for the development? Is the proposed development acceptable in terms of the sequential test? Applicants’ Case The Applicant’s state that the application site is highly accessible by public transport and is well connected to Gloucester Road Town Centre (GRTC): ”It is positioned just 103m walking distance from the defined town centre boundary and its secondary shopping frontage and 325m from it defined primary shopping area (as defined in the Emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Document).” As well as being well connected to GRTC, the site also benefits from being located in a densely populated residential area and therefore within easy walking and cycling distance of a large population and is highly accessible to public transport. Part of the application proposal is that the



proposed store car ark will be free for 3 hours for both Sainsbury’s and town centre shoppers. The Applicants have been unable to identify any sites within GRTC or any other defined centre that is capable of accommodating the proposals (even if they were submitted as just a foodstore). Notwithstanding this, in pre-application discussion with your Officers, the Applicants did give consideration to the following three sites:

- Land at Merton Road - Land adjacent to Co-op car park, Gloucester Road - Bristol North Baths and car park

It is considered that there have been no material change in circumstances at Merton Road since planning permission was refused for a foodstore in November 2007. The site at the Co-op car park is too small (0.11ha) and the Bristol North Baths and adjacent car park sites have planning permissions, which have been implemented in part. The Bristol North Baths site is therefore not available. Council’s Retail Consultant’s Advice The Practice Guidance for PPS4, paragraph 6.5 classifies edge of centre sites as being up to 300m from the edge of the primary shopping area. In support of their application, the Applicants suggest that it is 325m to the primary shopping area (as defined in the Site Allocations and Development Management Document) and the edge of the application site on Strathmore Road. If the distance is taken from the proposed entrance to the store, rather than the edge of the site, the distance rises to 470m. In addition to walking distances, it is important to look at the nature and character of the route. It is noted that there is no inter-visibility between the application site and any part of the defined centre. This would be difficult to achieve given that both locations are surrounded by tightly packed terraced housing. This situation has the potential to discourage linked trips, particularly from those people who are not familiar with Gloucester Road. The DCLG Practice Guidance on need, sequential approach and impact also raises the issue of the strength and attractiveness of a town centre as a determining factor as to whether a site can be classified as an edge-of-centre location. The larger the centre and the more uses it contains, the longer the walk that people may be prepared to undertake. In the case of Gloucester Road, its two defined primary shopping areas are relatively large, although the southern centre is arguably stronger and more popular of the two. Survey data indicates that a number of people do walk to the centre and this may offer some encouragement that some people will make a linked trip. Given this, it is not considered possible to categorise the store as edge of centre and that whilst a route to the town centre will be available and there is a prospect that some walking trips may occur, we do not consider that it is a location which will encourage a significant amount of linked trips, particular due to the walking distances involved. The store is therefore located in an out of centre location, when judged against the NPPF and practice guidance. Of the three alternative sites assessed by the Applicants, detailed consideration should be given to Merton Road. The Applicants include no assessment of the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed development and whether, bearing in mind the difference in scale of this current proposal, the Merton Road site would be suitable in the same way that it was clearly suitable for Sainsbury’s needs in 2007. However given that there does appear to have been no material changes in circumstances since 2007 when the Merton Road application was refused on the grounds of loss of employment floorspace, highway and amenity grounds, it would appear that the only realistic and sensible conclusion to be drawn in relation to the sequential test is that it is not a suitable alternative.



There are therefore no suitable alternatives and the sequential test has been passed. The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and None of the representations received on this application has suggested that the proposal will prevent the planned or proposed investment in Gloucester Road or any other town centre. Neither are officers aware of any schemes which in their professional opinion might be prejudiced by the application. The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area Applicant’s Case Before reviewing the Applicant’s case regard must be paid to the methodology they have adopted. It is predicted that the total turnover of the proposed store will be £49m, comprising a convenience goods turnover of £39.1m and a comparison goods turnover of £9.9m. An “identified study area” is used by the Applicants to assess impact. This comprises 9 zones made up of several postcode sector zones stretching from the central part of Bristol to its northern edge. Zones 1-5 will comprise the primary catchment area for the proposed Sainsbury’s, from where 95% of the store’s turnover will be drawn. Zones 6-9 comprise the secondary catchment area from where 5% of the turnover will be drawn. The zones are included at Appendix A. In order to assess the amount of expenditure in existing convenience and comparison stores in this identified study area, the Applicants commissioned a new survey of household shopping patterns within the identified study area. This provides up to date figures of expenditure flows. From this it is possible to predict the impact on centres within the catchment area. This baseline information informs the quantifying of impact. Appendix D of the PPS4 Practice Guide sets out the key steps for applicants to following in terms of quantifying impact: 1) Establish base/design years for assessing impact: The NPPF (which supersedes the Practice

Guide in this instance) states that this should be 5 years from the time the application is made and for major schemes where impact will not be realised for up to 5 years, this should be 10 years from the time the application is made.

2) Examine a no development scenario: What would happen if no development took place? 3) Assess turnover and trade draw i.e. what turnover will the development generate and where will

it come from? 4) Assess impact on existing centres and facilities i.e. quantify the effects of trade diversion. 5) Consider the consequences of impact, including quantitative and qualitative issues. This approach has been followed by the Applicants as follows: 1) Establish base/design years for assessing impact In accordance with the NPPF, the Applicant’s Retail Statement (paragraph 5.05) states that a design year of 2017 has been adopted (5 years) for testing impact. 2) Examine a no development scenario: What would happen if no development took place To establish a no development scenario, an assessment of up to date expenditure needs to be



provided. The Applicants assessment is that based on their household survey. This identifies that within the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) total turnover of convenience facilities is £285.1m and in the Secondary Catchment Area (SCA) it is £292.9m The Applicants state that given the amount of floorpsace proposed to be used for comparison goods (1,455sq. m net), and the limited range of goods to be sold, the proposed foodstore would not take on the role of a key comparison shopping destination in its own right. 3) Assess turnover and trade draw The Applicant’s Retail Statement, Figure 5.5, at paragraph 5.39 includes the pattern of expenditure trade draw to the proposed store by 2017. It states that in terms of convenience goods trade draw patterns, the majority of trade draw will be from the Tesco at Golden Hill (£17.5m) and relative to that, the impact on GRTC is small (£2.9m). The Pattern of Expenditure, Trade Draw to the Proposed Store is included at Appendix A, Table 1 4) Assess impact on existing centres and facilities i.e. quantify the effects of trade diversion. It is the Applicant’s case that there will be an increase in the turnover of all centres within the Primary Catchment Area in the period 2012-2017. GRTC’s turnover will increase by 11.4%. This is based on predicted growth in expenditure in the catchment area. All centres are expected to experience further increase of turnover to 2022. For the period 2012-2022 the growth in Gloucester Road is anticipated to be 30.2% (the predicted trade effects of the proposal and retail commitments on Defined Centres, 2017, 2022 is included at Appendix A, Table 2). Following the receipt of the advice from the advisors of the Council, the Applicants revised their assessment of the impact on the total retail turnover of GRTC. As noted by the Applicants, this was because: “Both our and GVA’s financial impact assessments assessed the potential impact of the proposal on the survey derived turnover of Gloucester Road Town Centre only. For robustness no allowance was made for turnover spent within Gloucester Road Town Centre from residents living outside the survey area. This has the effect of overstating the actual level of impact.” Accordingly an allowance has been made for the likely trade to be drawn to the town centre from beyond the survey area. The choice, type and selection of shops on Gloucester Road mean that it attracts people from further a-field. This has been calculated to be around 10%. The table demonstrating this is included at Appendix A, Table 3. The impact on GRTC to 2017 has been assessed to be 4.7%. The Applicant’s commentary is that this trading assessment shows that the impact on defined centres within the PCA will be low and as a result will not be materially affected by the application proposal and retail commitments. They note that account has not been taken of the trade drawn from beyond the survey area which would have the effect of increasing the turnovers of defined centres. With particular regard to GRTC, they note that the assessment does not take into account the significant potential for linked trips to occur by shoppers using the application proposal. 5) Consider the consequences of impact, including quantitative and qualitative issues. In considering the consequences of impact, the Applicants highlight that, consistent with NPPF paragraph 27, if a proposal has a significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability it should be refused.



The Applicant’s Retail Statement includes an assessment of all centres in the PCA concludes that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on any of the centres and are “far from being significant”. For GRTC they note that the Town Centre includes a mix of both independent and multiple national retailers within mainly small sized units. Convenience provision caters mainly for top-up needs. There are good levels of pedestrian footfall. The centre is accessible to public transport and the general environmental quality is good. The Applicant’s conclude that: “The proposal together with retail commitments will not materially harm the trading position of existing retail facilities in the (Gloucester Road) centre. The level of trade / turnover assessed to be diverted to the proposal is low (5.3% at 2017). Notwithstanding this low level of impact, the trading effects need to be set in the context of the potential for positive spin-off benefits for existing retailers by way of linked trips and the connectivity between the application site and the town centre.” Council’s Retail Consultants’ Advice The predicted total turnover of the proposed store of £49m (comprising a convenience goods turnover of £39.1m and a comparison goods turnover of £9.9m) is considered to be a reasonable prediction. In assessing the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of nearby defined centres regard must be paid to the financial impact of the proposed floorspace, the impact upon retail diversity (particularly the range, type and quality of goods available) town centre vitality levels and the potential for the proposal to benefit defined centres via linked trips and/ or other spin-off benefits. The advice received is that the identified study area used by the Applicants and the pattern of trade draw is robust. Therefore the representation of Tesco’s on unacceptability of the catchment area (set out above) is not supported. In order to assess the amount of expenditure in existing convenience and comparison stores in the identified study area, the Applicants commissioned a new survey of household shopping patterns. The advice received is that the Applicant’s survey methodology is robust. The advice received is that the Applicant’s predicted pattern of trade diversion to the proposed supermarket in the period to 2017 may have under-estimated the true financial impact of the convenience goods floorspace within the proposed supermarket on GRTC. The Council’s advisors have paid particular attention to the assumptions made in respect of the Merton Road proposal for a Sainsbury’s supermarket in 2007. It is noted: “In reaching this conclusion, we have taken into account the fact that the current proposal is located further away from Gloucester Road than the Merton Road scheme and also the fact that the latest proposal is twice the size of the Merton Road scheme.” Given this, the Council’s advisors undertook their own analysis utilising the shopping patterns data provided by the Applicants and utilising the same trade draw assumptions adopted by the Applicants (95% of trade will be drawn from residents in the primary catchment area). The Advisor’s assessment includes the 2017 pre-impact turnover for GRTC of £34.9m (taken from the Applicant’s Retail Statement) and trade diversion levels that are GVA predictions based on existing market share of convenience goods stores, plus their location and trading style. This assessment indicates that GRTC will see a reduction of £6.5m in its convenience goods turnover to 2017. The Applicants’ prediction for convenience goods is that there would be a reduction of £2.4m. The Advisors state:



“This is noticeably higher than the prediction made by the Applicants, which we consider under-estimates the considerable trading overlap that the proposed supermarket will have with the existing retailers within the town centre”. GVA’s predicted pattern of trade diversion, 2017 is included at Appendix A, Table 4. It is noted that the Applicants do not provide a breakdown of how the impact will be distributed across the GRTC but the advice received is that the impact will be spread across retailers in the centre and that the Co-Op in the northern part of the centre will be the prime candidate for trade loss. Alongside the impact on convenience sales, it is noted that the local independent convenience goods sector will not be immune from a negative financial impact. On this the Council’s advisors comment that: “The local independent sector has needed to adapt in the past 20 years to the growing rise and influence of large supermarkets and for some retailers this has manifest itself in a differentiated product offer. However, the absence of large supermarkets along Gloucester Road has also lessened the impact on the local independent sector, but this could change to some extent when the proposed Sainsbury’s is developed. Given the scale of the proposed Sainsbury’s and its negative financial impact upon the centre, we cannot rule out the closure of local independent convenience goods traders although the extent is difficult to quantify” In any event GRTC continues to grow even if the proposed supermarket were to open. There is agreement that on the basis of the trade diversion estimate, GRTC would continue to grow by 4.6% between 2012 and 2017. Existing Sainsbury Local Stores, Gloucester Road The advice received is that both the existing Sainsbury’s local stores in Gloucester Road would experience loss in turnover as a result of the proposal and the advice received is that one could close, with the knock on impact on the health and attractiveness of Gloucester Road. In response to this, the applicant’s have indicated that they have entered into long leases on both stores and are committed to retaining them. Advisor’s Conclusion on Impact The Advisor’s conclusion is that the proposed Sainsbury’s store will have “noticeable negative impact upon the convenience retail sector along Gloucester Road”, equivalent to about a one fifth reduction in the centre’s convenience goods turnover. Putting the convenience and comparison goods impacts together, it is estimated that the proposed Sainsbury’s will remove £7.7m of retail expenditure from GRTC and this is equivalent to a 10% loss of trade on the centre’s 2017 turnover levels. It is noted that this is considerably higher than the impact suggested by the Applicants. PROPOSED MITIGATION The advice received is that the proposed supermarket would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of GRTC in particular and could give rise to the risk of some closures occurring. Therefore it is justifiable to seek mitigation to address this predicted negative impact.



The Applicants have submitted an indicative Retail Impact Risk Management Package for GRTC. A summary of the proposed mitigation is included at Appendix A. It is intended to be illustrative of the kind of projects that could form part of a broader delivery plan should the opportunity of a town centre improvement initiative scheme be pursued. The Applicants have stated that they have discussed potential projects with the Gloucester Road Traders Association (GRTA). The Applicants have reviewed successful town centre management schemes from elsewhere in the UK and have prepared an overview assessment of needs and opportunities in GRTC. The Applicants comment: “Initial discussions with the GRTA have indicated that the preferred method for delivering the risk management package is likely to be the Town Centre Management (TCM) approach” Alongside this, measures include three hours free parking for town centre shoppers to encourage linked trips with the GRTC and various marketing strategies, including banner signage and websites and environmental improvements in GRTC itself. Officer’s assessment of proposed mitigation It is essential that any future scheme of mitigation is compliant with Part 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations. This states that measures have to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Your Officers acknowledge that a variety of different measures could be employed to mitigate for the harm caused and that retailers might be best placed to advise exactly what would work best. However, in moving forward with this mitigation, there will be a need to ensure that the CIL regulations are complied with. Consequently it is recommended that were members minded to approve the application, the applicants should be bound by a legal agreement which contains a specific package of measures which has been determined in advance of completion of the agreement and following consultation with local traders, ward members, GRTA, the Neighbourhood Partnership and Council officers and the Officers be given delegated authority to assess the compliance of the measures with CIL regulations. The Legal Agreement should set aside a sum of money and a timescale to secure these works. Appendix A includes indicative costs. OVERALL CONCLUSION ON RETAIL IMPACT The NPPF sets two key tests for the consideration of retail issues, the sequential test (whether retail proposal could be accommodated in town centre locations) and the impact tests. Addressing the sequential test first, your Officers accept that there are no sequentially preferable sites available that could be developed as an alternative to this out-of-centre site. In terms of the impact test, we consider that on balance none of the negative aspects of the scheme outlined above constitute a significant adverse impact. In reaching this conclusion, particular regard has been paid to current health of Gloucester Road town centre is good and the predictions of both the Applicants and the Council’s Advisors included above are that it is set to continue to be good. Even adopting the Advisor’s more cautious assessment, the GRTC continues to grow in the period to



2017 and then on to 2022. It is predicted that there will be levels of trade diversion from stores in Gloucester Road, particularly the convenience goods sector, including the potential for store closures and reducing footfall. However the evidence that has been gathered indicates that the greater impact will be on existing out of town convenience stores, which are located at a further distance from the GRTC. There is a difference of opinion on the level of linked trips that would arise from the proposal. Considering the distance to the store, the nature and character of the route and a requirement for three hour free parking at the proposed store would help to increase linked trips. Overall, there will be an impact on GRTC and this must be balanced against the other benefits of the proposal (relocation of the stadium, additional housing). On balance, in the light of this assessment and subject to securing the retail impact mitigation, your Officers do not consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to the vitality and viability of the GRTC and refusal on retail impact grounds cannot be sustained. (C) IS THE PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY / COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACCEPTABLE? POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY The NPPF paragraph 17 includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It recognises that there are three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. With the social role, it states that the planning system should support strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. LOCAL POLICY AND ASSESSMENT The application site is not an allocated housing site and is not required in order to meet our Core Strategy housing target. The housing element of this proposal represents a windfall site and the provision of residential accommodation will assist in meeting housing figures. The use of part of the site for residential development alongside the proposed supermarket, would make more efficient use of the site (in accordance with policy BCS20 of the Core Strategy) and assist in contributing towards meeting the city’s housing target. Policy BCS5 identifies a broad spatial distribution of new homes in six areas of the city. The area in which the site is located is known as the ‘Northern Arc’ (Policy BCS3) of which it identifies a requirement for 3,000 net additional dwellings. Policy BCS3 promotes social, economic and physical regeneration with the purpose of creating mixed, balanced and sustainable communities, with an emphasis on encouraging higher density and mixed forms of development in the most accessible locations, and making more efficient use of underused land. The proposal accords with the general thrust of this policy. HOUSING TYPE AND MIX Policy BCS18 states that all new residential development should maintain, provide or contribute towards a mix of housing tenures, types and sizes to help support the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusive communities. The development seeks to provide a range of accommodation including houses and flats and affordable housing. The Council’s Residential Development Survey 2012 (RDS) provides the most up to date information



on the breakdown of houses and flats within the city. The data shows that within the Bishopston Super Output Area, 22% of the household stock consists of flats and 78% consists of houses. This proposal would introduce more apartments into the Ward which would positively contribute towards the mixed of housing tenures. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The application proposal would include the provision of 40% affordable housing as set out above. This is consistent with Core Strategy Policies BCS17 and BCS18 that require the provision of 40%. The mix of affordable housing is set out above and would be 77% social rented and 23% intermediate housing (see above breakdown of the proposed housing). Overall, the principle of residential development on the site is consistent with development plan policy and can be supported. COMMUNITY / COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BCC Community Development Team comment that the community/ commercial space would be welcomed if this represented a tangible benefit to the wider community. Being located closely to the proposed retail use and within a densely populated, residential area, any new community facilities would be well placed to serve the local community and could help mitigate against the potential adverse impact of the new retail use. It is noted that general community facilities already exist within the wider Bishopston area, but additional facilities that complement those offered by local voluntary/community organisations would be an advantage to the new residents and the existing community. For the proposed space to be classified as 'community facilities' it would be expected to see: - Priority access for community/voluntary organisations over commercial/business use - Affordable hire rates (in line with similar, existing facilities locally. - Fully accessible space. Any community facilities that merely duplicate existing facilities/ services would not be welcomed or any uses that jeopardise the viability of existing community facilities. A condition requiring details for the proposed community use to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in advance of development commencing on the site is recommended. (D) ARE THE PROPOSALS CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF HIGHWAY SAFETY (INCLUDING SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS), TRAFFIC GENERATION AND CONGESTION? Consistent with NPPF paragraph 23, key to the assessment of whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety, traffic generation and congestion is the degree to which the impact of the proposal would be “severe”. Account should be taken of whether improvements can be made to the transport network that cost effectively limits the impact of the development. The application proposal includes a single vehicular access from Filton Avenue and access for pedestrians from Strathmore Road and Alton Road. Provision is made for 572 car parking spaces. This compares with other supermarkets in the area as follows: Application Proposal 572 parking spaces Sainsbury’s, Fox Den Road, Filton 417



Tesco Extra, Eastgate Road 461 Sainsbury’s, Whiteladies Road 433* Tesco, Lime Trees Road 486 *This multi-storey car park is shared with Clifton Down Shopping Centre. The proposed store at Bristol City Football Club, Ashton Road would have a car park for 745 vehicles. POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY The NPPF, paragraph 32 states that development that generates significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Assessment. Planning decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure have been taken up and whether safe and suitable access can be achieved for all people. Decisions should take account of whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY Policy BCS10 states that development proposals should be located where sustainable travel patterns can be achieved, with more intensive, high density mixed use development at accessible centres and along or close to main public transport routes. Saved Policy M1 of the Development Plan allows development provided that: (ii) It provides safe and adequate access on to the existing highway network having regard to environmental considerations. Where the development has internal circulation areas for vehicles it achieves a high standard of road safety; (iii) It avoids the introduction of traffic of excessive volume, size or weight on to unsuitable highways or into residential and other environmentally sensitive areas; (iv) It provides off-street parking, servicing and loading facilities in accordance with the standards set out in the schedule; (v) It provides facilities for cyclists and pedestrians; (vi) It provides traffic calming measures; (vii) It provides funding of appropriate transport improvements to overcome unsatisfactory transport conditions created or exacerbated as a direct result of the development; (viii) It does not increase the need to travel and does not encourage the unnecessary use of cars or lorries. (ix) It provides for access by disabled people within the external layout of buildings. (x) It avoids the introduction of unnecessary lorry traffic into the city centre or where environmental quality would be harmed or congestion increased. Draft Development Management Policy 21 (DM21) states that development should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to provide, amongst other things, safe and adequate access for all sections of the community within the development and onto the highway network, adequate access to public transport and enhanced pedestrian and cyclist access. ASSESSMENT Site Access



A new site access from Filton Avenue is proposed. This is currently shown as a mini roundabout, but officers have some concerns about the safety of the proposal in its current form, particularly in terms of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. At the time of the preparation of the report, further discussions were due to take place to find a design solution that is acceptable and updates on this will be provided in the addendum papers. Layout and Parking The layout is proposed to be a shared surface. The applicants at present do not wish to offer it for adoption, but as there are more than 5 properties it must be constructed to an adoptable standard. There are some internal issues still to be resolved, chiefly with materials and lighting and street trees. A design for adequate and safe street lighting will most likely result in the removal of some trees within the access road, so the layout will not be exactly as shown. In terms of parking, NPPF paragraph 39 states that if setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, local planning authorities should take into account the accessibility of the development, the mix of uses of the proposal, the availability and opportunities for public transport, local car ownership and overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles. The Council parking guidelines for new developments (BCC Local Plan saved policies M1, M14 and M15) identifies a minimum permitted parking provision for a food store of 1 space per 10 sq. m of ground floor area and for residential development a maximum of one space for 1 bed houses, between 1 and 2 spaces for 2 bed houses (via communal parking) and 2 spaces for 3 bed houses. Applying these standards the food store alone should provide 905 spaces (9,046/10 = 905). The application proposal makes provision for 572 parking spaces (526 to serve the foodstore), of which 27 would be designated as disabled spaces. Provision would be made for 47 cycle spaces. This shortfall of parking spaces is considered acceptable because of comparison with other nearby supermarket provision. The application proposal makes provision for an extra 155 spaces to those provided for the Sainsbury’s at Filton, which is of an equivalent size. Access for Service Vehicles Service vehicles would access the supermarket site from Filton Avenue. The proposed development would require 16 heavy goods vehicles (HGV) movements per day (8 deliveries) to service the supermarket. It is predicted that there is sufficient capacity for this and there are no road safety concerns; however noise issues and air quality issues are raised and are addressed elsewhere in the report. Travel Plans The Applicants have indicated that the operation of the site would be subject to a Travel Plan. As part of the proposed mitigation Travel plan measures will need to be agreed. Traffic generation from the proposed store The Council’s Transport Development Management Team note that whilst this development will lead to additional traffic within this part of the network, it is not considered significant when compared against the impacts of consented development. During busiest periods it is likely to lead to queues in both directions along the full length of Filton Avenue between Gloucester Road and Muller Road. Without any mitigation it could also lead to additional queuing on the A38 Gloucester Road. At the busiest



times this could extend potentially several hundred metres in length in both directions. The increased likelihood of traffic using alternative routes, delays to bus journeys and potential delays to emergency services with extended queuing in both directions. It is noted that this impact may be offset by the following driver behaviour characteristics: - A suppressed demand of the store in the peak hours, similarly to the Filton Store which has a drop off in trading in the peak hours due shoppers avoiding the congestion. - Change in time of journey – this could result in a potential spread of peak hours and/or more traffic generally outside the peak hours as shoppers avoid the heaviest traffic. - Alteration to routes strategically or locally – this could result in the potential spread of the congested area and / or an increase in rat running in nearby residential streets. - Not making the journey at all by shopping at another store or on-line. It is not possible to quantify these, although the applicants have suggested a 10% reduction in vehicles to account for a wider strategic alternative route choice. The anticipated additional volumes of traffic arising from the proposed development for peak hours are as follow: Morning Peak (7:30-8:30): 286 total trips Evening Peak (5:30-6:30): 700 total trips Saturday Lunchtime (12:00-1:00): 854 total trips * A “trip” is an arrival or a departure, so one return visit is counted as two trips for the purpose of measuring anticipating additional volumes of traffic. These figures have been derived by comparison to other stores in the local area, but are less than the average as this store is located in a densely populated residential area, and is a very accessible area in terms of public transport accessibility and cycling and walking. Vehicular trip rates have been reduced to reflect this, and increased cycle and walking trips would therefore be anticipated. It is assumed that many of these vehicles will already be on the highway network, as some trips will divert on their way home, for example, or would otherwise be travelling to another store. Comparatively few new trips will be created. Impact on Junctions A base model has been prepared which represents the current situation in the evening peak. The evening peak has been used as this represents the worst case in terms of a combination of the most shoppers and other users already on the network. A future model was then prepared including committed developments in the area, such as Southmead Hospital, Wallscourt Farm and the extant site permission at the Memorial Stadium have been added to the base. It should be noted that the future years modelling does not take into account the mitigation measures that have been agreed for Southmead hospital and Wallscourt Farm developments. It is expected that these will reduce some of the traffic impacts in line with the recommendations set out in the planning consents for these locations.



The traffic modelling produced by the applicants, in conjunction with the Council Transport Development Management Team, provides a realistic basis on which to compare the operation of the highway network with and without the proposed mixed use development albeit that it needs to be recognised that limitations within the software, coupled with daily fluctuations, mean that this is not a precise science. Also, the local area operates under SCOOT control which makes complex changes to the operation of the network which are beyond the limitations of the software modelling packages. The models do not take account of the effects of traffic displacement and it is anticipated that some drivers might use alternative routes if the A38 becomes more congested. Therefore, the models present a worse than anticipated situation but provide a range of possible impacts to assist officers with judgement. It should also be noted that the effects of displacement on to the wider network has not been included in the assessment. It is accepted that some of the traffic is likely to displace onto other roads, such as via the ring road or onto the M32, as the effects of the additional traffic would be off-putting to regular users of the A38. Private car users may change their travel/ shopping patterns to avoid congested road and times. The network currently operates at or over capacity at peak times. Therefore some alterations would be required to junctions to reduce the impacts of increased flows on the network. The potential for off-site highway works to mitigate the increase in traffic There is concern that the application proposal would unacceptably harm the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site and therefore highway works would be required to mitigate the impact of the new food store. The following works would be necessary: a) The applicants have proposed widening the carriageway in Gloucester Road to accommodate a longer right turn lane for queuing at the Filton Avenue junction, although this will result in the reduction in footway width at the Churchways Road junction from 3.5m to 2m. This width is still considered acceptable for the levels of footfall in this area. b) A left turn facility has been reintroduced into Filton Avenue from Gloucester Road. This increases capacity at this junction. It does, however, result in three stages for pedestrians to cross rather than two and a longer wait time for pedestrians to cross Filton Avenue. c) Some alterations to the traffic signal timings have been put forward which make some better use of capacity. d) A contribution of £494,000 has been agreed to cover a range of traffic mitigation measures including the following:

- Filton Avenue/Muller Road signal validation (£5,000) - Muller Road / Gloucester Road signal validation (£5,000) - Bus priority kit and installation (£20,000) - BNET extension from Wessex Avenue to Toronto Road (£14,000) - St Bartholemews and Dorian Road / Wessex Avenue junction improvements (£93,000) - RTI Equipment (£32,000) - Ashley Down Road junction remodelling (£150,000) - Improved footways in Gloucester Road from Filton Avenue to Ashley Down Road and in Filton

Avenue (£100,000) - Waiting restrictions and TROs (£15,000) - Cycle safety scheme between Filton Avenue and Ashley Down Road (£60,000)



CONCLUSION It is clear that the application proposals will result in an increase in traffic flows in the vicinity of the site. However through a combination of anticipated changes to driver behaviour, a travel plan and the agreed mitigation package it is your Officer’s judgement that the increase in traffic is considered to be acceptable and not severe when compared against the background committed development. (E) IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABLE IN TERMS OF ITS LAND USE, LAYOUT, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION? HAVE THE PROPOSALS BEEN PLANNED OVER THE LIFETIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO LIMIT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, AND MINIMISE VULNERABILITY AND PROVIDE RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE? POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY NPPF Policy 96 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply, unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development, involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable and to take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption. LOCAL PLAN POLICY Core Strategy Policies BCS13, BCS14 and BCS15 set out the Council’s key policies towards climate change and sustainable development. In terms of climate change, Policy BCS13 requires that development should contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change and meeting targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the design and use of resources in buildings, the use of decentralised renewable energy and sustainable patterns of development which encourage walking, cycling and public transport rather than journeys by private car. Policy BCS14 requires that within heat priority areas, development should incorporate infrastructure for district heating and where feasible low-carbon energy generation and distribution. Development will be expected to provide sufficient renewable energy generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20%. Policy BCS15 requires that non-residential development achieve a minimum sustainability standard of BREEAM level “Very good”. In brief the proposed buildings would incorporate the following key features (set out in the Applicant’s Sustainability Statement): Foodstore

- Design to target BREEAM ‘Excellent’ - Building fabric will incorporate high levels of insulation and be designed to minimise air

leakage rates (to be tested further at detailed design stage through the completion of thermal modelling and production of an Energy Performance Certificate

- Building management systems incorporated to ensure efficient use of energy - High efficiency HVAC plant incorporated with economy settings - Windows incorporated into elevation design to maximise day lighting into staff/ office areas - Sunoptics roof lights incorporated into the foodstore roof to maximise the use of natural light



across the sales floor - Secure cycling storage provided for staff and customer use - Rainwater harvesting and water saving sanitary fitting incorporated - Air Source Heat Pumps serving the customer restaurant and staff areas - Heating/hot water supplied via site-wide energy centre - Secure and private waste, recycling and composting storage provision

Community/Commercial floorspace

- Design to target BREEAM ‘Excellent’ - Building fabric (as foodstore) - PV panels fitted to the roof - Windows incorporated into elevation design to maximise day lighting. - Glazing incorporating openable windows to facilitate natural ventilation - Secure cycle storage to be provided (at fit out) - Water saving sanitary fittings incorporated - Low energy lighting to be specified - Heating and hot water (as foodstore)

Housing

- Designed to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 - Designed to meet Lifetime Homes Criteria - All homes to incorporate outside space - Insulation (air tightness prioritised). - Window sizing and room orientation to make use of passive solar gains - Private and secure cycle parking - Rainwater collections butts - Heating and hot water (as foodstore) - Private and secure waste, recycling and composting storage provision - Low flush WC’s

The applicant has also submitted a Code for Sustainable Homes Strategy and a BREEAM Communities assessment in accordance with the requirements of policy BCS15 of the Core Strategy. In summary, the submitted Sustainability Statement states that CO2 emissions from the residential development would be reduced through the installation of the measures set out above. The application proposal therefore meets the requirements of this policy. The Applicants include proposals to achieve Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH). The BREEAM Communities scheme has been used to assess the site wide environmental impacts of this development. The BREEAM Communities pre-assessment that has been undertaken shows that this development would achieve a “good“ rating. It is accepted that the BREEAM for Communities is very new and relatively untested on retail-led development. ASSESSMENT Climate Change In accordance with the requirements of Policy BCS13, development should mitigate climate change through measures including: The application proposal includes on-site renewable energy in the form of an energy centre and a site wide energy strategy. The Energy Centre is proposed as a wood pellet bio-mass CHP which will serve



all buildings on the site. The Energy Centre will be designed to provide power, heating and hot water for all elements of the proposal. The scheme includes a range of measures that would conserve water supplies, including rainwater harvesting and incorporates an energy centre for all buildings on the site. This will assist in mitigating the heat of the urban environment. The submitted Sustainability Statement demonstrates that a range of measures are incorporated to mitigate and adapt to climate change and it is accepted by the Council’s Climate Change and Built Environment Co-ordinator that the building itself is sustainable. However the advice received is that the nature and use of the site as a supermarket will inevitably result in high levels of car use and while some measures have been taken to mitigate the impact of increased traffic (bike parking), the scheme cannot be regarded as sustainable in terms of the promotion of patterns of development which encourage, walking, cycling and use of public transport, required by BCS13. Sustainable Energy Policy BCS14 requires that within heat priority areas, development should incorporate infrastructure for district heating and where feasible low-carbon energy generation and distribution. Development will be expected to provide sufficient renewable energy generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20%. The application proposal incorporates measures that it is predicted will reduce these emissions. An update on the precise amount will be confirmed ahead of the Committee Meeting in the Amendments Sheet. Sustainable Design and Construction In terms of Policy BCS15, the applicants propose meeting levels of BREEAM ‘Excellent’ for the non-residential elements of the scheme and Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 for the Housing. This is welcomed and complies with this policy. In order to ensure this, a condition requiring post construction certification of this is recommended. Flood risk In respect of Policy BCS16, as has been indicated, the site is designated as being within Flood Zone 1 where there is low probability of flooding. CONCLUSION As discussed above and reflected in the comments from the Council’s Sustainable City Team, from the Sustainability Statement provided, the proposed building would be highly sustainable in its design and construction. It would achieve levels of efficient in the use of energy and water and would exceed the Council’s requirement for carbon dioxide savings from the use of on-site renewables. (F) ARE THE PROPOSALS CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF THEIR DESIGN, LAYOUT AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA? POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY NPPF paragraph 9 states that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive



improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including replacing poor design with better. NPPF paragraph 17 states that a core planning principle is to always secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY Local policy seeks to manage development in a way that respects and enhances local character and creates distinctive identity through good design. Development should be accessible, legible and coherent and should safeguard the amenity of existing development. ASSESSMENT The application proposal includes three key elements:

- Supermarket - Residential development - Public areas / Homezone

Supermarket The application site is backland in nature with a limited public frontage only onto Filton Avenue. The stadium had been constructed before the surrounding land was developed and the form and pattern of the surrounding streets has developed in response to the stadium site, with large disparate blocks of development with limited permeability (through routes) backing onto and wrapping around this large development plot. In general the existing stadium buildings stand out as a result of their scale, bulk and massing and are prominent in the area, seen over the background of other buildings. The buildings dominate the site, with the remainder of the land being utilised as car parking. There is little soft landscaping other than the playing pitch. It is within this context that the application proposals for the site have evolved. As the Applicants note, in recognition of the context into which this scheme would be place a non-standard scheme has been submitted for this constrained backland site. This, together with the existing development on the site, has influenced the position of the supermarket within the site. It is the reason the proposal incorporates undercroft car parking and is surrounded by residential development. The scheme incorporates limited store facades, which would be offset from existing residential boundaries to avoid being overbearing. The City Design Group (CDG) comment that the development has been led by the location, size and inflexible layout of the large supermarket shell and this has resulted in a poor public realm on all external edges. They note that the proposal is very much led by internal planning of the supermarket first but having little regard to how the scheme responds or connects to its surroundings. It is recognised that the scheme could have been designed to be more responsive to surrounding development, by for example incorporating back to back gardens around the site edge and by including a different street pattern within the site. However, it is considered that the proposed development would be no more dominant in its surroundings than the existing stadium buildings. Moreover the distance of the proposed development from properties in Strathmore Road is greater than the existing grandstand. Residential Development. The proposed residential development would have a density of 52 dwellings per hectare. It has been



designed to generally wrap around the supermarket to create a clearly defined residential public realm, which in turn screens the rear of the proposed supermarket from existing surrounding residential development. The result of wrapping the housing around the supermarket is that the residential development would be predominantly single aspect. This is of concern to the CDG. However your Officer’s are satisfied that there would be sufficient light and ventilation to the proposed dwellings. The Applicants have demonstrated that the bed space standards set out in the Space Standards Practice Note (2011) are met. For example, a 2 bed space apartment would be expected to provide between 45 and 50 sq.m. A 4 bed space dwelling would be expected to provide between 67 and 75 sq. m. A three storey dwelling accommodating 5 bed spaces would be expected to be between 85 and 95 sq. m. In each case, these standards are met. This includes the 40% affordable housing. Therefore the proposed residential development is considered to be of a sufficient quality. Public Spaces/ Homezone The CDG note that the proposal does not deliver a place that has a clearly defined public front and a private secure back leaving the rear/side boundaries of existing residential properties and rear gardens exposed to the public realm and to potential abuse, reducing the extent of natural surveillance and contribution to safety of the street. In response to these concerns, the Applicants have amended the scheme to include additional landscaping to soften the impact of the proposed parking and the entrance to the site. This concern has not been supported by representations from surrounding residents. It is noted that the proposed street would be overlooked by the proposed residential development. The need to protect and reinforce the vegetation along the boundary with the rear gardens of Strathmore Road is important. The details of the boundary between the rear gardens of surrounding residential properties would be secured by condition in the event that Members were minded to approve. The application proposal would enable the significant improvement of the area in the south west corner of the site to the rear of properties in Downend Road and Strathmore Road. There have also been a significant number of representations supporting the development of a Memorial Square close to the proposed Memorial Gates. The application proposal would to a certain extent increase permeability in the area. New pedestrian links from Alton Road through to Filton Avenue and Strathmore Road would be introduced. This is welcomed, but in turn raise concerns about the increased risk of crime. The CDG highlight the lack of a well defined public realm through building frontages on both sides of a street that mean that natural surveillance on the street is diminished. There is also concern that there would be no clear sense of ownership and that the rear gardens of existing surrounding properties would be exposed. The Applicants note that the pre-application process was subject to a site visit/walk around and meetings with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor and the Counter Terrorism Advisor as well as comprehensive public and stakeholder consultation. It is noted that there would be natural surveillance from the proposed residential development. The Police have raised concerns about the potential for vehicle crime in the car park after hours and potential for anti-social behaviour. The Applicants have commented that they would not wish to gate the site to prevent out of hours vehicular access, but have acknowledged that to address security issues a more comprehensive CCTV system would need to be implemented to cover the entire site. In the event that Members be minded to approve, there would be a need for a condition requiring the submission of CCTV and lighting details for the scheme.



CONCLUSION The site starts from a significant disadvantage in that it is a backland site, surrounded on all sides by residential development. A scheme of this scale would normally be expected to have a main road frontage. The design has also been influenced by the operational requirements of the supermarket and the surrounding residential development. However, within the confines of the site, and taking into account its existing condition, the proposals would improve the character and appearance of the site and wider area, by virtue of the introduction of landscaping, formalisation of pedestrian and cycle routes through the site and the enhancement of the wasteland to the rear of properties in Downend Road. It has not been possible to resolve differences of opinion between the Applicants and the CDG on the best approach for developing the site. There is concern that the quantum of development is too high for this backland site and that as a result it will inevitably lead to poor design. The Applicants have indicated that in order to be economically viable the scheme must be the size proposed and must include 65 residential units. While it is recognised that a smaller quantum of development could fit more comfortably on the site, that is not the scheme which your Officers are asking you to consider. The proposed supermarket would be large and would dominate the site; however it would be approximately the same overall scale and footprint as the existing stadium and could not be said to have a greater visual impact, especially as the Applicants have sought to diminish the impact by surrounding it with housing and community buildings and proposing a scheme of boundary landscaping. The CDG have highlighted how the proposal will be inconsistent with established urban design principles. These concerns need to be weighed against the regeneration benefits. On balance it is considered that as the scale of the development is smaller than the approved stadium. It is recognised that the site could be developed in a way that is more reflective refusing the application on design grounds cannot be sustained. In mitigation of the concerns on design, a package of landscape improvements and the improvements to the setting of the Memorial Gates would have a significant positive impact on the character and appearance and environmental quality of the area. (G) WHAT IMPACT WOULD THE PROPOSALS HAVE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC REGENERATION AND LOCAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISION? The Applicant has submitted an Economic Statement in support of their application summarising the economic and physical regeneration aspects of the proposed development. This states that the proposed supermarket would create up to 350 staff, of which 245 would be full time posts and 105 would be part time. The construction phase will generate between 350-400 jobs. ASSESSMENT Officers acknowledge that the number of jobs to be generated by the proposal could be misleading. As set out in Key Issue B, there is concern that the proposal if approved could lead to jobs being lost in the Gloucester Road Town Centre. Notwithstanding this, there is acknowledgement in the representation from Economy, Enterprise & Inclusion Team (part of Bristol Futures) that unemployment in Southmead and Lockleaze is above the city average and that the new jobs would be welcomed. It is also noted that additional employment during the construction phase would also be welcomed. Recognising the concerns about the impact of the proposal on the existing labour market (particularly



in terms of those currently employed in shops in Gloucester Road) (see Key Issue B), the Applicants have indicated that they would be prepared to be part of a local labour initiative. This will be secured as part of a legal agreement. (H) ARE THE PROPOSALS CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY? POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY NPPF paragraph 124 states that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants. They should take into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. LOCAL PLAN POLICY Core Strategy Policy BCS23 states that development should be sited and designed in a way to avoid adversely impacting upon environmental amenity by reason of fumes (amongst other things) or other air pollutants. ASSESSMENT The Air Quality Assessment submitted with the application has been revised three times following comments from the City Council’s Air Quality Expert. In part the iterations relate to changing guidance issued by Defra relating to projecting nitrogen dioxide concentrations in future years. The Applicant has been asked to model worst case traffic speeds on the affected roads. The final assessment takes into account the final assessment of traffic flows. The assessment uses a common dispersion model to predict concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PMIO) from traffic and point source at residential receptors close to the development. It uses appropriate meteorological data and complies with the statutory and non-statutory guidance relevant to this type of assessment. Traffic data are derived from modelling provided to support the transport assessment. The emissions factors used to calculate emissions from traffic flows are based on the very recently released EFT 5.1.2. Prior to the issue of the report the emissions were calculated using advice in the interim guidance note published by Defra on future year projections of NO2. There is a significant difference between the predictions in issue 2 and 3 of the report, with the predictions in issue three being significantly lower. The addendum to the main assessment submitted in November 2012 incorporates the comments submitted by TRASH and assumes worst-case traffic speeds, the implementation of a City-wide 20mph zone, the inclusion of the roundabout and full consideration of bus and HGV movements. The assessment concludes that, even with the worst-case assumptions, the air quality objective of NO2 will not be breached in the year of the store opening. There will however be a slight increase in concentrations of NO2 relative to the “Do Nothing” scenario. Increases in predicted PMIO as result of the store’s operation are negligible and the air quality objective for this pollutant is not threatened. This is a similar situation to that encountered in other developments permitted in the City and the UK. Although the cumulative impact is described as negligible, the development does make it more difficult to achieve the aims of the air quality action plan due to additional emissions from traffic and



the biomass plant. The air quality action plan is intended to deliver compliance with national and EU air quality objectives. As such, mitigation is required to protect residents from residual air quality impact. Your Officers have agreed a contingent mitigation scheme based on local monitoring of the air quality impact in terms of annual mean nitrogen dioxide. The developer has agreed to such a scheme, which will be included in the legal agreement. It has the effect of securing an annual penalty of £50,000 for a period of 5 years if the annual concentration of NO2 at the facades of residential properties on Filton Avenue rise above the air quality objective, and the impact can be attributed to the operation of the supermarket, The fees would be paid into a fund to mitigate the effects of the supermarket through the air quality action plan. In you Officer’s view this is an appropriate mitigation scheme, giving suitable safeguards to residents by reference to a health based air quality objective and incurring significant penalties to the operator if this objective is breached. In summary, the impact of the development on air quality, assuming worst-case conditions is “slight”. These conditions are pessimistic and unlikely to arise in reality, so the true impact is likely to be less than stated. A mitigation scheme has been proposed and agreed in principle to deal with the residual impacts. This includes monitoring of on-going NO2 levels at one or more points in Filton Avenue and if levels exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre and if NO2 levels calculated using the reading taken from all of Filton Avenue tubes are more than 120% of the annual average nitrogen dioxide level recorded at Parkstone Avenue tubes, then the owner will pay an air quality mitigation contribution. (I) IS THE PROPOSED DESIGN CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON THE AMENITY OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS? POLICY CONTEXT ASSESSMENT The application site is surrounded on all sides by residential development. It could potentially give rise to amenity impacts for the surrounding occupants in terms of noise and disturbance, light pollution from the car park, overshadowing and overlooking. These potential impacts must be considered against relevant adopted standards, but it is also material that the existing use of the site as a stadium gives rise to significant amenity impacts for local residents. Noise Noise is a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. The general approach is that the planning system should ensure that where possible, noise-sensitive developments should be separated from major sources of noise. Where that is not possible, consideration should be given to whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations. With a development proposal of this kind, there is particular concern about the noise generated by delivery vehicles and the general servicing of the supermarket. In support of their application, the Applicants have submitted a Service Yard Management Strategy, which includes managerial and operational measures to control the operation of the covered service yard. The Applicants also propose a gate opening strategy. The Gate Opening Strategy consists of the installation of transmitters on the Sainsbury's delivery vehicles. The gates will be opened in advance of all Sainsbury's vehicles arriving, removing the need for them to wait outside the yard. If, for some



reason, a delivery vehicle must wait for an extended period of time outside the service yard before entering, the driver must turn off the vehicles engine. The gates will be opened carefully without causing excessive noise, if the gates become squeaky etc. this would be reported and repaired. Given the hours of opening proposed, it is recommended that a condition requiring that a delivery strategy be submitted. This should include the Service Yard Management Strategy. It will also need to include delivery hours. It is noted that for the Ashton Gate proposal, deliveries were limited to between 06:00 and 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 20:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The Applicants do not accept these times for this application proposal and at the time of the preparation of the report the Applicants continued to seek 24 hour deliveries. Your Officers have taken the view that the Ashton Gate condition is appropriate for this application. Daylight/ overshadowing impact The proposed store and covered service yard would be positioned in the centre of the site and would be surrounded by new residential development and community buildings. The Applicants submitted a Daylight and Overshadowing Assessment which includes a Daylight and Overshadowing Assessment. The Assessment refers to BRE Guidance and three methods for assessing daylight impact: Stage 1: ’25º Rule’ – the preliminary method of assessment; Stage 2: Vertical Sky Component (VSC) method; and Stage 3: Plotting of the ‘No Sky Line’ The Applicant’s Daylight and Overshadowing Assessment required only Stages 1 and 2 to be employed. The Assessment indicates that each building façade surrounding the proposed development was identified and a tangent 25º to the horizontal at ground level was plotted. Only properties on the north eastern, north western and south western boundary were assessed within the model. Therefore residents on Alton Road and Ellicot Road do not have window walls orientated towards the proposed development site. For residents of Trubshaw Close, the distance of the proposal from the housing in the close is considered to be sufficient to mean that the diffuse daylighting of existing buildings is not considered to be adversely affected as a result of the proposed development. This is with the exception of 30 Trubshaw Close, where the 25º Rule was not met. For this property, a VSC study was undertaken that concluded that occupiers of the property are unlikely to notice any reduction in daylight. The result of the overshadowing analysis identified that gardens/ amenity areas adjacent to the application would receive more than 2 hours of sunlight on 21 March, consistent with the requirements of BRE Guidance. The Applicants note that comparison with the approved stadium development suggests that the Daylight impacts associated with the proposed Sainsbury’s scheme would be less than those associated with the redevelopment of the approved stadium. The Applicants also note that the approved stadium redevelopment would have a greater impact than the current scheme. Light Pollution Light pollution is a material planning consideration that should be taken into account when determining planning applications. There are no local plan policies that relate specifically to light pollution, however the Institute of Lighting Engineers outlines guidelines for floodlighting in its publication “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light 2011”.



The applicants have submitted a report assessing the impact of the proposals in terms of lighting. The report assesses the existing lighting conditions at the site (on non-match days) and examines the likely impact of the lighting proposal for the site. The assessment suggests that proposals would have a negligible effect on neighbouring residents in terms of light pollution. The Council’s Pollution Control Team raise no concerns about light pollution, but have asked that a detailed lighting scheme be prepared prior to the commencement of development on the site in the event that Members are minded to approve. CONCLUSION There are no concerns about noise, overlooking or lighting of the proposed building having an impact on surrounding residential properties that could be sustained as reasons for refusing this application. Your Officers seek delegated authority to conduct further negotiations with the Applicants to resolve which hours would be appropriate for deliveries. (J) ARE THE PROPOSALS CONSIDERED TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPACT ON NATURE CONSERVATION INTERESTS? POLICY CONTEXT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY Saved policy NE11 states that “in determining planning applications, account will be taken of the retention and protection of existing natural features habitats, and where appropriate, the benefits of new landscaping treatment which includes habitat features attractive to local wildlife species. ASSESSMENT The Council’s Nature Conservation Officer notes that the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been carried out and submitted with this application. It found that the site provided suitable habitat for reptiles, nesting birds, badgers and bats. Subsequent to this a bat survey of the site has been undertaken and has found that there are no bats on the site. The Applicants have suggested enhancement through the provision of artificial roosting site. In the event that Members would be minded to approve this application, then this provision could be secured by condition. In addition, it is noted that the Landscape Masterplan shows an area of wildflower meadow. Details of this and its management would also need to be conditioned. The conditions recommended by BCC Nature Conservation Officer on site clearance and lighting scheme (see above) would also be incorporated. There are no significant nature conservation concerns in respect of this proposal. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This application proposal raises issues particularly in relation to retail impact and transport considerations which need to be balanced against the improvements to sports facilities that the scheme would help to secure for the Bristol area. In bringing this positive recommendation, your Officers are mindful of the wider benefits that this proposal plays in bringing about a new purpose built



stadium for the area. In retail terms, the proposals supermarket has been assessed as having an impact on the Gloucester Road Town Centre. The Applicants have agreed to mitigate the residual retail harm of the proposals by providing funding for a variety of CIL compliant improvements to Gloucester Road. The application site is in an out-of-centre location with some potential for linked trips with other town centre uses. The use will continue to be largely car dependent in operation and there are concerns about concentrating this amount of retail floor space in one out-of-centre location. The development would support up to 350 additional full and part time jobs at the site (excluding any generated by the proposed community use on the site). Overall, it is considered that the proposal would have a positive impact on local employment. The proposed development would also enable additional housing to be built in the area, including the provision of affordable housing (40% of the total). The proposed development would result in an increase in traffic and there is a need for measures to mitigate the impact of this. Your Officers are satisfied that it is appropriate to bring before you the range of measures on offer. The development would achieve a BREEAM rating of “Excellent” and the proposed housing would be built to Code of Sustainable Homes Level 4. In urban design terms the proposed store would be a large building that would dominate the site, but to no greater extent than the current stadium buildings. There would be significant improvements to the cycle and walking routes through the site and the scope of landscaping across the site. In terms of the scope of conditions set out below, please note that the Applicant’s have requested that a five year time limit should be included. Their argument is that if, through no fault of their own (e.g. unexpected environmental conditions), the Football Club cannot get on with building their new stadium so that it is available for use in three years, the Council risks being left with an empty site at the Memorial Ground if the planning permission expires and has to be applied for again. Your Officer’s accept this argument. Your Officers recognise that the key issues in the determination of this application are finely balanced but have concluded that it is appropriate to bring before Members the package of mitigation measures on offer, the Application proposal is therefore recommended for approval. REASON FOR APPROVAL The decision to grant planning permission for the development proposal has taken account of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and concluded that the proposals accords with the policies of the Development Plan listed in this report, Specifically it has been concluded: - The proposal will facilitate the mixed-use development of the site, including retail, community

and housing development that will secure the long-term future of the site. - The scheme will result in high quality residential development and will significantly improve the

built environment in this area. - Provision will be made for 40% affordable housing. - For the reasons set out within this report, with a package of mitigation measures set out in this



report, the proposal does not cause significant harm to Gloucester Road Town Centre and can therefore not be regarded as inconsistent with advice in the NPPF.

- There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there would be a severe impact on the surrounding road network and with a package of mitigation measures set out in this report, the application proposal is considered to be acceptable.

The proposal will facilitate the mixed-use development of the site, including retail, community and COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) The CIL liability for this development will be confirmed ahead of the Committee Meeting. RECOMMENDATION

(A) That the application together with responses to the publicity and consultations, the committee report and members comments be referred to the Secretary of State.

(B) If the Secretary of State makes no comments within the 21 day period from receipt of

notification then planning permission be granted subject to the completion, within a period of six months from the date of this Committee, or any other time as may be reasonably agreed with the Service Director Planning and Sustainable Development, at the applicant’s expense, of a Planning Agreement made under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), entered into by, Bristol City Council and any Relevant Owners to cover the following matters:

Retail Impact Mitigation Contribution of £202,500 to fund a full-time town centre manager (including a £42,500 per annum budget) for Gloucester Road for a 3 year period; and to fund a package of environmental improvements, business support and marketing measures to mitigate to retail impacts of the development, the exact package of measures to be agreed in writing with the Bishopston Community Partnership, ward members and other interested parties. Such alternative mitigation measures are to be directly related to the development, as well as necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Affordable Housing The provision of 40% of the total number of residential units (rounded up to the nearest whole unit) comprised in the development to be divided 77% social rented and 23% intermediate housing.

Transport Mitigation A final contribution of £494,000 to include the following: Filton Avenue/Muller Road signal validation (£5,000) Muller Road / Gloucester Road signal validation (£5,000) Bus priority kit and installation (£20,000) BNET extension from Wessex Avenue to Toronto Road (£14,000) St Bartholemews and Dorian Road / Wessex Avenue junction improvements (£93,000) RTI Equipment (£32,000) Ashley Down Road junction remodelling (£150,000)



Improved footways in Gloucester Road from Filton Avenue to Ashley Down Road and in Filton Avenue (£100,000) Waiting restrictions and TROs (£15,000) Cycle safety scheme between Filton Avenue and Ashley Down Road (£60,000) Off-site highway and landscaping works An integrated package of off-site highways works on surrounding roads shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Other transport mitigation measures include: 3 hour time limit to parking in car park. Cycle safety measures in Gloucester Road at cluster sites Car Club Car and space within residential A travel plan comprising immediate, continuing and long-term measures to promote and encourage alternatives to private car use Air Quality A contribution of £10,000 towards a five year air quality monitoring strategy. Sustainable Design and Construction To provide the Council with the completed Confirmatory Deed prior to the commencement of development confirming: A minimum environmental performance of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. A minimum environmental performance of BREEAM “Excellent” on the food retail store forming part of the development.

Delivery of a replacement stadium

The demolition of the existing Memorial Stadium shall not commence until the contracts for the sale of the land for the replacement UWE stadium have been provided to the Local Planning Authority. Monitoring Fees To pay to the Council prior to the commencement of the development a fee to cover the proper and reasonable costs incurred by the Council in connection with the monitoring of the obligations contained in the agreement.

(C) That the Head of Legal Services be authorised to conclude the Planning Agreement to

cover matters in (B). (D) That on completion of the Section 106 Agreement, planning permission be granted, subject

to conditions. SCOPE OF CONDITIONS 1. Five year time limit for commencement



Pre Commencement Conditions 2. Submission of details of all boundary treatment, such as noise barriers, existing and proposed boundary walls. 3. Submission of a specific Construction Environmental Management Plan to include: a. Site Security b. Fuel oil storage, bunding, delivery and use c. How both minor and major spillage will be dealt with d. Containment of silt/soil contaminated run off. e. Disposal of contaminated drainage, including water pumped from excavations f. Site induction for workforce highlighting pollution prevention and awareness g. Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management, public

consultation and liaison h. Arrangements for liaison with the Council's Pollution Control Team i. Hours of operation. j. Procedures for emergency deviation of agreed working hours. k. Deliveries to, and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only

take place within the agreed hours of operation. l. Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2 : 2009 Noise and Vibration Control

on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works.

m. Measures for dust control n. Measures for controlling the use of site lighting whether required for safe working or for

security purposes. 4. Prior to the commencement of development or to a timescale agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of a Local Employment Partnership shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The operation of the development shall thereafter be in full accordance with the Local Employment Partnership agreed. 5. No development shall take place until the submission of full details of external lighting design 6. No development shall take place until the submission of a strategy for remediation in the event of contamination on the site. 7. No development shall take place until the submission of details of the means of mechanical ventilation. 8. No development shall take place until the submission of details of materials to be employed in the construction of the building. 9. No development shall take place until the submission of a delivery management plan for the supermarket. This should include deliveries limited to between 06:00 and 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 20:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 10. No development shall take place until the submission of details of an Arboricultural Method Statement 11. No development shall take place until the submission of details of enclosed service yard to demonstrate satisfactory noise attenuation



12. No development shall take place until the submission of details of Mechanical ventilation 13. No development shall take place until the submission of a scheme for foul and surface water drainage strategy 14. No development shall take place until the submission of details of physical measures to restrict the size of vehicles accessing under-croft parking area, specification of glazing within or adjacent to undercroft parking area and details of service yard access control points. 15. No development shall take place until the submission of a recycling and waste strategy. 16. No development shall take place until the submission of a details and method statement for the refurbishment of the Memorial Gate pillars. Pre-occupation Conditions 19. Prior to the occupation of the development all landscaping within the site shall be planted in the first planting season following completion of development – to be maintained for 5 years from the opening of the store. 20. Prior to the occupation of the development the access road, footpaths and cycling routes, car parking, visitor and staff cycle parking and hard landscaped shall be carried out in full accordance with at the approved drawings, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be completed and made available for use prior to opening of the new store, unless an alternative schedule is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 21. Prior to the occupation of the development, details shall be submitted of the car park management regime, which shall limit public parking to a maximum of 3 hours. The car park shall thereafter be managed in full accordance with the agreed regime, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 22. Prior to the occupation of the development, details of a trolley management system to prevent removal of trolleys from the site shall be submitted and approved by Local Planning Authority. 23. Prior to the occupation of the development an operational statement for site CCTV shall be submitted and approved by Local Planning Authority. Post-occupation Management Conditions 24. The net retail sales area of the store shall not exceed 4,851 m2 in total of which no more than 3,396 sq. m. shall be used for the sale of convenience goods and no more than 1,455 sq. m shall be used for the sale of comparison goods. 25. The store shall only be open between 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday. 26. Noised levels from fixed plant to be lower than background noise levels by min 5dBa BACKGROUND PAPERS NHS - Bristol Health 6 June 2012 Air Quality 14 December 2012 Pollution Control 4 November 2012



Transport Development Management, City Transport 19 December 2012 Flood Risk Manager 18 July 2012 Economic Development 23 October 2012 Ecologist - Forestry Team 11 June 2012 Environment Agency (Planning Liaison - South West Region) 11 June 2012 Sport England 18 June 2012 Community Buildings Manager 6 June 2012 Wessex Water 8 June 2012 Mr Lukasz Sojczynski 7 January 2013 Mr Chuck Elliott 7 January 2013 Mr James Koch 7 January 2013 Ms Penny Macdonald 6 January 2013 Mr Hal Camplin 6 January 2013 Mrs Emma Hopkins 6 January 2013 Miss Inez Cooke 6 January 2013 Dr Hedda Kraker 6 January 2013 Dr Paul White 24 August 2012 Dr Paul White 6 January 2013 Mr David Hawkins 6 January 2013 Mr Chris Butler 6 January 2013 Mr Graham Soar 6 January 2013 Mr Neil Holloway 6 January 2013 Mrs Pascale Hunt 6 January 2013 Mr Steve Warren 6 January 2013 Ms Deborah Weinreb 6 January 2013 Master Harri Reeves Khan 6 January 2013 Mrs Ailish Mann 6 January 2013 Mr Mick Parsons 5 January 2013 Ms S Phillips 5 January 2013 Mrs Jane Marcus 5 January 2013 Mr B Part 5 January 2013 Mrs Kirsty Edwards 5 January 2013 Mr Steve Knapp 10 July 2012 Mr Steve Knapp 5 January 2013 Mr Eoin Fullerton 5 January 2013 Mr Jamie Mchugh 5 January 2013 Mrs Janet Stas 5 January 2013 Ms Debbie Coles 5 January 2013 Mr Manus Pitt 5 January 2013 Mrs Susan Hutchings 5 January 2013 Mrs Teresa Kolman 5 January 2013 Mr Simon Jenkins 5 January 2013 Mr Derek Rees 5 January 2013 Miss Susie Ramsay 4 January 2013 Mr John Ramsay 4 January 2013 Mrs Valerie Ramsay 4 January 2013 Master George Ramsay 25 July 2012 Master George Ramsay 4 January 2013 Mr James Ramsay 7 June 2012 Mrs Liz Ramsay 4 January 2013 Miss Erin Ramsay 4 January 2013 Mr Russell Cole 7 June 2012



Mr Russell Cole 4 January 2013 Miss Rachel Cole 4 January 2013 Miss Jessica Cole 4 January 2013 Mrs Jane Cole 4 January 2013 Ms Nichola Milliner 7 June 2012 Ms Nicola Milliner 4 January 2013 Ms Sue Martin 4 January 2013 Master Josh Holmes 4 January 2013 Mr Trevor Edwards 4 January 2013 Master William Holmes 4 January 2013 Mrs Kelly Holmes 6 July 2012 Mrs Kelly Holmes 4 January 2013 Mr John Holmes 4 January 2013 Mr Mike Holmes 6 July 2012 Mr Mike Holmes 4 January 2013 Miss Emma Lloyd 4 January 2013 Miss Samatha Lloyd 4 January 2013 Mr Christopher Lloyd 4 January 2013 Mrs Angela Hammond 4 January 2013 Mr Kevin Lear 4 January 2013 Mrs Morag Robertson-Morrice 4 January 2013 Mr Haydn Williams 4 January 2013 Mr Nick Hopes 4 January 2013 Mrs Lorna Hopes 4 January 2013 Mrs Julie Smith 4 January 2013 Mr Barry Smith 4 January 2013 Mr Frederick Tysoe 4 January 2013 Mrs Anna Rath 4 January 2013 Mr Joseph Middleton 4 January 2013 Mrs Alison Parker 4 January 2013 Miss Annie Sparkes 4 January 2013 Mr Dominick Fanning 4 January 2013 Mr Russell Pratt 13 June 2012 Mr Russell Pratt 4 January 2013 Mr Angus Benjafield 20 June 2012 Mr Angus Benjafield 4 January 2013 Miss Hayley Pascoe 4 January 2013 Mr G Clemett 3 January 2013 Ms Jane Harris 1 January 2013 Mr Daniel Cropley 4 January 2013 Anne Hooper 11 July 2012 Group TRASH Horfield 1 November 2012 Group TRASH Horfield 1 January 2013 Group TRASH Horfield 1 January 2013 Catherine Delor 3 January 2013 Tim Mason 12 December 2012 Mr James Hobbs 16 July 2012 Mr D J Weeks 17 July 2012 Mr A Morley MBE 17 July 2012 Mr Andrew Morgan 16 May 2012 Mr Mark Wall 6 July 2012 Mrs Angela Gillard 6 July 2012 Mr Martin Cutter 6 July 2012



Mr Robert Kindred 6 July 2012 Mr Thomas Durston 6 July 2012 Mr Shane Leonard 6 July 2012 Mr John Davies 6 July 2012 Mr Steve Western 7 July 2012 Mr Matthew Hulland 29 May 2012 Mr Paul Sweeting 29 May 2012 Mr Paul Sweeting 24 August 2012 Mr Paul Wilson 29 May 2012 Mr Alan Bennett 29 May 2012 Mr & Mrs Lally Joseph Lally 29 May 2012 The Bishopston Society, 7 26 June 2012 The Bishopston Society, 7 20 May 2012 The Bishopston Society, 7 19 December 2012 Mr M Cann 12 June 2012 Mr David Ashwin 12 June 2012 Mr Philip Hockett 14 June 2012 Mr Martin Wring 18 June 2012 Mr Martin Wring 18 June 2012 Mr Martin Wring 14 November 2012 Alastair Holbrook 28 May 2012 Ms Polly Brand 30 May 2012 Ms Janet Hartley 6 June 2012 Mr Harry Parsons 20 June 2012 Mr Richard Crew 25 May 2012 Miss Lacey Marshall 29 May 2012 Mr & Mrs Richard & Belinda Jay 29 May 2012 Mr Adam Stradling 29 May 2012 Mr Joseph Morris 30 May 2012 Miss Katie Wooles 13 June 2012 Ms Celia Howe 6 June 2012 Mr Tony Crofts 7 June 2012 Ms Dawn Gould 7 June 2012 Mr Christopher Stockham 13 June 2012 Dr Madge Dresser 7 June 2012 Mr Harley Thorne 13 June 2012 Miss Clare Cooper 1 June 2012 Mr Allan Potter 13 June 2012 Mrs Susan Potter 13 June 2012 Mr Ian Duxbury 29 May 2012 A Thomson-Moore 31 May 2012 Mr James Hartley 9 June 2012 Miss Siobhan Street 13 June 2012 Mr Ian Hieron 13 June 2012 Mr John Penn 17 June 2012 Mr Leonard Kail 14 June 2012 Dr Ben Howes 8 June 2012 Mr Peter Goad 8 June 2012 Mr Barry Cawthorne 8 June 2012 Mrs Helen Box 11 June 2012 Miss Rachael Harney 22 June 2012 Mr Damon Hodgett 16 June 2012 Mr Stephen Turner 13 June 2012



Mr Stephen Turner 11 July 2012 Mr K Jones 15 June 2012 Mr Sean Ryan 16 June 2012 Mr David Owen 13 June 2012 M Strickland 4 June 2012 Mr Liam Dawe 15 June 2012 Miss Francesca Sheldon 26 June 2012 Mr Bob Scott 7 June 2012 Mr Dan Poole 13 June 2012 Mr & Mrs Duncan Cryer 19 June 2012 Mr & Mrs Duncan Cryer 6 July 2012 Ann & Michael Garland & Celia & Edward Dunstan 19 June 2012 Chris Buchanan 19 June 2012 Mr Oliver Reed 8 June 2012 Mrs Jennifer Berry 11 June 2012 D Smith 10 June 2012 Elaine Andre 14 June 2012 Mr Matthew Spicer 29 June 2012 Mr Mike Gould 28 June 2012 Mr Nicholas Roberts 29 June 2012 Mr Jon Scrivin 29 June 2012 Mr Marc Rees 29 June 2012 Mr John Kayes 29 June 2012 Mr Martin Sealey 29 June 2012 Mr Robert Kelly 29 June 2012 Mr Charles Thomas 28 June 2012 M H Sellick 3 July 2012 Mr Mark Selwyn 6 July 2012 Mr Derrick Hearn 1 July 2012 Mr Mark Brimson 6 July 2012 Mr David Howe 5 July 2012 Mrs Samatha Nichols 5 July 2012 Mr Colin Julian 6 July 2012 Mr David Lewis 6 July 2012 Mr Peter Cole 6 July 2012 Mr Nathan Clothier 6 July 2012 Mrs Ruth Harries 6 July 2012 Mr Nigel Smith 6 July 2012 Mr Peter Fudge 6 July 2012 Mike Jones 6 July 2012 Miss Hannah Parnell 7 July 2012 Mr Bob Horne 8 July 2012 Ms S Hewlett 2 July 2012 Mrs J Hewlett 2 July 2012 Mr Paul Wootten 6 July 2012 Mr Ian Hancock 6 July 2012 Mr Mike Jenkins 6 July 2012 Mr Dale Gregor 6 July 2012 Mrs Elizabeth Moss 6 July 2012 Mr Steven Hilliker 6 July 2012 Mr Kevin Harrington 8 July 2012 Mrs Wendy Harrington 8 July 2012 Master Steven Harrington 8 July 2012



Mr Greg Phillips 7 June 2012 Mr Oscar Lam 9 July 2012 Mrs Julie Marshall 29 May 2012 Mr Dan Phillips 11 July 2012 Mr Anthony Williams 13 July 2012 Mrs Rita Saunders 13 June 2012 Miss Danielle Phillpott 13 June 2012 Mr Andrew Williams-Lock 7 June 2012 Mr Mark Smith 15 June 2012 Mr I McGregor 6 June 2012 Mr P Mills 19 June 2012 Mrs P M Lush 11 July 2012 Louisa Ticker-Jenkins (Petition) 24 May 2012 Louisa Ticker-Jenkins (Petition) 15 June 2012 T Thorpe & S Hull 16 November 2012 Neil Arnott 19 June 2012 Mr Andrew Greenland 13 June 2012 Mr Ronald Gibbs 12 November 2012 Mr Andrew Parker 12 June 2012 Mr Michael Hearsey 7 June 2012 Mr Gary King 29 May 2012 Mr Tony Lewis 6 June 2012 Mr Martin Cullen 29 May 2012 Mr G Ball 5 June 2012 Mr Richard Laasna 19 June 2012 Mr Stephen Barrett 6 July 2012 Mr Jay Solanki 5 November 2012 Mr Robert Barker 12 June 2012 Ms Jackie Greenwood 7 June 2012 Mr Martin Bull 28 June 2012 Mr Andrew Gardner 12 June 2012 Mr James Martin 8 June 2012 Miss Hannah Martin 8 June 2012 Miss R Parry 2 January 2013 Miss Michaela Parker 11 December 2012 Ms Susan Smith 8 August 2012 Mr Nicholas Russell 8 June 2012 Mr Nicholas Russell 24 August 2012 Mr Chris Ward 14 June 2012 Mr Tony Myers 12 November 2012 Mr Michael Gillard 7 June 2012 Mr Michael Gillard 3 January 2013 Mr William Marshall 9 June 2012 Mr David Bunker 16 September 2012 Mr Tim Bays 25 August 2012 Mr David Townsend 6 July 2012 Mr Anthony Mills 11 June 2012 Mrs Susan Coe-Martin 28 May 2012 Mr Steve Harvey 7 October 2012 Mrs Vivien Bates 13 July 2012 Mr Robert Wilcox 1 October 2012 Mr David Brain 30 May 2012 Mr David Brain 24 August 2012



Mr Iva Hall 12 June 2012 Mr Iva Hall 3 January 2013 Mrs Karen Kennedy 19 June 2012 Mrs Karen Kennedy 6 July 2012 Mr John Whitting 18 June 2012 Miss Andrea Smith 2 July 2012 Miss Claire Griffiths 15 June 2012 Mr Sam Ricketts 12 June 2012 Mr Adrian Wooles 13 June 2012 Mr Samuel Wooles 13 June 2012 Mrs Beverley Wooles 13 June 2012 Mr Robin Horne 13 June 2012 Mr Martin Smith 16 June 2012 Mr Michael Redwood 10 June 2012 Mr Michael Redwood 24 June 2012 Mr Stephen Dakin 28 September 2012 Mr Stephen Dakin 2 November 2012 Mr Herbert Jenkins 14 June 2012 R J & D R Long 4 June 2012 E R Cartwright 8 June 2012 Mr Lee Sumner 16 November 2012 Mr Stephen Hayward 8 June 2012 Mr G Farmer 5 June 2012 Kevin Hattersley 31 December 2012 Kevin Hattersley 31 December 2012 Kevin Hattersley 31 December 2012 Kevin Hattersley 31 December 2012 Ms Karen Straw 31 May 2012 Mr Paul Barnett 21 September 2012 Mr Andrew Burns 15 November 2012 Councillor David Willingham 3 January 2013 Mrs Jane Ghosh 10 June 2012 Mrs Susan Coe-Martin 28 May 2012 Mr Daniel Kipling 7 June 2012 Dr Jo Staines 8 June 2012 Mr Jonathan Scott 30 December 2012 Mr Keith Knowlden 4 July 2012 Mr Chris Hawkins 13 June 2012 Mr Bob Ford 25 October 2012 Mr & Mrs Graham Blackmore 8 June 2012 Mr Paul Rutter 4 December 2012 Mr Paul Rutter 29 November 2012 Mrs Nina Harrison 21 June 2012 Mr P Ralph 21 November 2012 Mr Brendan Withey 8 June 2012 Mr Dave Barrett 29 May 2012 Mr Dave Barrett 11 June 2012 Mr Lee Bateman 31 May 2012 Mr Andrew Taylor 29 May 2012 Ms D Hewlett 2 July 2012 Mr Darren Brimble 6 July 2012 Mr Glen Houston 6 July 2012 Mr Ed Moore 6 July 2012



Tamar Thompson 28 December 2012 Mr Mike Bignell 16 June 2012 Mrs J Molly 27 September 2012 Mr Peter Bateman 29 May 2012 Mr A Wilkins 29 May 2012 Mr Chris Radford 26 August 2012 Mr Robin Page 2 January 2013 Mr W G Moore 12 June 2012 Mrs Helen Clark 15 October 2012 Mr Terence Gillard 14 June 2012 Mr Larry Hobbs 27 August 2012 Mr Jason Tarr 10 June 2012 Mr Gavin Versaci 10 September 2012 Mr Michael Jefferies 28 June 2012 Mr Richard Finch 6 June 2012 Mr Peter Vincent 6 June 2012 Mr Jon Richards 13 June 2012 Mr Barrie Lees 7 June 2012 Mr Martin Searle 15 June 2012 Mrs J Sellick 17 June 2012 Mr Ross Curling 6 July 2012 Mr Martin PJ Shepherd 10 June 2012 Mr Gary Redman 3 June 2012 Mrs Julie Osborn 11 June 2012 Mr Bill Williams 14 June 2012 Mr Martyn Boot 15 June 2012 Mr Simon Gillard 13 June 2012 Mr Stephen Broad 25 July 2012 Mr Neil Andrews 18 May 2012 Mr David Branfield 27 December 2012 Mr Peter Hodson 28 June 2012 Mr David Dwek 5 November 2012 Mr David Passco 29 May 2012 Mr A Macmillan 21 December 2012 Miss Andrea Ferencikova 7 June 2012 Dr Loren Picco 12 June 2012 Mrs Amy Stenner 7 June 2012 Dr Michael Edgell 7 June 2012 Mr Ian Robbins 12 July 2012 Mr Lee Stephens 7 June 2012 Mr Gary Downey 14 June 2012 Mrs Rebecca Flynn 27 June 2012 Mr Pascal Langlois 6 June 2012 Mrs J A Kemble 20 June 2012 B C Reeves 19 June 2012 Mr Joseph Keogh 1 June 2012 Mr George Lane 16 June 2012 Mr Claude Lamb 4 November 2012 Mrs Clare Watson 9 June 2012 Dr Hilary Farey 9 June 2012 Dr Hilary Farey 2 January 2013 Mrs Wendy Bennett 14 June 2012 Mrs Wendy Bennett 7 June 2012



Mrs Pauline Muir 13 June 2012 Mr Andrew Degg 27 December 2012 Mrs Paula Brown 7 June 2012 Mr Daniel Leaworthy 12 November 2012 Mr Daniel Leaworthy 7 November 2012 Ms Robinson 14 June 2012 Mr Steve Ward 11 June 2012 Ms Daniella Radice 11 June 2012 Carole Thornborrow 12 June 2012 Mr Andrew Haywood 12 June 2012 Mr Steven Mowat 6 July 2012 Mr Steven Mowat 13 November 2012 Mr Mark Buttery 6 June 2012 Mr Angela Barnes 5 November 2012 Mr Stephen Pugh 6 July 2012 Mrs Louisa Tickner-Jenkins 18 June 2012 Mrs Louisa Tickner-Jenkins 24 May 2012 Michelle Farr 20 June 2012 Mrs Doreen Sweeting 15 June 2012 Mr David Fletcher 13 June 2012 Mrs Samantha Gibson 8 June 2012 Mrs Jessica Henderson 12 June 2012 Mr Carl Newland 12 June 2012 Mr Samuel Carless 12 June 2012 Mr David Moore 13 June 2012 Mr Sean Watts 14 June 2012 Mr Alan Julian 6 July 2012 Mr Michael Howe 5 July 2012 Mr Ashley Perry 6 July 2012 Mr Liam Gulwell 6 July 2012 Mrs Victoria Kindred 6 July 2012 Mr James Kindred 6 July 2012 Mr Leonard Muscat 6 July 2012 Mr Benjamin Shapcott 6 July 2012 Mr Niall Seymour 6 July 2012 Mr Daniel Macdonald 7 July 2012 Mr J Varman 15 May 2012 Mr Paul Gough 17 May 2012 Mr Martin Hill 17 May 2012 Mr Mark Watts 20 May 2012 Mr Mark Watts 24 August 2012 Mr Roger Derrick 13 June 2012 Mr Jack Tomlinson 28 June 2012 Mr Daniel Lees 28 June 2012 L C Craddock 31 December 2012 John Minihane 28 September 2012 E Antill 30 June 2012 Mr Toby Whitehead 10 June 2012 Ms Linda Sorensen 7 June 2012 Mr Nicolas Moore 5 November 2012 Miss K Lover 25 June 2012 Miss K Lover 29 November 2012 Mr Mark Lees 30 May 2012



Dr Chris Watts 5 June 2012 A G Hopton 3 June 2012 Ms Jane Wills 14 June 2012 Mr William Thatcher Snr 15 June 2012 Mr Clifford Clark 15 June 2012 Mr Andrew Ivory 19 June 2012 Mr B Richardson 15 June 2012 Mr Mark Adams 14 June 2012 Mrs R Lowe 7 July 2012 Mrs Kate Morgan 7 July 2012 Mr Liam Penn 12 July 2012 Mr Rob Hammett 25 July 2012 Mr Luke Burton 5 July 2012 Mr Martin Trayes 29 October 2012 Mrs Stephanie Roffey 16 September 2012 Mr R Kilpatrick 30 July 2012 Mr Andrew Moss 29 May 2012 Mr M Hewlett 2 July 2012 Mr C Cumbleton 16 July 2012 Ms L Henson 12 June 2012 Mr Nicholas Lanceley 29 June 2012 Mr Daryl Parsons 10 June 2012 Mr Paul Biles 25 July 2012 Mr Richard Barker 19 June 2012 Mr Richard Barker 22 June 2012 Mr Geoffrey Banwell 29 May 2012 Mr Geoffrey Banwell 3 January 2013 Mr Paul Smith 30 May 2012 Mr Ian Harrington 12 July 2012 Mr Danny Caplin 12 July 2012 Master Lewis Caplin 12 July 2012 W J Marshall 13 July 2012 Mr Simon Hartley 13 June 2012 Mr Simon Hartley 3 January 2013 Ms Karen Owen 13 June 2012 Mr David Curtis 13 June 2012 Mr John Cannings 29 May 2012 Mr Jon Bogan 20 June 2012 Mr And Mrs Jonathan & Kelly Bogan 20 June 2012 Mr And Mrs Jonathan & Kelly Bogan 29 November 2012 Mr S Edwards 5 June 2012 Mr Mike Prosser 7 June 2012 Emma And Richard Hopkins 26 November 2012 Mr Michael Willett 10 June 2012 Mr Stephen Edwards 1 January 2013 Mr Jonathan Batt 24 August 2012 Mrs Jacqueline Watkins 24 August 2012 Mr David Longman 13 June 2012 Mr Michael Short 6 July 2012 Mrs Irene Parkinson 13 July 2012 Mrs Maureen Harney 22 June 2012 Mr James Breach 8 June 2012 Mr Neil Hoddinott 29 May 2012



Mr Colin Clark 6 June 2012 Mr David Harney 22 June 2012 Miss Anna Short 13 July 2012 Mr Tim Blythe 15 July 2012 Mr Thomas Cook 25 July 2012 Mr Simon Abel 6 June 2012 Mr David Jones 13 June 2012 Mr Chris Parsons 13 June 2012 Mr Mark Wilson 27 July 2012 Mr Rob Kendall 11 June 2012 Mr Martin Painter 27 August 2012 Mrs Laura Bliss 7 June 2012 Mr Mike Cuthbert 28 December 2012 Mr Rod Chapman 20 June 2012 Mr Rod Chapman 6 July 2012 R Merchant 19 June 2012 Goldring Yates 6 June 2012 Mr CJM Walker 6 July 2012 Mr Nick Stephenson 10 June 2012 Mr Laurence Breeze 6 June 2012 Mr Andrew Hulcoop 24 August 2012 Mr Alan Moss 6 July 2012 Mrs Anne Smallcombe 24 July 2012 Mrs Anne Smallcombe 24 July 2012 Mr Peter Tippett 12 June 2012 Mr Stephen Gibbs 29 June 2012 Mr Matthew Stevens 29 June 2012 Mr Peter Leach 8 June 2012 Mr Steve Burns 15 June 2012 Mr Norman Crisp 31 May 2012 Mrs Natalie Stephens 6 July 2012 Ms Jen Tucker 6 July 2012 Mr Simon Andrews 6 July 2012 Mr Rory Allwood 11 July 2012 Mr Michael Kenyon 12 July 2012 Ms Jill Boot 7 June 2012 Mr D Mcquaid 14 June 2012 Ms Julia Davidson 10 December 2012 Mr Geoff Scrase 18 June 2012 Rob Gayton 2 January 2013 Mrs Allison Cook 15 November 2012 Angela Auset 7 June 2012 Mr Charles Street 29 June 2012 Mr Nick Williams 3 January 2013 Mr Jon Baker 11 June 2012 Mr David Badlan 18 June 2012 Mr John Hewlett 12 June 2012 Mrs Joan Hewlett 12 June 2012 Mrs Judy Adams 14 June 2012 Mr Edward Davies 6 July 2012 R Batt 11 June 2012 Mr David Bateman 1 July 2012 Mrs Christina Collins 31 October 2012



Mr Jay Hunt 1 January 2013 Mr Matthew Jackson 29 May 2012 Mr Daniel Hinchliffe 9 June 2012 Mrs Deborah Martin 20 June 2012 Mr Nicholas Rogers 15 June 2012 Mr Paul Honeychurch 8 June 2012 Mr David Owens 10 June 2012 Mr David Owens 5 July 2012 Mr David Owens 31 December 2012 Mr John Moger 30 May 2012 Mr Del Wiltshire 21 November 2012 Mr David Chilvers 5 November 2012 R Watts 14 June 2012 Mr Ric Brice 11 June 2012 Mr Stephen O'Shea 25 September 2012 Mr Christopher Dye 29 May 2012 Mr Michael Branton 29 June 2012 Mr Alan Goodenough 18 June 2012 Mr M Bealing 21 November 2012 Mr T Bayley 29 May 2012 Mr David Rogers 30 August 2012 Ms Alex Ivory 19 June 2012 Mr David Johnson 4 November 2012 Mr Trevor Shelper 10 June 2012 Mr S Chan 4 June 2012 Mr S Chan 4 June 2012 Mrs Doreen May 20 June 2012 Mr Keith Dutfield Hack 5 November 2012 Ms Eleanor Combley 17 December 2012 Ms Eleanor Combley 2 January 2013 Mr Brian Wiltshire 29 May 2012 Mrs S E Halford 3 January 2013 Mr Adam Greaves 20 July 2012 Mr Paul Braywood 10 September 2012 Marieke Strange 6 July 2012 Mr Nathan Bees 13 July 2012 Mr Geoffrey Higgins 16 September 2012 Mr Andrew Thomas 12 July 2012 Mr Andrew Bradley 13 July 2012 Mrs Shelley Short 13 July 2012 Mr Tim Rogers 8 June 2012 Mr David Bull 11 June 2012 Mr Gary Dix 7 July 2012 Mr John Gilborson 6 July 2012 Mr Kevin Dixon 5 September 2012 Mr Jeremy Williams 7 September 2012 Mr Kevin Lovell 18 July 2012 Mr & Mrs Martin & Mary Hall 1 August 2012 Mrs Jess Dunton 12 June 2012 Mr. Nigel Pepworth 12 July 2012 Mrs Jill Harrington 12 July 2012 Mrs Helen Shellard 27 June 2012 Mr Nigel Pratt 14 June 2012



Mr Ian Macleod 24 August 2012 Mr Andrew Williams-Lock 24 August 2012 Ms P Newport 24 August 2012 Mr Martin Slade 24 August 2012 Mr Dennis John Bright 28 August 2012 Mr Andrew Webber 20 July 2012 Mr Richard James 29 June 2012 Mr Keith Jones 5 July 2012 Mr James Nichols 5 July 2012 Mr Alan Tranter 16 June 2012 Mr Alan Tranter 24 August 2012 Mr M Williams 18 August 2012 Mr Richard Gillard 6 July 2012 Mr Richard Gillard 13 November 2012 Mr Alex Dibble 6 July 2012 Mr Chris Findlay 6 July 2012 Mr Jake Okeefe 6 July 2012 Mr Phil Watkins 6 July 2012 Mrs Lesley Cashin 6 July 2012 Mr Elwyn Bliss 7 July 2012 Mrs Maureen Fudge 7 July 2012 Mr Douggie Fudge 7 July 2012 Mr Craig Broderick 29 June 2012 Mrs Angela Jakubczyk 11 July 2012 Mr Steve Nichols 5 July 2012 Mr Alan Bond 6 July 2012 Mr J Gifford 6 July 2012 Mr Ryan Oneil 12 July 2012 Mr James Francis 13 July 2012 Mr Liam Francis 20 May 2012 Mr Robert Mitchell 20 May 2012 Mr Terence Fagg 31 May 2012 Mr Martin Henry 25 July 2012 Mr Kevin Mackenzie 25 July 2012 Mr Mark Czekalski 6 July 2012 Mrs Kathryn Prewett 6 July 2012 Mr Ryan Mills 6 July 2012 Mrs Lynda Fudge 6 July 2012 Mr Nick Bergin 7 July 2012 Mr Damien Malpass 7 July 2012 Mr Phil Taylor 8 July 2012 Mr Daniel James 18 May 2012 Mr Matthew Huffadine 18 May 2012 Mrs Jean Drake 25 August 2012 Mr Alan Hopton 25 August 2012 Mr Tim Pearce 25 August 2012 Mr Nick Wade 27 August 2012 Mrs Sally Rudman 27 August 2012 Mr Tony Baker 9 September 2012 Dr Peter Dunton 12 June 2012 Mr Simon Baldock 6 June 2012 Mrs Maria Paessler 6 June 2012 Mr Wayne Prewett 13 June 2012



Mr Thomas Garland 24 August 2012 Mr Peter Champion 28 August 2012 Mr Mark Richards 17 May 2012 Mr Ray Casely 30 May 2012 Mr R Smith 29 May 2012 Jessica Winkler 11 August 2012 Mr Richard Stokes 24 August 2012 Mrs Renee Cook 25 August 2012 Mr James Duxbury 13 June 2012 Mr James Duxbury 6 July 2012 Mr Kevin Callicott 13 June 2012 Mr Steve Gilbert 12 June 2012 Mrs June Williams 13 June 2012 Mr Rob Stroud 13 June 2012 Mr Richard Jay 24 August 2012 Mr Paul Wilson 24 August 2012 Mr Stephen Cooper 25 August 2012 Miss Claire Denney 23 May 2012 Mr Richard George 13 June 2012 Mr Russell Dixon 13 June 2012 Mr Paul Simpson 21 May 2012 Mr Clive Staines 8 June 2012 J Wilson 3 September 2012 Mr Ian Holloway 28 June 2012 Mr Matt Hicks 28 June 2012 Mr Matthew Andrews 28 June 2012 Mr Adam Bushell 6 July 2012 Mr Andrew Taylor 6 July 2012 Mrs Jennifer V Shepherd 16 June 2012 Mr Clive Richmond 24 August 2012 Miss Rosie Vian 25 August 2012 Mr Chris Boston 1 September 2012 Mr Nigel Hall 26 August 2012 Mr Jason Parkhouse 27 August 2012 Mr Samuel Cheshire 30 August 2012 Mr Mike Jackson 16 August 2012 Mr Nigel Weaver 24 August 2012 Mr Chris Hall 24 August 2012 Mr David James 24 August 2012 Miss Nicola Ford 24 August 2012 Mrs Teresa James 24 August 2012 Ms Deborah Woolley 28 May 2012 Mr Gareth Walbyoff 12 June 2012 Ms Jonathan Lewis 29 May 2012 Mr Peter Notton 29 May 2012 Mrs Elizabeth Hewlett 12 June 2012 Mr Geoffrey Duxbury 24 August 2012 Mr Andrew Palmer 29 August 2012 Mrs Lindsay Moore 29 August 2012 Mr Hanif Rahaman 25 August 2012 Mr Colin Searle 29 August 2012 Mr Peter Missen 4 July 2012 Mr Jack Howell 29 June 2012



Mr Simon Moss 29 June 2012 Mr Steve Nutland 29 June 2012 Mr Brian Burrows 29 June 2012 Mr Geoff Rickard 3 July 2012 Mr Harry King 6 July 2012 Mr John Roy 7 June 2012 Mr John Roy 22 June 2012 Mr Oliver Colwell 8 June 2012 Miss L Spoto 9 June 2012 Mrs Jaquie Tarr 10 June 2012 Mr Laurence Roberts 13 June 2012 Mr Ian Bunting 15 June 2012 Mr Sean Mann 26 August 2012 Dr Josephine Edgell 26 August 2012 Mr Matt Bray 28 August 2012 Mr Andrew Downes 29 August 2012 Mr Stephen Pilling 16 September 2012 Mrs Wendy Pilling 16 September 2012 Matt Greene 14 June 2012 Mrs Anita Bliss 7 July 2012 Dr James Westcott 9 July 2012 Mr Richard Westcott 26 June 2012 Mr Stephen Rich 29 June 2012 Mr John Noad 29 June 2012 Mr Robert Guest 22 September 2012 Mr Ryan Smith 13 June 2012 Mr Mike Crooks 13 June 2012 Mr Rickie Kovacs 6 September 2012 Mr Adrian Harvey 9 September 2012 Melanie Rebbeck & Tim Foster 13 June 2012 Mr John Toman 14 August 2012 Mr Paul Molloy 24 August 2012 Mr Jason Ryall 25 August 2012 Mr Quinton Roberts 24 August 2012 Mr Kevin Messenger 24 August 2012 Mr John Filliter 25 August 2012 Mr John Stock 25 August 2012 Mr Keith Bowring 29 May 2012 Mr Keith Bowring 24 August 2012 Mrs Amy Cryer 19 June 2012 Mr David Stockdale 19 July 2012 Mr John Coles 16 August 2012 Mr Barry Wallington 17 May 2012 Mr Zbys Jakubczyk 11 July 2012 Mr Tristan Chivers 24 August 2012 Mr Pete Scull 24 August 2012 Mrs Mary Wickman 24 August 2012 Mr Stephen Herder 17 May 2012 Mr Paul Dicker 6 July 2012 Mr Jerry Ball 6 July 2012 Mr Brian Williams 18 July 2012 Mr Nigel Walker 11 July 2012 Mr Marcus Peters 11 July 2012



Mr Lee Weston 19 July 2012 Mr Martin Davis 11 July 2012 Mrs Amera Abdulah 29 May 2012 Mrs Ceri Andrews 28 June 2012 Ms Louise Planton 28 June 2012 Mr Nick Harris 28 June 2012 Miss Liz Brain 24 August 2012 Ms Rebecca Pillinger 17 August 2012 Mr Fred Hartley 16 June 2012 Mr Richard Hunt 26 August 2012 Ms Alex Layard 10 June 2012 Mrs Mary Ferguson 6 June 2012 Mr Gary Moreton 13 June 2012 Mr Douglas Walker 13 June 2012 Mr Robert Browne 13 June 2012 Mr M Sellick 13 June 2012 Mr Adam Watts 14 June 2012 Dr William Thatcher 15 June 2012 Mr Stephen Martin 22 May 2012 Mr Stephen Martin 5 July 2012 Mr Stephen Martin 2 November 2012 Mr Stephen Martin 21 May 2012 Mrs Gaynor Howe 5 July 2012 Mr Mark Connell 24 August 2012 Mr David Bushell 24 August 2012 Mr Thomas Cook-Davies 13 June 2012 Mr Josh Curnow 24 August 2012 Mr Paul Cuff 25 July 2012 Mr Mark Lewis 13 June 2012 Mr Freddie Parnell 29 June 2012 Mrs Jane Mclery 5 July 2012 Mr Neil Miles 6 July 2012 Mr Neil Miles 24 August 2012 Mr Tim Dunn 6 July 2012 Mrs Sue Mace 29 June 2012 Miss Samantha Radnedge 29 June 2012 Mrs Karon Martin 6 July 2012 Mr Graham King 23 May 2012 Mr R Church 26 July 2012 Mr Andrew Moody 27 August 2012 Dr Vicky Pitts 12 June 2012 Mr Drew Evans 12 June 2012 Mrs Sara Brown 12 June 2012 Mr Haydn Williams 25 July 2012 Mrs Becky Baxter 6 July 2012 Mr William Mandry 6 July 2012 Mr Clive Stevens 5 July 2012 Mr Clive Stevens 27 May 2012 Mr Ben Higg 7 June 2012 Ms Frances Brooke-Popham 7 June 2012 Mr Chris Bateman 17 June 2012 Mrs Jill French 11 June 2012 Mr Stephen Wichard 18 June 2012



Mr Dean Carnevale 12 June 2012 Mr Samuel Holmes 13 June 2012 Miss Maria Hudd 11 July 2012 Mr David Finch 6 July 2012 Mr D Lowe 6 July 2012 Ms Hannah Kenny 18 July 2012 Mr Christopher Kenny 18 July 2012 Mr M Hoskins 20 July 2012 Mr Richard Knott 24 August 2012 Mr Tony Mansell 14 June 2012 Mr Malcolm French 8 June 2012 Miss Michelle Linbourne 12 June 2012 Mr Robert Way 13 June 2012 Mr Gary Gayner 13 June 2012 Miss Ingthe Point 19 June 2012 Miss Gillian Tayler 30 August 2012 Mr Gordon Williams 20 June 2012 Ms Joan Langan 7 June 2012 Mr Kevin Marsh 6 July 2012 Mr Michael Dring 6 July 2012 Mr Ryan Gay 6 July 2012 Mr Mark Tanner 12 June 2012 Mr James Lanceley 12 June 2012 Mr Kevin Wickman 12 June 2012 Ms L Evans 12 June 2012 Mr Peter Stefano 12 June 2012 Ms K Lanceley 12 June 2012 Mr Andrew Miles 12 June 2012 Miss Sarah Adams 12 June 2012 Mr Harold Jarman 12 June 2012 Mr Dave Johnson 12 June 2012 Mr Dave Edworthy 13 June 2012 Mr Richard Jay 6 July 2012 Mr Ron Trott 20 July 2012 Mr Jon Thorne 16 June 2012 Miss Helen Nelson 28 June 2012 Mr Rob Jones 20 July 2012 Mr Martyn Hucker 23 July 2012 Mr John Adler 28 December 2012 Mr John Adler 7 June 2012 Hayley & Robert Beaver 10 June 2012 Mr Peter D Box 10 June 2012 Anna Halama 10 June 2012 Mr T Cox 10 June 2012 Mr Neil Morgan 29 June 2012 Carpenter & Joiner Steven Sutor 29 June 2012 Mr Mike Mcguckin 29 June 2012 Miss Emily Harrington 8 July 2012 Mr Mark Hosking 7 July 2012 Miss Hannah Wallington 17 May 2012 Mr Thomas Kennedy 24 May 2012 Mr Steve Dunford 29 June 2012 Mr Paul Withey 24 August 2012



Mr John Gough 24 August 2012 Mr Russell Gardener 13 June 2012 Mr B Lane 13 June 2012 Mr George White 13 July 2012 Mr Antony Weeks 11 July 2012 Mr John Short 12 July 2012 Mrs Nicola Cannings 18 July 2012 Mr Andrew Drummond 2 September 2012 Mrs Indira Norton 6 June 2012 Mr Rob Tucker 1 June 2012 Mr Dale Jacobs 8 June 2012 Mr David Martin 30 May 2012 Mr Ben Blackwell 4 September 2012 Berdencia Saddique 21 June 2012 Mr Dominic Stefano 6 July 2012 Mr Gary Pointing 8 July 2012 Mr Alan Carter 16 August 2012 Mr John Payne 2 August 2012 Mr John Gillard 28 August 2012 Mr John Furphy 4 September 2012 Mr Stuart Jenkins 14 July 2012 Mr Craig Smith 25 July 2012 Mr Will Punchard 13 June 2012 Mr T Kempster 13 June 2012 Mr Colin Cross 16 August 2012 Mr John King 6 July 2012 Mrs Norma King 6 July 2012 Miss Ida Cann 17 August 2012 Mr Martyn Harrington 29 May 2012 Miss & Mr Isolda & Jolyon Hicks & Renold 12 June 2012 Mr Terry Webb 16 August 2012 Mr Tom Middleton 10 July 2012 Mr Kieran Moden 12 July 2012 Mr Stephen Taylor 29 August 2012 SSgt Craig Parker 25 August 2012 Mr Neil Kenyon 24 August 2012 Mrs Frances West 24 August 2012 Mr Ian Sheppard 25 August 2012 Mr Martyn Jackway 26 August 2012 Mr Ben Davies 24 August 2012 Mr Kevin Brain 24 August 2012 Catherine Thomas 25 October 2012 Mr David Harvey 25 October 2012 Mr David Langley 25 October 2012 Mr Gary Player 2 November 2012 Mr Raymond Jones 15 November 2012 Mr Peter Brighton 23 October 2012 Mr Mark Richardson 26 October 2012 Master Callum Simpkin 28 October 2012 Mr Cara Broderick 29 October 2012 Mr Paul Glennon 29 October 2012 Mr Mark Revill 30 October 2012 Ms Sue Taylor 6 November 2012



Mr Spencer Wintle 7 November 2012 Glen Wintle 7 November 2012 Mr Daniel Planton 25 September 2012 Mr Alfie Mead 30 October 2012 Mr Stewart Wolf 1 November 2012 Mr Russell Archer 1 November 2012 Dr Rodger Allen 1 November 2012 Mr Roy Haskins 1 November 2012 Mr Raymond Bunston 5 November 2012 Mr Michael Fry 14 October 2012 Mr Andy Parfitt 16 October 2012 Mr David Cowles 20 October 2012 Mr Jon Phelps 19 October 2012 Mr Roger Smallcombe 20 October 2012 Ms Joanna Ayres 4 November 2012 Mr Robert Ashton 4 November 2012 Mr S Hale 20 September 2012 MRS BERYL VIZARD 19 October 2012 Mr Jonathan Taylor 18 September 2012 Mr J Goad 8 October 2012 MR ALAN VIZARD 19 October 2012 Mr Thomas Cook-Davies 29 October 2012 Mr Douglas Green 29 October 2012 Mr Malcolm Bowden 29 October 2012 Mr And Mrs David And L. Cox 29 October 2012 Mr Jonathan Fry 4 November 2012 Mr Robert Mead 30 October 2012 Mr Matthew Turner 30 October 2012 Mr Robert Stone 17 September 2012 Mr Tom Bateman 29 October 2012 Mr Jonathan England 24 September 2012 Mr. Roger Willett 23 October 2012 Mr Stephen Quan 27 September 2012 Mr Ian Probert 1 October 2012 Mr David Scott 24 September 2012 Mr Aneurin Moloney 11 October 2012 Mr Eric Whitlock 2 November 2012 Mr Bernard Knight 6 November 2012 Mr Bernard Knight 12 November 2012 Mr Bernard Knight 12 November 2012 Mr Bernard Knight 12 November 2012 Mr Dan Stern 4 October 2012 Mr Lee Bryant 12 October 2012 Mr David Kennedy 1 November 2012 Mr Paul Roffey 21 September 2012 Mr Jeremy Nugent 17 October 2012 Mr. Jon Palfrey 28 September 2012 Mr Dymock 5 November 2012 Mr Paul Walton 5 November 2012 Mr Kevin Paul 5 November 2012 Mr Kevin Bond 5 November 2012 Mr John Tyler 5 November 2012 Mr David Dickinson 5 November 2012



Mr Adam Tutton 5 November 2012 Mr Jamie Ford 5 November 2012 Mr Matt Sparks 5 November 2012 Mr Darren Bond 5 November 2012 Carrington Monks 5 November 2012 Mr Ron Hale 5 November 2012 Mr David Emery 5 November 2012 Mr Derek Knight 5 November 2012 T. E. Troop 5 November 2012 Miss Helen Neville 11 October 2012 Mr Robert Needs 29 October 2012 Mr John Paramore 26 October 2012 Mr Christopher Wall 27 October 2012 Mr David Wintle 7 November 2012 Mrs Jeanette Richards 7 November 2012 Miss Carrie Gwyther 11 November 2012 Mr Thomas Lawlor 12 November 2012 Mr Tom Healy 11 November 2012 Mr Mark Saunders 19 November 2012 Mr Xavier Bayliss 11 November 2012 Mr Marcus Peters 12 November 2012 Mr Thomas Stefano 12 November 2012 Mr Richard Jay 11 November 2012 Mr T Moore 11 November 2012 Mrs Jackie Thorne 11 November 2012 Mr Simon Hindle 12 November 2012 Mr Damion Hathway 16 November 2012 Mr Robert Bayliss 11 November 2012 Mr Zephaniah Bayliss 11 November 2012 Mr Robert Pring 8 November 2012 Mr Roger Perkins 7 November 2012 Mrs M Sylvester 7 November 2012 Mr Derek Toole 8 November 2012 J Tooze 7 November 2012 Mr Mark Smith 7 November 2012 Miss Mailin Bala 2 January 2013 Ms Rosalie Alston 3 January 2013 Mr David Johnson 27 December 2012 The Occupier 3 January 2013 Ms Meg Lovelock 4 January 2013 Ms Katy Taylor 4 January 2013 Miss H Harper 4 January 2013 Mr & Mrs Mark & Pat Fitton 3 January 2013 Mr R J Cushing 3 January 2013 Mr Simon Hall 3 January 2013 Merle Hall 3 January 2013 Mr R J Halford 3 January 2013 The Occupier 3 January 2013 Ms Catherine Dixon 3 January 2013 Mr Charles Stephens 4 January 2013 Emma And Richard Hopkins 23 November 2012 Mr Lawrence Youlden 21 December 2012 Ms Celia Frank 22 December 2012



Mrs Amy Jones 11 December 2012 Mr Nicholas Russell 2 January 2013 Mr David Gibbon 22 December 2012 Mr Ian Smith 11 December 2012 Miss Clare Serjeant 11 December 2012 Mr Gavin Spittlehouse 11 December 2012 Mr C Licata 21 November 2012 Mr Ian Pople 21 November 2012 Mr William Hole 21 November 2012 Mr Rob Scott 21 November 2012 J D Hunt 21 November 2012 J Wood 21 November 2012 S Brodie 21 November 2012 Mr I Laws 21 November 2012 Mr And Mrs B J And Samantha Thompson 21 November 2012 Mrs Ann Paramore 21 November 2012 Mr Alan M Jones 21 November 2012 Mr Martin Scott 21 November 2012 Mrs J Ward 21 November 2012 Mr Mike Brandon 21 November 2012 Mrs J Smith 21 November 2012 Mr Robert Strange 21 November 2012 Mrs Heidi Jennings 21 November 2012 Miss Marianne Farrell 21 November 2012 Mr Ray Budding 21 November 2012 Mr I Richards 21 November 2012 Miss Carmela Randazzo 21 November 2012 Mr Jeffery Dent 21 November 2012 P D Wiltshire 21 November 2012 Mr David Parker 21 November 2012 Miss Jackie Strange 21 November 2012 Mr Shereef Mirreh 21 November 2012 Mr Lewis Yost 21 November 2012 Mr Ian White 16 November 2012 Mr Mike Bowen 11 December 2012 Mrs Paula Harvey 27 December 2012 Mr Maurice Gibbs 17 November 2012 Mr Maurice Gibbs 21 November 2012 Mr Mark Worsley 29 December 2012 Miss Finola Reynolds 2 January 2013 Mr Paul Roost 3 January 2013 Mrs Jo Pollitt 10 December 2012 Ms Sue Coe 14 December 2012 Mr Michael Blow 2 January 2013 Professor Antonia Layard 2 January 2013 Mr John Young 2 January 2013 Miss Catherine Barrett 2 January 2013 Mrs Rachael Brimble 1 January 2013 Mr Iain Goad 2 January 2013 Miss Jenny Haylor 2 January 2013 Mrs Carol Laslett 2 January 2013 Mr Yann Lewis 2 January 2013 Mr Yann Lewis 2 January 2013



Mrs Alison Mann 2 January 2013 Mr Simon Minton 2 January 2013 Dr Valeria Hennessy 29 December 2012 Mr Dominic Fisher 1 January 2013 Miss Amy Timms 1 January 2013 Dr Reg Bragonier 2 January 2013 Mr Ben Gwyther 2 January 2013 Ms Janice Greenfield 2 January 2013 Mr Chris Askew 31 December 2012 Mr Peter Weeks 29 November 2012 S Licata 4 December 2012 Vanessa Conte 12 November 2012 Miss Kerry Macleod 2 January 2013 Garry Proucl 29 November 2012 Dr Chris Speller 18 December 2012 Ms Anna Freeman 18 December 2012 Patricia Glass 28 December 2012 Mrs Ursula Hale 28 December 2012 Emma Clark 28 December 2012 Natalie Miles 27 December 2012 Sam Jinadu 28 December 2012 Mr Peter Gould 28 December 2012 Ben Searle 29 December 2012 Alison Thomas 29 December 2012 Cassie Newland 29 December 2012 Mr Simon Murphy 30 December 2012 Beverley Lorne Brown 30 December 2012 Louise & Stephen Leigh 30 December 2012 Vicky Jones 30 December 2012 Prof David Pontin & Ms Nicola Symes 30 December 2012 Andree Parker 30 December 2012 Harry Parker 30 December 2012 James & Leyla Fellows 30 December 2012 Nicola Harwin & Samuel Harwin & Bill Gaines 30 December 2012 Lis Edwards 30 December 2012 M Simpson 30 December 2012 Sarah MacDonald 30 December 2012 Sarah MacDonald 30 December 2012 Simon Tozer 30 December 2012 Barbara Mouland & David Lewis 31 December 2012 Claire Skelcey 31 December 2012 Marcel Jinadu 31 December 2012 Lorna Rankin 30 December 2012 Diana Scrafton 29 December 2012 Lia Leendertz 30 December 2012 Justin MacCarthy 31 December 2012 F G Thomas 31 December 2012 Andy & Jo Hawkins 31 December 2012 T R Overton 31 December 2012 Mr Chris Law 2 January 2013 Ms Rosalind Keir 2 January 2013 Ms Carol Billinghurst 2 January 2013 Miss Amanda Collard 2 January 2013



Mr Lois Thorn 31 December 2012 Mr R Staniaszek 2 January 2013 Mr Ian Horton 3 January 2013 Mr Steve Cameron 3 January 2013 Ms Daphne Taysum 3 January 2013 K Dunn 3 January 2013 Dr Ian Baker 19 December 2012 Mr Max Drake 19 December 2012 Mr Darren Gillingham 3 January 2013 Miss Becky Cooke 3 January 2013 Mr Martin Craler 13 December 2012 Ms Rosemary Davies 22 December 2012 Mr Mike Bullock 21 December 2012 Mr Tom Roberts 21 December 2012 NHS Bristol 19 December 2012 Mrs Alison Gill 29 December 2012 Mrs Claire Greener 21 December 2012 Mrs Claire Greener 1 January 2013 Mr Charlie Harrison 2 January 2013 Miss Charlotte Temple 2 January 2013 Mr Robert O'Leary 2 January 2013 Mrs Carol Osborne 2 January 2013 Mr David Worthington 30 December 2012 Mrs Karen Manning 11 December 2012 Mr James Fellows 2 January 2013 Ms Jonquil Panting 2 January 2013 Mr Michael Wheeler 3 January 2013 Mr Jeremy White 2 January 2013 Mrs Gillian Banwell 3 January 2013 Mr Martin Cullen 2 January 2013 Mrs Fiona Tonagh 3 January 2013 Mr E McKay 2 January 2013 Mr Kristian Cameron 3 January 2013 Mr David Joseph 3 January 2013 Mrs Susie Nicholson 31 December 2012 Mrs Susie Nicholson 10 December 2012 Mr Stuart Gunter 2 January 2013 Mr Andrew Williams 2 January 2013 Margaret Curtis 3 January 2013 Mrs Louella Frankel Jones 3 January 2013 Chris Parsons 28 December 2012 Mr Andrew Stevenson 2 January 2013 Pauline Markovits 2 January 2013 William Haris 2 January 2013 Roger Ford & Bridget Joyce 2 January 2013 Helen Gascoine 2 January 2013 Pete Moorhouse 2 January 2013 Alison Hope 2 January 2013 Mrs Wendy Edwards 2 January 2013 Elizabeth Freeman 3 January 2013 Giles Hicks 3 January 2013 David Griffiths 3 January 2013 C Dawson 3 January 2013



Chandra Wilby & Peter Borshik 31 December 2012 Catherine Barrett 30 December 2012 Professor Jonathan Dovey 31 December 2012 John Workman 31 December 2012 Jan Blake 31 December 2012 Ferdinand & Belinda Edwards 31 December 2012 C Clark 31 December 2012 Simon Boulter 31 December 2012 Chris Evans 31 December 2012 Johnny Benn 1 January 2013 Richard Buist 1 January 2013 Nick Baylis 1 January 2013 Louise Padgett 1 January 2013 Jonathan Simmons 31 December 2012 Jonathan Simmons 31 December 2012 Jonathan Simmons 31 December 2012 Alison Griffies 31 December 2012 Jo White 31 December 2012 Clare Hanson-Kahn 31 December 2012 Fenella Butler 1 January 2013 Les Fry 1 January 2013 Carol Fry 1 January 2013 Anne Kotecha 2 December 2012 Dr P A Staddon 1 January 2013 Dr Jacqueline Barron 1 January 2013 Dr Jacqueline Barron 4 January 2013 Susan Bamber-Powell 1 January 2013 Susan Bamber-Powell 1 January 2013 Katy Taylor 2 January 2013 Joanna Hurst 2 January 2013 Mr Richard Neale 2 January 2013 Mrs Sam Mumford 2 January 2013 Mrs Penny Blackmore 3 January 2013 Mr. Jeremy Barker 3 January 2013 Miss Charlotte Flemming 3 January 2013 Miss Claire Harrington 3 January 2013 Ms Catherine McLaughlin 3 January 2013 Mr M Hicks 15 November 2012 Mr Derrick Lewis 15 November 2012 Miss Sophie Vlasto 15 November 2012 Mr Tom Hellin 15 November 2012 Mr D Thomas 15 November 2012 Miss J Parker 15 November 2012 Mr John Belgium 15 November 2012 Mr Paul Brasier 15 November 2012 Mr Ian Crawford 15 November 2012 Mr Tom Adams 15 November 2012 Mrs Karin Palfrey 15 November 2012 Mr Olly Palmer 15 November 2012 Mr Rich Hassell 15 November 2012 Mrs M Fudge 16 November 2012 Mr Philip Upton 16 November 2012 Mr Joe Ledbury 16 November 2012



Mr Simon Bryan 16 November 2012 Mr Shaun Reading 16 November 2012 Mr Graham Ford 13 November 2012 Ms Alice Gillam 2 January 2013 Ian Long 2 January 2013 Ingrid Sinclair 2 January 2013 Jeanette Monaco 2 January 2013 Steve Onyett 2 January 2013 Mrs Morwenna Sanders 2 January 2013 Simon (Marcus) Grant 2 January 2013 Mr T M Hobbs 2 January 2013 Heather McLean 2 January 2013 Dr Kevin C Honeychurch 2 January 2013 Kelvin Reeves 2 January 2013 Mrs Emma Law 2 January 2013 Robert Schick 2 January 2013 Valerie Harland 2 January 2013 Sarah Miller 2 January 2013 Miss Claire Harrington 3 January 2013 Ms Karen Cook 3 January 2013 Mr Ashley Harrington 3 January 2013 Mrs Paul Sheehan 3 January 2013 Miss Carla Feltham 3 January 2013 Ms C Fraser 3 January 2013 Mr Daniel Whelan 8 December 2012 Dr Harriet Lupton 31 December 2012 Mr Martin Finch 27 November 2012 Ms Carol Stevens 2 January 2013 Mrs Meenakshi Kapoor 12 December 2012 Mr Charlie Wightman 3 January 2013 Mr David Baker 3 January 2013 Mr John Marshall 2 January 2013 Mr David Laslett 2 January 2013 Mr Ben Anderson 2 January 2013 Mr David Gardiner 3 January 2013 Mr Kevin Pratt 17 November 2012 Mr A Anon 14 December 2012 Miss Kirstin Whitney 2 January 2013 Mr Wayne Woodley 28 December 2012 Mr Conor O'Neill 28 December 2012 Miss Michelle Armitage 30 December 2012 Mrs Susan Lovatt 29 December 2012 Mrs Gaby Solly 18 December 2012 Mrs Alison Harrington 3 January 2013 Mr Chris Shellard 3 January 2013 Mrs Sam Shellard 3 January 2013 Mr Neil Embleton 29 December 2012 Mr Richard Lander 31 December 2012 Mr John Mayne 22 December 2012 Prof Jens Marklof 1 January 2013 Miss Alice Sutherland 3 January 2013 Mr Robert Warr 31 December 2012 Mr Rob Mackay 3 January 2013



Mr David Prendergrast 2 January 2013 Miss Dawn Cooper 2 January 2013 Mr Paul Stopler 2 January 2013 Mr Paul Stopler 3 January 2013 Mr John Rudin 3 January 2013 Ms BRIDGET TYRRELL 10 December 2012 Lara Menon 13 December 2012 Mr Justin Hoyland 7 November 2012 Miss Natalie Pring 7 November 2012 Mr Aaron Badman 7 November 2012 Mr Brian Cox 8 November 2012 Mr Clive Harding 12 November 2012 Mr Daniel Thompson 8 November 2012 Mr Dennis Willingham 7 November 2012 Mr M Sheargold 7 November 2012 Mr Andrew Thomas 17 November 2012 Mr Peter Thompson 19 December 2012 Ms T Bacon 31 December 2012 Mr Peter Browne 10 December 2012 Mr Christopher Kerr 31 December 2012 Mrs Catriona Irvine 2 January 2013 Ms Geraldine Winkler 2 January 2013 Ms Geraldine Winkler 2 January 2013 Miss Anna Farrell 3 January 2013 Mr David Thompson 1 January 2013 Ms Eve Douglas 27 December 2012 Mr Steve Jackson 2 January 2013 Mr Gary Rogers 2 January 2013 Mr Andrew Baird 2 January 2013 Ms Gillian Porter 3 January 2013 Mrs Helen Shellard 3 January 2013 Mrs Debra Stiles 31 December 2012 Mr Rob Williams 3 January 2013 Mr Nigel Evans 15 November 2012 Sheikh Danish Al Saud 18 November 2012 Mr Martin Davis 13 November 2012 Mr Richard Stephenson 13 November 2012 Ms Melanie Rebbeck 20 November 2012 Mr Michael Cooke 26 November 2012 Mrs Elizabeth Kew 9 December 2012 Mr Chris Sherratt 17 December 2012 Ms Cathy Williams 19 December 2012 Mr Daniel Uren 2 January 2013 Mr Martin Keenan 29 December 2012 Mr Graham Williams 31 December 2012 Mr Kevin Crew 3 January 2013 Mr David Lawrence King 28 December 2012 Dr Tim Percival 31 December 2012 Mr Adam Gill 19 December 2012 Dr Sarah Johnson 2 January 2013 Ms Valerie Mannion 2 January 2013 Mr Robert Cousins 3 January 2013 Mr Tony Hamer 3 January 2013



Mr Tony Hamer 3 January 2013 Miss C Dawson 3 January 2013 Mrs Louise Hamer 3 January 2013 Master Joseph Hamer 3 January 2013 Master James Hamer 3 January 2013 Mrs Connie Theobald 3 January 2013 Ms Angela Smith 2 January 2013 Ms Susanna Thomas 2 January 2013 Mrs Eva Fernandes 11 December 2012 Ms Sarah Chope 12 December 2012 Ms Jo Adamson 12 December 2012 Mr Martyn Stutt 12 December 2012 Mr Paul Kavanagh 12 December 2012 Mrs Sally Garti 12 December 2012 Patricia Alvarez 12 December 2012 Jennifer Maddalena 12 December 2012 Miss Amy Walsh 12 December 2012 Ms Hilary Taylor 30 December 2012 Mr Richard Fisher 2 January 2013 Group TRASH Horfield 2 January 2013 Mr Barrie Fry 15 November 2012 Dan Delor 20 December 2012 Mr I R Jones 21 December 2012 Mr Martin Smith 21 December 2012 Lucas Swain 21 December 2012 The Occupier 12 West Broadway 21 December 2012 A Nash 21 December 2012 Josef Wadowski 24 December 2012 P E Huckle 21 December 2012 Miss D Thal-Jantzen 14 December 2012 A Brown 24 December 2012 Mr Jonathan Hatton-Brown 2 January 2013 Dr Roisin Hall 3 January 2013 Eileen Newby 3 January 2013 Alix Lentjes 3 January 2013 Simon Tutton 3 January 2013 Kathleen O'Reilly 3 January 2013 Tom Davies 3 January 2013 Sandra Stead 3 January 2013 Kevin Figes 3 January 2013 Gavin Hooper 3 January 2013 Wendy Hopkins 3 January 2013 Merryn Threadgould & Shane & Sam Pomeroy 3 January 2013 Margaret Black 3 January 2013 Christine Suffolk 3 January 2013 Imogen Pettitt 3 January 2013



APPENDIX A The Identified Study Area is used by the Applicant’s to assess impact. The zones are as follows: Primary Catchment Area (PCA) Zone 1: Bishopston/ Horfield (BS7 8 and BS7 9) Zone 2: Henleaze (BS6, BS7, BS9 4, and BS10 5) Zone 3: Stokes Croft/ Redland (BS1 3, BS2 8, BS6 5, and BS6 6) Zone 4: Stapleton/ Easton (BS2 9, BS5 0, and BS5 6) Zone 5: Filton (BS7 0 and BS34 7) Secondary Catchment Area (SCA) Zone 6: Westbury-on-Trym/ Stoke Bishop/ Southmead (BS9 1, BS9 2, BS9 3, and BS10, 6) Zone 7: Clifton/ City Centre/ Harbourside (BS1 1, BS1 2, BS1 4, BS1 5, BS1 6, BS8 1, BS8 2, BS8 3 (part), and BS2 0) Zone 8: St George/ Fishponds (BS16 1, BS16 2, BS16 3, BS5 7 and BS5 9) Zone 9: Stoke Gifford/ Bradley Stoke (BS32 0, BS32 8, BS32 9, BS34 5, BS34 6, and BS34 8) Table 1: Applicant’s predicted pattern of expenditure, trade draw to the proposed store Convenience Goods Comparison Goods Total % £m % £m £m Inside PCA 72 28.3 66 6.5 34.8 Gloucester Road Town Centre 6 2.4 5 0.5 2.9 Bristol City Centre 5 0.5 0.5 Whiteladies Road Town Centre 9 3.3 8 0.8 4.1 Henleaze Town Centre <1 0.2 0.2 Filton Town Centre <1 0.1 0.1 0.1 North View District Centre 5 2.0 2.0 Tesco, Lime Trees Road 36 14.0 35 3.5 17.5 Tesco Extra, Eastgate 13 5.0 12 1.2 6.2 Other 2 0.6 1 0.1 0.7 Outside PCA 28 10.8 34 3.4 14.2 Cribbs Causeway 5 0.5 0.5 Sainsbury’s East Filton 17 6.5 16 1.6 8.1 Asda, Cribbs Causeway 4 1.5 3 0.3 1.8 Morrison’s Cribbs Causeway 4 1.6 3 0.3 1.8 Eastgate Retail Park 2 0.2 0.2 Other <1 0.2 0.2 TOTAL 100 39.1 100 9.9 49.0



Table 2: Trade Effects of the proposal and Retail Commitments on Defined Centres, 2017, 2022 Impact 2012-

2017 % 2017 Impact %

Impact 2012-2022 %

2022 Impact %

Gloucester Road Town Centre

+11.4 -4.7* +30.2 -4.5

Bristol City Centre +20.0 -0.9 +45.9 -0.7 Whiteladies Road Town Centre

+11.8 -4.5 +27.6 -4.0

Henleaze Town Centre +13.4 -1.2 +32.4 -1.0 Westbury-on-Trym Town Centre

+12.7 - +30.8 -

Filton Town Centre +16.0 -0.9 +36.8 -0.8 North View District Centre +3.9 -5.4 +15.6 -4.8 Arneside Road District Centre

+3.7 -1.9 +14.2 -1.7

Local Centres in the PCA +13.5 - +24.8 - Table taken from Figure 5.6 of the Applicants Retail Statement Table 3: Cumulative Impact of the Proposal on Total Turnover of Gloucester Road Town Centre 2012

Pre-Impact Total Turnover

2017 Pre-Impact Total Turnover

Trade Diversion to Proposal

Trade Diversion to Commitments

2017 Residual Total Turnover

Cumulative Impact 2012-2017

Cumulative Impact 2017

Applicant’s Assessment

£65.9m

£77.3m £2.9m £0.7m £73.7m

+11.8% -4.7%

Council Advisor’s Assessment

£65.9m

£77.3m £7.7m £0.7m £68.9m

+4.8% -10.8%

The reduction in the other identified centres in set out in the following table: Table 4: Advisor’s predicted pattern of trade diversion, 2017 Centre/ Store 2017 Pre-Impact

Turnover (£m) Trade Diversion to the Proposal (£m)

Solus Impact (% loss of trade)

Centres Gloucester Road 34.9 6.5 18.5 Whiteladies Road 67.4 1.9 2.8 Westbury Park 41.8 2.3 5.5 Stores Sainsbury’s Filton 47.3 4.7 10.0 Tesco, Lime Trees Road 57.1 12.6 22.1 Tesco Extra, Eastgate 56.1 3.7 6.6 Lidl, Southmead Road 8.4 0.9 10.6 ASDA, Cribbs Causeway

31.3 3.2 10.3

Morrisons, Cribbs Causeway

13.2 1.7 13.1



The impact levels outlined in this table are based on the amount of expenditure that stores and centres gain from the study area alone. Proposed Mitigation These are as follows:

- Three hour free parking for town centre shoppers; - The inclusion of directional signage from the store to the town centre at appropriate locations

along the route; - The provision of a town centre/ traders information board/ map within the lobby of the

proposed store; - A ‘Local Trader Partnership Scheme’ that would allow town centre traders to showcase their

products within the foyer of the store. In addition to the Applicants now offer the following: Project Description Indicative Cost Website Develop a new website dedicated to promoting

the town centre’s shops and services £3,000

Events Develop a range of events to generate additional footfall in Gloucester Road.

£200- £2,000

Marketing Campaign

Introduce a ‘Discover Gloucester Road’ multi channel promotional campaign embracing branding, publicity, PR and media. To include leaflets and branded ‘bags for life’.

£2,500-£5,000 (depending on number of ‘bags for life’)

Lamp post banner signs

Introduce decorative/ promotional vertical banners to lampposts

£10,000 (40 at £250 each and installation costs).

Welcome to Gloucester Road signs

Introduce signateg at the bottom and top of the town centre.

£5,000 (2 at £2,500 each and installation costs).

Christmas lights Empty Shops Improve the appearance of empty shop units, via

promotional, public art or information window displays (window graphics). Effordts will be made by Town Centre Manager (TCM) to secure the support of property owners.

£2,000 - £3,000

Marketing Vacant Units

Instigate a pro-active campaign to market vacant units –working with landlords and agents.

TCM time and expenses from core budget

Environmental Ranger

Recruit an ‘Environmental Ranger’ to carry out quick cleaning/ maintenance/ small repair jobs to the physical environment – including minor graffiti.

£3,500pa (based on 1 day per week at £8 per hour and on costs) £400 for equipment including portable graffiti response kit.

Floral Displays £3,000pa contribution Pavement Jet Wash

Twice yearly jet wash of pavements to include chewing gum removal as appropriate.

£5,000pa contribution



APPENDIX B Representation of Councillor Willingham: Comments on planning application: 12/02090/F, Memorial Stadium, Filton Avenue, BS7 0AQ Ward councillors are elected to advocate on behalf of the residents of ward they represent and to seek to act in their best interests. Constituents have made representations both supporting and opposing the proposed development, but clearly only one of these points-of-view can be presented. Having reviewed the evidence, the conclusion that has been reached is that although there are a few slightly positive elements to this application, these are significantly and overwhelmingly outweighed by the serious detrimental impact the proposed development would have on the local area. Consequently, with reference to relevant planning policies, it is recommended in the strongest terms that the application be refused for the following reasons:

• Detrimental effect on viability of Gloucester Road (BCS7 / NPPF ¶23, 24, 26 & 27) • Detrimental effect on Traffic flow (BCS3 / BCS10 / BCS13 / M1 / M3) • Detrimental effect on Air Quality in the locality (BCS23) • Detrimental effect on Noise Pollution in the locality (ME4 / BCS23) • Detrimental effect on setting of Grade II listed structure (BCS22 / NPPF §12) • Detrimental effect on quality of street-scene (B2 / BCS21) • Detrimental effect on Mental Healthcare provision in Bristol (BCS11 / BCS12) • Detrimental effect of proposed housing on effective provision of school places in the locality

(NPPF ¶72) • Detrimental effect on provision of sports stadia within Bristol (L8 / NPPF ¶74) It is also formally requested that prior to determining this application, that Members of the Development Control Committee should make a site visit. It is suggested that as well as visiting the site of the proposed development, they also visit Alton Road to see for themselves the effect on local residents of the proposed changes to that road, that they visit various residential properties that will be affected by the proposed demolition of the two properties detailed in the application, and that they walk from the site to the Gloucester Road shops and back, exactly as the applicant suggests prospective future customers will. The detailed assessment of the reasons for the proposal’s detrimental impact and non-compliance with planning policies is provided below: Detrimental effect on viability of Gloucester Road: The proposed development will destroy the vitality and viability of the Gloucester Road Town centre. There is no demonstrable need for an out-of-centre supermarket to be located on the proposed site. The area is already served, to the point of saturation, with supermarkets. There is no lack of choice. It is the applicant’s assertion that shoppers will drive to their car park and then walk several hundred yards to use the Gloucester Road shops. There is a lack of any sound evidence provided to support this assertion, and it fails to withstand even the most basic scrutiny. Based upon human nature, it is likely that shoppers driving to the proposed supermarket will initially go directly into the store as it is the closest shop to where they have parked their vehicle, and upon leaving the shop will be unwilling to walk to the Gloucester Road because they will have been able to purchase all of the goods that they require in the proposed store. There are further deterrents against this occurring including the proposed time limit for parking in the car park, the distance separating the site from the closest primary retail frontages, and concerns of customers who have purchased frozen food that it will defrost if left for too long in their vehicles. Furthermore, the applicant will directly compete with most of the retail businesses on the Gloucester Road. The council’s independent report into the retail effect of the proposed development suggests that if the development were to be permitted, the Gloucester Road would lose £7,700,000 per annum in retail



turnover, that certain sections will lose 19% of turnover and that store closures could follow. This will inevitably lead to the decline of the northern Gloucester Road Town Centre. There is already evidence of the unintended effects of the applicant’s activities at the other end of the Gloucester Road. When the applicant opened a convenience version of their store at 2-4 Gloucester Road, an independent local retailer almost opposite the store found it impossible to compete on price. This led to an attempt to compete on opening hours, with the small retailer seeking a 24-hour alcohol licence (application reference 11/00846/PREM). This demonstrates the harm that a much smaller convenience store operated by the applicant has already done to the Gloucester Road. There is a consideration of job creation at the proposed development versus job losses on the Gloucester Road, but since the applicant uses a plethora of cheap modern technology to replace more costly staff, it is reasonable to conclude that the development will result in a net loss of jobs in the local economy. Further independent assessments of the economic effect of the proposed supermarket suggest that it is likely to lead to a net loss of between 133 and 197 local jobs, and that this impact will be felt in other retail areas in the north of the city. Based upon data from the Fair Pay Network, it is reasonable to concluded that many jobs created at the proposed development would pay less than the UK Living wage of £7.20 per hour, and less even than other supermarkets. Sainsbury's pay a basic rate of £6.21 per hour whereas for comparative staff grades, even Tesco pay a basic rate of £6.50 per hour. It is further noted that the proposed change of use from a sports ground to a retail usage is not compatible with NPPF ¶24, as the proposed development in not in an appropriate Town Centre location. In conclusion, this proposal will be detrimental to the Gloucester Road retail environment, detrimental to other retail areas in the north of the city and as such is contrary to BCS7, and also to NPPF (¶23, 24, 26, & 27).

The applicant has provided a retail impact mitigation statement. However, this is inadequate. The use of the Bristol Citywide Retail Study (BCRS) from 2007 as representative data is deeply flawed. The economic climate of 2007 was one of growth and prosperity. The current double-dip recession that the UK is experiencing means that any comparisons drawn with this data are demonstrably unrepresentative, and it is disingenuous to use them. The proposed mitigation measures do not appear to have been given any consideration with respect unique nature of the street. Rather than being a well-considered holistic proposal, they appear to represent a shotgun approach of suggesting a large hotchpotch of disjointed and incoherent potential measures. Furthermore, given the potential level of trade that will be diverted away from the Gloucester Road Town Centre, the level of the proposed financial contribution is totally inadequate. The retail mitigation proposals by the applicant have also failed to address the retail impact on other locations, including convenience stores on secondary frontages. If despite representations it is decided for the proposal to be given permission, then for the first five years of operation, an annual contribution of £770,000 should be sought from the applicant, with £700,000 being used to support the Gloucester Road, and the remaining £70,000 to support the other secondary shopping frontages that would be affected by the proposed development. This represents 10% of the value of trade that is it estimated will be lost from the Gloucester Road Town Centre. Detrimental effect Traffic: The proposed development is likely to bring nothing short of “Traffic Armageddon” to the local area. The three signalised junctions on Gloucester Road, Filton Avenue and Muller Road already generate significant queuing traffic, and the Council’s Highways department has acknowledged that at times these junctions “operate at or over capacity”. The queues at these junctions very quickly reach levels where other non-signalised junctions become obstructed. It is not uncommon for traffic queues to stretch down Muller Road beyond the Downend Road traffic lights, nor for queues on the Gloucester Road to extend nearly to Filton. The evidence submitted by the applicant to attempt to document the retail impact of the proposed development shows a Primary Catchment Area (PCA) extending north to the junction of the A38 with Gipsy Patch Lane in South Gloucestershire, south to include Broadmead and Cabot Circus, east to include Upper Eastville and west to include Westbury Park. It is evident from this that the applicant is seeking to draw shoppers not just from the locality but also from the wider sub-region beyond Bristol’s city boundary. This influx



of extra traffic will lead to an increase in congestion and pollution. With the increase in traffic volumes, there is also the associated risk of traffic displacement to unsuitable unclassified residential streets. Any increase in traffic volumes on inappropriate residential streets is likely to directly correlate with an increase in Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) collisions involving vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and especially child pedestrians. The Ashley Down Primary School situated on Downend Road is likely to be particularly affected by displacement. A number of the other local residential roads in the vicinity of the development that are likely to be affected by displacement include Strathmore Road and Churchways Avenue. When vehicles are parked on both sides of these roads, there is only a single lane available for through traffic. This already leads to stand-offs, road-rage and aggressive driving, all of which are likely to be exacerbated by the proposed development. The increase in traffic congestion is also likely to lead to delays for emergency ambulances ferrying critically ill patients to the new Southmead “super hospital”. It will also undermine the hospital’s travel plan, and will make journeys less reliable for patients, staff, visitors, deliveries, and non-urgent patient transport. This is likely to make the efficient operation of the hospital considerably more difficult, with extra cost burden falling upon the taxpayer. Since the proposed development will be detrimental to the Southmead “super hospital”, it is not acceptable in terms of policy BCS3. The size of the proposed development and its car park demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is a car-centric development, the NPPF (¶36) requires a travel plan to be produced, but since the overwhelming proportion of traffic will be generated by independent customers in their private cars, such a plan would either be unacceptable or unworkable. The derisory budget of £100 plus £200 per annum proposed by the applicant (Interim Retail Travel Plan §4.10.3) demonstrates a complete lack of commitment to encouraging or delivering sustainable staff travel. The congestion caused on the A38 Gloucester Road is likely to be detrimental to the efficient operation of the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN), this suggests that the proposal is incompatible with BCS10. The proposal is demonstrably car-centric, this is evidenced by the size of the PCA and by the number of parking spaces. This therefore renders the application incompatible with BCS13, which requires developments to encourage methods other than the use of private cars.

Detrimental effect on Air Quality in the locality: The site is adjacent to Bristol’s Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for the pollutants Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). The predominant cause of this pollution is from motor vehicles, and specifically diesel engines. It has already been established that the development is likely to result in an increase in motor vehicle traffic. In recent years the boundary of the AQMA has been growing, evidencing that air quality in Bristol is not improving. Bishopston ward has many families with young children, and there is evidence from the World Health Organisation that diesel fumes are carcinogenic, and that NO2 pollution exacerbates respiratory problems including childhood asthma. Data presented by the applicant shows that at the nearest monitoring location to the site, the junction of Strathmore Road with Gloucester Road, the levels of NO2 pollution are 10% in excess of the 40µg/m3 limit for annual mean exposure. Slightly older data, not presented by the applicant, is even more concerning. It shows annual mean exposure levels of NO2 pollution to be 59.75µg/m3 in 2007 at the junction of Muller Road with Filton Avenue, and 58.12µg/m3 in 2009 at junction of Muller Road with Downend Road. It is believed that once the 60µg/m3 annual mean level is reached, that it is possible for the hourly mean limit for NO2 pollution to be exceeded. There is a further concern that the council will be at substantial risk of financial penalties if it remains in default of its duty to reduce pollution to acceptable safe levels. The increase of air pollution associated with the proposed development is highly likely to require the council to extend the AQMA to include further sections of Gloucester Road and the section of Filton Avenue adjacent to the proposed development, it is therefore unacceptable in terms of policy BCS23. The proposed mitigation is currently inadequate. The current suggestion of the applicant paying the council £50,000 if the EU limits for air quality are breached is derisory; to a company as wealthy and profitable as the applicant, it is neither a penalty nor a deterrent. The Council should impose a penalty of £500,000 for every 1µg/m3, or part thereof over the annual mean limit. There should also be monitoring of the hourly mean in the vicinity of the proposed development, with a considerably more substantial penalty clause if the hourly mean limit is exceeded. It is understood that the



applicant may wish to operate a number delivery vehicles from the proposed development site to perform residential deliveries to the surrounding area. If this is the case, then as a planning condition, the applicant should be required to use zero-emission vehicles (for example electric or fuel-cell powered) for this purpose. Detrimental effect on Noise Pollution in the locality: The applicant’s noise report has completely failed to consider the impact of traffic noise on the locality. The council’s mapping data shows that road noise in the rear amenity spaces of 27 and 33 Filton Avenue is in the range 45.0-50.0Lden. However, the levels of road noise on Filton Avenue in this area are between 60.0-65.0Lden and on Gloucester Road, they are in the range 70.0-75.0Lden. Given the increase in traffic and the construction of a multi-lane access road, it is likely that the noise levels in the rear amenity spaces of 15 to 41 Filton Avenue will experience a significant increase in noise levels to a noise level that is unacceptable. Retained policy ME4 from the 1997 Bristol Local Plan clearly states, “Development which has an unacceptable impact on the environmental amenity or wildlife of the surrounding area by reason of noise will not be permitted.” Given the projected traffic flows on Filton Avenue and into the proposed development, it is reasonable to conclude that the Lden levels in the rear amenity spaces of properties adjacent to the multi-lane access route will have values in excess of 60.0Lden. This suggests that the rear amenity spaces of several properties will suffer noise pollution in excess of the 57dB(A) threshold, which is considered to be the level at which daytime noise causes the onset of significant community annoyance. A report commissioned by the Greater London Authority estimates that up to 108 heart attacks a year in London could be caused by exposure to road traffic noise and exposure to this noise in the UK is estimated to cost between £7,000,000,000 and £10,000,000,000 (impacts of annoyance, on health and productivity). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the levels of traffic noise experienced in the rear amenity spaces of properties on Filton Avenue, will not only cause a public nuisance, but will be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the occupants of said properties. Detrimental effect on setting of Grade II listed structure: The Memorial Gates are a listed structure. The proposed development will alter the character and setting of this structure. The Memorial Gates are a memorial to fallen rugby players from the First World War, and comments have been made about the disrespect being shown towards their memory by the proposed development. Policy BCS22 states that proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance. Irrespective of proposals for a memorial square, it is difficult to argue that the backdrop of a supermarket development will comply with this policy, when the memorial is specifically dedicated to the memory of fallen rugby players, but the sporting context would have been removed from the site. A number of paragraphs in NPPF §12 are also likely to be material considerations pertinent to the determination of the effect of the proposal. Detrimental effect on quality of street-scene: The proposed demolition of 29 and 31 Filton Avenue will lead to a destructive interruption of the roofline of the current street-scene. The properties on Filton Avenue were constructed around 1900. Whilst 110 years of habitation has taken its toll on the built environment, with the loss or modification of some original features, the roofs of 27 and 29 Filton Avenue currently slope pleasingly down to the unnamed road that forms one of the entrances to the Memorial Stadium. The demolition of 29 and 31 Filton Avenue would lead to changes to existing buildings, building lines and heights that are not in keeping with the context of the local street scene. It is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to have due regard to retained policy B2 from the 1997 Bristol Local Plan.

Detrimental effect on Mental Healthcare provision: The planning application includes a proposal to demolish two properties. One of these properties contains the administrative offices of a local mental healthcare provider. The property also houses a number of vulnerable adults with mental healthcare needs. There are further properties in close proximity to this location where other vulnerable adults



with similar mental healthcare needs are housed and supported. The proposal has failed to provide any premises to replace the mental healthcare facilities that will be destroyed by the construction of the proposed development. The welfare of the residents it is proposed to displace with this development has also been neglected; many people with mental health illnesses have experienced homelessness, and there seems to have be inadequate provision for them. The loss of these vital community services is directly contrary to policy BCS12. If despite the objections, it is proposed to grant permission for this development, then the pursuant to BCS11, the applicant must be required to provide significant §106 funding to allow the provision of an equivalent number of mental healthcare places, and the administration thereof within a reasonable distance of the proposed development. Detrimental effect on effective provision of school places: The proposed development includes a number of residential properties. It is possible that families with children will move into these properties. However, the Council’s “School Organisation Strategy 2012-2016” identifies that there is currently a shortfall of Early-years provision in Bishopston ward, where the proposed development is located. It further predicts that by 2016 in the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) in which the proposed development is located, there will be a demand for at least ten extra primary school places. The primary schools in the area have already expanded to their maximum capacity. Consequently, even with funding provided by the developer under §106, the densely populated residential nature of the area means that there is no suitable land within the locality of the development upon which to provide any further school places. NPPF ¶72 is clear in the weight that planners must give to ensuring sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. The proposed development will stifle choice, and since the Local Authority has a legal duty to ensure the adequate provision of school places, there could also be financial implications for the Local Authority.

Detrimental effect on provision of sports stadia within Bristol: The aspiration of Bristol Rovers FC to relocate to a new stadium has many positives for the local area, and it is accepted that the facilities at the current stadium are in need of improvement. These include removal of football-related anti-social behaviour, and a more pleasant atmosphere on the Gloucester Road on a Saturday afternoon, where shoppers and traders don’t need to worry about having their weekend shopping spoilt by unruly mobs being escorted up the Gloucester Road by the Police in riot control uniforms and a reduction in dangerous and irresponsible parking the has accompanied some matches. However, it is very difficult to justify the need for Bristol Rovers to move to a 21,700-seat stadium, when their season average attendance to date is 5,215, meaning that the stadium would be less than a quarter full for the majority of matches, this failure to demonstrate “need” consequently leads to the conclusion that it is unlikely this proposal is compliant with NPPF ¶74. It is further noted that the Memorial Stadium has not been the historic home of Bristol Rovers FC. However, it is the historic home of Bristol Rugby. Whilst a rugby match can have the same impact on the area in terms of parking as a football match, these are less frequent and the other detrimental effects associated with football are not generally reported. The arguments around policy L8 are complex. It is evident from the supporting text that the policy seeks to retain the sports stadia in Bristol, which in strict interpretation of the law and policy must mean within the administrative boundary of the City of Bristol, otherwise the Local Planning Authority would be acting ultra vires by attempting to create planning policy outside its area of jurisdiction. Since the proposed stadium is not in Bristol, but in South Gloucestershire, this must lead to a presumption against the proposed development. However, if despite the unacceptable loss of the facilities from Bristol it were considered to use the enabling argument of from policy L8, then again this leads to a presumption against the proposed development. Policy L8 is clear that development can only be permitted if “the amenity of the neighbouring uses would not be affected to an unacceptable degree by virtue of noise, or other disturbance” and “There would be no unacceptable impact due to additional traffic” both of these are clearly not achieved by the proposed development. Therefore, under any interpretation of retained policy L8, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the said policy. In the event that the application were to be approved, substantial mitigation measures would be needed to ensure that the futures of both Bristol Rugby and Bristol Rovers FC were secure in permanent locations. These should require the supermarket not to commence trading, nor any housing on site to be occupied until Bristol Rovers FC have played a formal, not a friendly, match at the new stadium, and Bristol Rugby have confirmed the location of their new permanent



home and played a formal match there.

It is deeply concerning that the merits of this application have been compromised by its link with football. It is extremely doubtful that a simple supermarket proposal would have been so divisive or have attracted personal responses from residents of Grand Cayman, Orkney or the other locations many miles away from Bishopston, but it has. Whilst these people may care passionately about football, that is not a material planning consideration. The only question that can be asked in planning terms is whether the site is suitable for a supermarket, and based upon the merits of the application it is not an acceptable development as the proposed supermarket is far too large in its detrimental effects on the local area. Consequently, it should be recommended for refusal in the Officer’s planning report, and should be refused by the Development Control Committee.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE – 16 January … · LOCATION PLAN: 07/01/13 13:55 Committee...

Documents

Transcript of DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE – 16 January … · LOCATION PLAN: 07/01/13 13:55 Committee...