What Happened At That Meeting

[Geoff65]

[chinapig]

Great piece of work, thanks for taking the time. The question arises as to whether Rayner is dumb or deliberately distorted the figures to achieve the end he wanted since those in the various reports are perfectly clear to any numerate person and not contradictory at all. I cannot believe that somebody who has reached his position in life is so stupid that he compares apples with pears so to speak. So what conclusion can I possibly come to?

[cheese]

3.05 (SR) I got my calculator out, and worked out that the combined size of the Tesco and old sainsburys was 2.15 times the old sainsburys and the new sainsburys is 1.95 times the size of the old sainsburys , so essentially they are both twice the size, so can you explain to me why particularly in terms of the retail impact assessment how the assessments are so different to the Tesco's assessment

Or, to put it another way, the Sainsbury's proposal results in a reduction of 10% of retail floor space over the Tesco application. Not insignificant in my view.

[CotswoldRed]

Or, to put it another way, the Sainsbury's proposal results in a reduction of 10% of retail floor space over the Tesco application. Not insignificant in my view.

I would like to propose Mr Rayner has a 10% reduction in salary. He won't notice - as he has demonstrated, he'll be earning what he was before.

Put another way, its ok to say a 10% reduction in floor space would be insignificant, but if we suggested 10% extra shops would close he'd see it entirely differently. Its called dressing up the numbers to suit your own conclusions, IMO.

[bristolcitysweden]

[Rich]

Geoff

I thought his questioning was a little fervent, seeing as he and other councillors stated that they had not come to a decision prior to the meeting, why did he do his sums?

I also think the officers missed chances to clarify certain points.

The motion to refuse came from Levy and SR jumped at the chance of seconding it.

Another point to bring up was that Levy motioned for refusal on the grounds that there would be a 20% increase in traffic to the new store, he stated that council policy was to avoid increasing traffic, so, was his mind already made up?

As to that traffic. The planning officers never explained that the increase in traffic was because, the increased retail sales at the new store would come from other retail centres.

Those centres, Cribbs causeway, Clifton, City centre, Nailsea and local centres would obviously see a fall in traffic, due to the loss of trade, so no overall increase in traffic.

In fact, for some cases like the city centre, Cribbs and clifton, south Bristol shoppers would almost certainly have to pass the new store to access those areas, resulting in an actual reduction in traffic. The only increase in traffic would be because of an increase in retail trade due to population growth.

So the increase is not an increase it's a diversion of existing traffic.

The two officers covering retail and traffic were weak, this did not help the waivering councillors that might have been othewise convinced.

[italian dave]

I think its called going into the meeting with your mind made up - whatever they may say.

I find it very strange to assert that the closure of a couple of local convenience stores on North Street would "reduce the offer available to residents".

OK, so you lose a couple of corner shops. At the same time you get a huge Sainsburys store. Doesn't sound like a reduced offer to me??

[downendcity]

There are a number of issues I cannot fathom.

1. Planning at this level is not a case of submitting an application , and hoping it will be approved. Sainsbury's planning people would have been incontact with BCC planning department on an informal basis from the outset and the application would not have gone to the planning committee unless and until they had received informal confirmation that the planners were happy. We know that the planning deprtment recommended approval.

2. On the assumption that not all the planning department are City fans, I can only assume that they reached this conclusion following extensive investigation of the impact of the proposal on the local area, traffic flow , established business and the like. I also suspect that they referred to independant research in coming to their conclusions and that this is the independant research referred to in Simon Rayner's comments.

3. Professional planners examined all the facts surrounding this case and recommend approval. Independant research, presumably undertaken by qualified professional in their field, is also undertaken and supplied to assist the consideration of the application, but Simon Rayner ignores the advice of his own professional planners and disputes the findings of the independant reports. What makes Simon Rayner more of an expert than the professionals in his own planning department? Does he dispute the diagnosis that his doctor gives him if he doesn't like the sound of it or if it might stop him going on holiday?

4. I don't live in Bristol so don't know a lot about the various councillors on the planning committee, but I do understand that none of the Lib Dems who voted against the application live in south Bristol, neither do they represnt south Bristol wards. If this is the case, do any other of the planning committee members live in South Bristol, and if they do, what evidence is there from the minutes of their input about the views of the people they represent and the impact of the decision, given their unique and greater local knowledge?

If none of the committee live in, or represent areas of south Bristol, then it would be reasonable to assume that planning committee members would have taken soundings from fellow councillors who do represent wards in south Bristol, in order to gauge the views and opinions of local people and the impact on the population and businesses in the area. Is there any evidence of any such consulation?