Sainsbury's Application

[The Red Planet]

[marshy]

[The Red Planet]

Has he not heard of paragraphs ?

SORRY ! That's my fault not his.

The original e-mail was actually in six or seven paras but when I copied and pasted it from my in-box all the text got bunched up.

If any of you can suggest how to avoid this, I will do it again (or if you have received the same e-mail and can post it as it was written), please do.

[wookey]

He might not be good on paragraphing but it is a well written cogent response, which deals with our concerns.

[Chappers]

Lot's of fine sounding words, lots of BS, but very little actual content. If it is so clear cut, does it not bring into question the competence of the professional planners who said that it did meet Government guidelines? The 'cutting car usage' is against Condem policy, where they are looking to slash support for public transport. As for the effect on retail, will it really have any effect, bearing in mind that there is already an Asda in reasonably close proximity? And if this really is following Government guidelines, no supermarket should ever be approved.

It was also made clear to members that there is a considerable degree of uncertainty in the figures used, and thus the impact could be worse than predicted.

Well, should it not be deferred for further investigation? After all, it could also be better than predicted.

A couple of very weak arguments expanded with BS and meaningless drivel to make it sound plausible.

[Tim S]

Leaving his mobile number on the bottom might have been a mistake!

[Geoff65]

He might not be good on paragraphing but it is a well written cogent response, which deals with our concerns.

Not really, he still has questions to answer, he's dealt with the prejudice but not the predetermination and deliberate misleading of the committee.

Once the information about what information was provided to the Councillors and what the details of any discussions and meetings that were held, we might get somewhere closer to the truth.

[The Red Planet]

He might not be good on paragraphing but it is a well written cogent response, which deals with our concerns.

Does this kill the "conspiracy" theory ?

OLE - where are you ?

[howey_ducky]

Leaving his mobile number on the bottom might have been a mistake!

there's nothing on tv tonight, here goes.............................

[cidercity1987]

Thought he was leading a planning meeting not a criminal trial?

Therefore why has he taken the view that every argument for the development had to be proved beyond doubt? And every argument against was accepted without challenge? It is not satisfactory to dismiss the application because the committee had doubts the experts were right.

Pompous *****.

[Cooter]

Comments please

My comment is that Bristol Council were bang out of order for allowing the Wedlock's pub to be destroyed. That was an historic building of character that needed preserving and now Bristol Council are again bang out of order for stopping the Sainsbury's store being built that would create local jobs and help Bristol City FC finance the new stadium.

[howey_ducky]

we're just as bad as this lot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4NeFo7zkfk

[Cooter]

we're just as bad as this lot http://www.youtube.c...h?v=x4NeFo7zkfk

Bristol Council is moron run and moron led. Every other city/ town in England would bend over backwards to help get a new football stadium built. Especially a football stadium that might one day host football world cup games.

[BrizzleRed]

As has already pointed out, Simon Rayner writes a very good email with plenty of words, but very little content. What he carefully skips round is the fact that this decision was taken while strictly following party lines, when I thought it should be on the merits of the application. Watching that debate on the night made me think there was a Lib Dem mafia on view. Whatever evidence was put in front of them, there was no way they were going to let that proposal go through. Even his email reply is biased, as in the following example:

"Although the issue was not discussed at the meeting, the number of jobs created by the supermarket development itself is debatable . With a finite level of retail spending, any jobs created are likely to be (at least) offset by losses elsewhere. This argument was made explicit in the draft officer's report on the Tesco application for the site, and mentioned in the Sainsbury's report (although perhaps not emphasised as clearly as it should have been)."

Where did he get his figures from regarding job losses, because there was no evidence presented by the planning officers for that, so how does he assume that "jobs created are likely to be at least offset by losses" and him insinuating that Sainsbury's would have the same detrimental effect as having a new Tesco store. The strength of this application was that it would be far better to have an expanded Sainsbury's because it would be catering for existing customers, rather than dragging away loads of trade from local retailers, which could have been the case with Tesco. Allowing for the new houses on the old Sainsbury site and the other new housing around the stadium, there would be plenty of new customers anyway.

Sorry Simon, but your BS doesn't wash mate.

[BCAGFC]

Right.................let's cut the crap and get down to basics......

1- The Sainsburys application had to be decided under Planning Laws........................as it should always be....................BUT IT WASN'T.

2- The Council Planning experts said that the Sainsburys application was acceptable under Planning Laws and they recommended approval...................they wouldn't recommend approval on an application that was illegal under Planning Laws would they?..........NO THEY WOULDN'T.

3- The decision to reject was made by 4 councillors (from the same political party) who all decided that they disagreed with an independant professional's expert report as they knew better.............................are they really better qualified than the expert?..............NO THEY AREN'T.

4- The committee could have defered the decision for more in depth reports or consultations..................................THEY REFUSED BECAUSE THEY KNEW A NO VOTE WOULD BE MUCH MORE DAMAGING TO THE APPLICATION.

Stitch up.......................SIMPLES!!!.

BCAGFC

[Rich]

Has he not heard of paragraphs ?

It seems to me that he is papering over cracks in his decision making process.

He says " The independent assessment of this impact suggested that the proposed store would cause some reduction in trade on East Street, and a significant reduction on North Street. It was also made clear to members that there is a considerable degree of uncertainty in the figures used, and thus the impact could be worse than predicted".

The report actually stated that there would not be a significant reduction in North st, it could lead to the closure of a couple of shops in North st. It also said that the retail area was strong and would cope.

It was made clear to committee members about figures used because of his questioning of the officer about those figures.

They class the store as out of centre in planning law, the existing store is already an out of centre store and competing with the existing shops.

This is used to protect actual town centres. A comparison would be building a new store 500metres from Keynsham town centre. This scenario is not the same, it just helps to justify the wrong decision.

They also took into account the increase in traffic (20%).

This traffic already exists, it is going to the retail centres that would lose customers to the new store.

In lots of cases (such as Clifton and the city centre) that traffic would already be passing the site of the new store.

It appears that the objectors really did get to the committee, the reality is that there weren't that many of them.

For example : Their main site (Basics) had a grand total of 40 posters in the six or so months it was running. Ten percent were supporters of the supermarket, two were running the site (Alice and George I think), and there was about six activists from the movement using it. So all in all about 20 to 30 posters from an area of 23,000 people, and about 200 or so letters of objection.

The reality is that the objectors joined every group possible and objected en mass, this made it appear as though there were many more of them, Simon probably knows them all by name (he appeared to at the meeting).

All in all,I feel he did as good a job as possible in bending over backwards to appease the objectors.

[Cooter]

Sorry Simon, but your BS doesn't wash mate.

Quite right the bullshit doesn't wash because we're not all simple like simple Simon.

[arpaul]

Intersesting read, however, he mentions the possibility/probability of loss of trade in East Street and North Street.

However, he goes on to say that traffic could increase by 20%.

Therefore, in theory, there is a possibility/probability that business in East Street and North Street could in fact increase by 20% ?

But still there is no mention or apology on behalf of Bristols democratically elected councillors, who didn't actually do what they were elected to do and actually VOTE!!!

Why stand for Council, if you can't make a decision ?

[Cooter]

Intersesting read, however, he mentions the possibility/probability of loss of trade in East Street and North Street.

However, he goes on to say that traffic could increase by 20%.

Therefore, in theory, there is a possibility/probability that business in East Street and North Street could in fact increase by 20% ?

But still there is no mention or apology on behalf of Bristols democratically elected councillors, who didn't actually do what they were elected to do and actually VOTE!!!

Why stand for Council, if you can't make a decision ?

In my opinion, it's a numbers game because if we were now a top flight club and attracting 20,000 crowds then the Bristol Council would kneel before us and pander to us and not pander to their vested interests.

[youwhat]

"The independent assessment of this impact suggested that the proposed store would cause some reduction in trade on East Street, and a significant reduction on North Street. It was also made clear to members that there is a considerable degree of uncertainty in the figures used, and thus the impact could be worse than predicted."

If there is uncertainty in the figures used then surely the impact could be less than predicted as well? Edit: Sorry.. "Considerable degree of uncertainty"!

Still don't see how a Sainsburys moving down the road will affect "specialist" shops which people visit not because of a lack of a supermarket but because they want to.

[Bristol Rob]

Would anyone who has digested the original post be kind enough to re-post it again with line breaks?

[CiderHider]

So in a nut shell planning was not given becuase of pollution, noise, and poor small shops that would suffer. Well excuse me while I cry, this is just bollocks, welcome to the modern age you soft ****.

The jobs it would create would far outweigh the ones lost. We live in an industrialized society, not some bloody makebelive utopia.

This is serious stuff with serious consequences, what an utter imbecile. And to think he gave his support to the stadium, what a backstabbing piece of shit.

[Olé]

He says " The independent assessment of this impact suggested that the proposed store would cause some reduction in trade on East Street, and a significant reduction on North Street. It was also made clear to members that there is a considerable degree of uncertainty in the figures used, and thus the impact could be worse than predicted".

This is a ridiculous twisting of the facts and convenient "misdirection" to justify his flimsy decision making basis.

The official planning experts detailed assessment on retail impact is supposed to be independent (it would not exist if it wasn't) and it said North Street trade would increase by around 5% as a result of the development - 1 or 2% less than it might increase without the development which was why nearly quarter of a million was committed to a town centre manager to drive further growth to offset this - but either way, no reduction and the development is clearly low impact.

So for Rayner to refer to an "independent assessment .. [which forecasts] .. a significant reduction on North Street" suggests that he is advising you by referring to another unofficial assessment (not the one we as taxpayers paid for) and trying to pass it off as independent. This is a gross misrepresentation - only the one we the public paid for from planning experts can even come close to being trusted as independent and Rayner justifies his decision by using something else.

The other assessments available were simply submissions to the chair (the people who wrote or spoke for or against the proposals) and therefore by their very nature are partisan and cannot be independent (besides also being short and not subject to scrutiny). Can it really be right that Rayner bases his justification on reference to an "independent assessment" when in fact he is misdirecting you from the official independent assessment onto one which was not independent?

And it's pretty obvious which report he is referring to. Among the submissions to the chair was one from Tony Dyer, who lives in Southville and describes himself as an "independent business consultant". He did forecast an impact to North Street and we have to assume that Rayner has chosen to refer to this assessment rather than the official independent assessment we paid for, and passing it off as independent because, err..., Tony Dyer said he is. Smart work Mr. Rayner!

Tony Dyer is in fact a prominent local green activist, a member of the GREEN PARTY, and blogs as a self-stated environmentalist (his blog can be found here: http://aureamediocritas-tonyd.blogspot.com/). He is another of a closely interlinked Southville set who united against the development. HOW can Rayner have any credibility by basing his decision on a green activist who speaks against the plans claiming to be independent, rather than the actual independent report?

Read this again if it hasn't sunk in the first time and then ask yourself if the decision making process or the justificiations provided subsequently are professional and legitimate? It's quite clearly a stitch up by Green activists and Green sympathizers. A small group of Greens in Southville were very organised and I imagine they themselves never expected inexperienced Lib Dem politicians would be so easy to manipulate that they just hopped on everything they said. Incredible.

OLE - where are you ?

The 10 consecutive daily briefings about the decision had run their course but are all still on this forum if people need to read them and remind themselves of some of the question marks and concerns over what went down on this decision. As it happens I was also asked to divert my writing in another direction and given the time-wasting and pontification which has followed on that particular score I should probably come clean and let you know what I was up to:

After the 10th day I was rung by the editor of the Evening Post who was looking for one large article which brought together everything of relevance and concern from all my pieces (this was after having already given them on day 1 references to sources for all the first allegations, which their lawyers ended up shredding). I was encouraged to believe this was a chance to aid the club and the stadium initiative by pulling together the key information for a decisive EP story.

I duly wrote a long piece to order for them, which seemed to be what they wanted (to judge from their political editors first response to the article and the various calls I got discussing minor amendments and edits, and them then organising an accompanying photo outside Ashton Gate which I had to go along for). But as time passed I got more calls over several weeks with more lawyer-driven edits and slowly my piece was getting softened up into something fairly weak.

Nonetheless as frustrating as it is to see the EP bottle it on key facts by reducing them down in fear of legal action, I had to allow them to do what they said was necessary as they are the experts. But still nothing happened. After a further week or two they then said they'd been asking Simon Rayner to write a piece in parallel hence the delay but that he'd been umming and ahhing and trying to find ways to stall this, and they'd had enough and would just publish my piece.

In making that decision the already censored piece went through the legal mill again and came out even more diluted (a third round of legal edits to the same piece, in several cases editing their own edits). I made a brief remark in jest that if it was edited any more I'd end up as the spokesman for the Lib Dems, and that was the last contact I had, about 3 or 4 weeks ago. So either the EP decided not to risk it at all, or decided from my remark that it was no longer fit for purpose.

Which all in all was a bit of a waste of time going round in circles for them, when I could have just stuck to the original postings here on OTIB.

I should say UNEQUIVOCALLY throughout this that I am not on some ego trip, the Evening Post rang me to encourage me to write this article for greater good and subsequent to that THEY have rung me on EVERY occasion when they felt an update was needed, I haven't chased them once about what was happening with this, and at this point I don't expect them to publish it and couldn't care less if they do. I set out to write this stuff for people on OTIB and that hasn't changed.

[Olé]

This is a ridiculous twisting of the facts and convenient "misdirection" to justify his flimsy decision making basis.

Sorry, this is sufficiently an important point that I think it needs a 'lite' version for people who are scan-reading:

• Simon Rayner made his decision and keeps justifying it to people based on an independent retail assessment of the impact to North Street
• But the independent retail assessment we the taxpayers paid for him to have access to, said North Street trade would increase by 5%
• Instead he's using one by an active member of the Green Party who lives in Southville and writes an environmentalist blog and turned up to speak against the plans claiming to be independent (and therefore with his political affiliation and local interest was entirely un-independent to the assessment at hand)

Do you trust a councillor who either cannot differentiate independent and non-independent, or is hoping he can misrepresent and no one will notice.

[Dollymarie]

Olé all of this makes me so mad, and sadly it would seem the EP bottled it as well. The sooner Rayner is out the door having been shown up for what he is, the better.

[BrizzleRed]

This is a ridiculous twisting of the facts and convenient "misdirection" to justify his flimsy decision making basis.

The official planning experts detailed assessment on retail impact is supposed to be independent (it would not exist if it wasn't) and it said North Street trade would increase by around 5% as a result of the development - 1 or 2% less than it might increase without the development which was why nearly quarter of a million was committed to a town centre manager to drive further growth to offset this - but either way, no reduction and the development is clearly low impact.

So for Rayner to refer to an "independent assessment .. [which forecasts] .. a significant reduction on North Street" suggests that he is advising you by referring to another unofficial assessment (not the one we as taxpayers paid for) and trying to pass it off as independent. This is a gross misrepresentation - only the one we the public paid for from planning experts can even come close to being trusted as independent and Rayner justifies his decision by using something else.

The other assessments available were simply submissions to the chair (the people who wrote or spoke for or against the proposals) and therefore by their very nature are partisan and cannot be independent (besides also being short and not subject to scrutiny). Can it really be right that Rayner bases his justification on reference to an "independent assessment" when in fact he is misdirecting you from the official independent assessment onto one which was not independent?

And it's pretty obvious which report he is referring to. Among the submissions to the chair was one from Tony Dyer, who lives in Southville and describes himself as an "independent business consultant". He did forecast an impact to North Street and we have to assume that Rayner has chosen to refer to this assessment rather than the official independent assessment we paid for, and passing it off as independent because, err..., Tony Dyer said he is. Smart work Mr. Rayner!

Tony Dyer is in fact a prominent local green activist, a member of the GREEN PARTY, and blogs as a self-stated environmentalist (his blog can be found here: http://aureamediocri...d.blogspot.com/). He is another of a closely interlinked Southville set who united against the development. HOW can Rayner have any credibility by basing his decision on a green activist who speaks against the plans claiming to be independent, rather than the actual independent report?

Read this again if it hasn't sunk in the first time and then ask yourself if the decision making process or the justificiations provided subsequently are professional and legitimate? It's quite clearly a stitch up by Green activists and Green sympathizers. A small group of Greens in Southville were very organised and I imagine they themselves never expected inexperienced Lib Dem politicians would be so easy to manipulate that they just hopped on everything they said. Incredible.

The 10 consecutive daily briefings about the decision had run their course but are all still on this forum if people need to read them and remind themselves of some of the question marks and concerns over what went down on this decision. As it happens I was also asked to divert my writing in another direction and given the time-wasting and pontification which has followed on that particular score I should probably come clean and let you know what I was up to:

After the 10th day I was rung by the editor of the Evening Post who was looking for one large article which brought together everything of relevance and concern from all my pieces (this was after having already given them on day 1 references to sources for all the first allegations, which their lawyers ended up shredding). I was encouraged to believe this was a chance to aid the club and the stadium initiative by pulling together the key information for a decisive EP story.

I duly wrote a long piece to order for them, which seemed to be what they wanted (to judge from their political editors first response to the article and the various calls I got discussing minor amendments and edits, and them then organising an accompanying photo outside Ashton Gate which I had to go along for). But as time passed I got more calls over several weeks with more lawyer-driven edits and slowly my piece was getting softened up into something fairly weak.

Nonetheless as frustrating as it is to see the EP bottle it on key facts by reducing them down in fear of legal action, I had to allow them to do what they said was necessary as they are the experts. But still nothing happened. After a further week or two they then said they'd been asking Simon Rayner to write a piece in parallel hence the delay but that he'd been umming and ahhing and trying to find ways to stall this, and they'd had enough and would just publish my piece.

In making that decision the already censored piece went through the legal mill again and came out even more diluted (a third round of legal edits to the same piece, in several cases editing their own edits). I made a brief remark in jest that if it was edited any more I'd end up as the spokesman for the Lib Dems, and that was the last contact I had, about 3 or 4 weeks ago. So either the EP decided not to risk it at all, or decided from my remark that it was no longer fit for purpose.

Which all in all was a bit of a waste of time going round in circles for them, when I could have just stuck to the original postings here on OTIB.

I should say UNEQUIVOCALLY throughout this that I am not on some ego trip, the Evening Post rang me to encourage me to write this article for greater good and subsequent to that THEY have rung me on EVERY occasion when they felt an update was needed, I haven't chased them once about what was happening with this, and at this point I don't expect them to publish it and couldn't care less if they do. I set out to write this stuff for people on OTIB and that hasn't changed.

Thanks for all the work you put in Ole. It certainly wasn't wasted, as it clearly showed people what a total c**k Simon Rayner is.

As you say, it looks like the EP totally bottled it, but on the other hand, it could be by that by Rayner stalling things he could also have helped kill the story.

I've had some dealings with the EP in the past and their general outlook on news stories seems to be that it has to be very current. If too much time passes, their attitude is that 'it's old news' so they don't bother to publish. It probably didn't help that things have gone pretty quiet from our end, as the protests haven't come to much and the fans just appear to be waiting for the club's and Sainsbury's next move. If the protest marches, concert, etc, had carried on, the story may have had a far better chance of publication, as it would still be current news.

Well done all the same!

[myol'man]

How many do their weekly shopping using public transport in Bristol?

very nearly impossible.

Wake up Bristol Council, most people use cars!

[CotswoldRed]

As result of their decision, members of the committee have been accused of wrecking the Football Club's stadium plans and Bristol's World Cup bid. Whilst the decision clearly poses difficulties for the Club's plans, these should not be insurmountable. The responsibility of the planning committee was to consider the supermarket application in relation to planning law, not to guarantee the financial viability of the stadium project. Sainsbury's may submit an alternative proposal, which addresses the Committtee's objections. Alternatively the Club could reconsider the amount it spends on its new home, or find alternative sources of funding.

Quick, lets get on the blower to SL as he may not have considered this valuable insight from Clare.

The above statement is just about as dismissive as it gets. Its a bit like being refused a mortgage from every bank and then being told to find alternative sources of funding. THERE AREN'T, however much you keep saying it.

He clearly also doesn't understand that there is an 'economy of scale' with the stadium proposal. Scale it back and the clubs ability to generate cash will be severely compromised and removes the advantage of moving in the first place.

Surely even he know's that the project simply isn't viable at a much smaller size and, besides, does he really think that if the project is scaled back it could still support the world cup bid?

Lets just be honest - the Lib Dems want SL to stump up the cash. Not fair, not going to happen.

He's living on another planet.

[BCAGFC]

Cllr Rayner will be found out eventually if we go to appeal.

The Councils planners will not cover for him and he will have to admit to using Dyer's report as the basis for his (and influencing others) decision/s.

Hopefully the Independant Planning Inspectorate will show him up for what he really is...................

WE REALLY DO NEED TO GET THIS GOING AGAIN, IF THE VILLAGE GREEN STUFF GETS KNOCKED BACK!!!....

BCAGFC

[havanatopia]

Quick, lets get on the blower to SL as he may not have considered this valuable insight from Clare.

The above statement is just about as dismissive as it gets. Its a bit like being refused a mortgage from every bank and then being told to find alternative sources of funding. THERE AREN'T, however much you keep saying it.

He clearly also doesn't understand that there is an 'economy of scale' with the stadium proposal. Scale it back and the clubs ability to generate cash will be severely compromised and removes the advantage of moving in the first place.

Surely even he know's that the project simply isn't viable at a much smaller size and, besides, does he really think that if the project is scaled back it could still support the world cup bid?

Lets just be honest - the Lib Dems want SL to stump up the cash. Not fair, not going to happen.

He's living on another planet.

Agreed... this remark is quite remarkable:- Alternatively the Club could reconsider the amount it spends on its new home, or find alternative sources of funding.

So the stadium is downsized to accommodate a lower budget which either utterly changes the design and therefore needs a completely new application and/or it precludes BCFC from being a candidate city for the world cup. This Rayner guy really is so far out of his depth that all he can come up with are remarks which would make the entire project incompatible with its aims. Thats democracy for you folks; pokes a few leaflets through letter boxes in marginals, smiles for the cameras, makes a few welly boot promises and bobs your uncle you are a councillor with the power to KILL the ambitions of a chairman, a club and a city.

Conspiracy or no, the decision to refuse the application does not add up to the sum total of its parts.