Sainsbury's Application

[charliebolton]

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.

Hi Rich

Given that we were both at the meeting, do you remember the council's retail expert bring quized on the levels of uncertainty in the data he had access to? I clearly do. And I remember him saying how difficult it was not having access to detailed data from the supermarkets, and also admitting there was a level of statistical error with the figures presented. (The retail expert was sat on your side of the room, a couple of rows behind the planners - you can probably find it on the webcast if you see fit - my computer won't let me.).

[charliebolton]

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.

Can I just say what a lovely idea it is that we 'green activists' in Southville can stitch up a multi-millionaire, a multi-million pound football club, at the same time bamboozling LibDem councillors as we go.

If only everything else was so easy.....

......frankly, the idea that we are well organised is a bit far fetched.

[Dollymarie]

Charlie I hate to say it, but we arent a multi-million pound football club, we're in debt. We don't make any money every year, we lose it.

[charliebolton]

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 ?

To be fair to Derek Pickup, who was the Labour member of the planning meeting, he clearly had concerns over access for public transport to the proposed store, and put a motion for deferral. No one seconded, so it fell. I don't personally think he had any choice other than to abstain.

And in any case, if a LibDem councillor publicly apologised for something I had or hadn't done, I'd probably tell him where to go.

[Super Scotty Murray]

This is what you get for voting Lib Dem.

[1tib]

<br />Has he not heard of paragraphs ?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I will never vote Lib dem again.

They have ruined this City, it will never progress with views like theirs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SDBS36]

Did they not take into account how much money & how many jobs these two projects would generate in south Bristol & wat was the point of approving part 1 knocking down the old Sainsburys & building housing when you then dont allow them to rebuild????

[Geoff65]

Hi Rich

Given that we were both at the meeting, do you remember the council's retail expert bring quized on the levels of uncertainty in the data he had access to? I clearly do. And I remember him saying how difficult it was not having access to detailed data from the supermarkets, and also admitting there was a level of statistical error with the figures presented. (The retail expert was sat on your side of the room, a couple of rows behind the planners - you can probably find it on the webcast if you see fit - my computer won't let me.).

Daniel Stone didnt know the reason so he handed over to the retail expert who did explain that the differences is due to different surveys produce different results i.e. if you sample one set of individuals within a sample area and then sample a different set of individuals within the sample area then there would be a difference between the two surveys. He said that you dont get a low margin of error until you reach circa 60%/70% of the population and it's not practical to survey 60 to 70 percent of the population. Can we be certain the turnover will be £49.5m? No but we are pretty sure it's £45m, it's the best that can be done and it's better than nothing.

Details at 3hours 3 minutes on the following link: http://www.bristol.p...t=&m=wm&l=en_GB

The only other question was from Mr Rayner who asked:

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.

3.06 (DS) the key distinction is that there will be 1 supermarket instead of 2 supermarkets, there isn't two sets of convenience offers and that has implications on the travel and retail impact and the advise we have received is that this wouldn't change the shopping patterns in South Bristol and wouldn't increase the catchment area of the store.

Charlie you were a Councillor, not sure if you ever sat on a planning committee, but can a deferment be appealed on the basis that a timely decision hasn't been arrived (after 13 weeks)?

[havanatopia]

Did they not take into account how much money & how many jobs these two projects would generate in south Bristol & wat was the point of approving part 1 knocking down the old Sainsburys & building housing when you then dont allow them to rebuild????

Lib Dems... what do you think? At least with Labour and the Conservatives, but i am bound to say the latter, you usually get a conviction politician. You may not agree with one or tother but you tend to get more consistency.

[CiderHider]

This is just shameful. and i'm almost too angry to type after reading this bullshit.

I'm yet to find one single good/logical/fair reason why this application was rejected.

All I see are made up figures and %'s that no one can even agree their accuracy on, yet the implications of the deciosn made using them, we know, were just massive

This stinks of corruption, or at least weak minded decisions made under pressure.

The people in power are clearly being blackmailed by a few people wanting Bristol to remain in the 16th century with its little quaint shops, no traffic a peaceful non industrialized society. Well too bad, its happened - This is the year 2010 like it or not.. AND YOUR HOLDING US BACK!!!!

I would hate to think this decision was made without being coerced, although I'm not sure what is worse thinking about it.

So, what have we got? No stadium, no World Cup, no new development, no new jobs creation, no confidence. ....all becuase of pure Nostalgia for a bygone era past, well thanks a flippin bunch chaps, a big bravo, you'll be remembered for this, your kids will be proud.

So lets all rest safe in the knowledge than Bobs DIY est 1992 is safe for another day, after all its the small shops that are important, even if they aint profitable and noone buys there anymore....yeah its thats Sainsburys fault, them and their great quality items and competitve prices...prrrrrrf.

[howey_ducky]

This is just shameful. and i'm almost too angry to type after reading this bullshit.

I'm yet to find one single good/logical/fair reason why this application was rejected.

All I see are made up figures and %'s that no one can even agree their accuracy on, yet the implications of the deciosn made using them, we know, were just massive

This stinks of corruption, or at least weak minded decisions made under pressure.

The people in power are clearly being blackmailed by a few people wanting Bristol to remain in the 16th century with its little quaint shops, no traffic a peaceful non industrialized society. Well too bad, its happened - This is the year 2010 like it or not.. AND YOUR HOLDING US BACK!!!!

So, what have we got? No stadium, no World Cup, no new development, no new jobs creation, no confidence. ....all becuase of pure Nostalgia for a bygone era past, well thanks a flippin bunch chaps, a big bravo, you'll be remembered for this, your kids will be proud.

So lets all rest safe in the knowledge than Bobs DIY est 1992 is safe for another day, after all its the small shops that are important, even if they aint profitable and noone buys there anymore....yeah its thats Sainsburys fault, them and their great quality items and competitve prices...prrrrrrf.

the best part mate is that most of these shops on north street in particular have only been going for 10 years max. only the bookies (coral, the lion stores and the butchers in my mind have been going for longer!). the only good shop that was up there was dinkies tobbacconist and that was closed down a few years back. i've lived in this area all my life, used to be good, now full of people with unknown job titles and soap dodgers.

[BCAGFC]

Zoe Wilcox told all the councillors (in her summing up) that their agruments were extremely weak and the only case (and very loosely) they possibly had was the out of centre side of things.

The traffic and air pollution were not strong cases to refuse.

It is so obvious that some of the Planning committee had already made up their minds about the application before they even set foot inside the chamber and it will be very entertaining watching these councillors squirm in their seats when they have to defend their actions at appeal.

THERE WILL BE NO PLACE TO HIDE & NO CHANCE TO BS ANYONE!!!.

BCAGFC

[BCAGFC]

Hi Rich

Given that we were both at the meeting, do you remember the council's retail expert bring quized on the levels of uncertainty in the data he had access to? I clearly do. And I remember him saying how difficult it was not having access to detailed data from the supermarkets, and also admitting there was a level of statistical error with the figures presented. (The retail expert was sat on your side of the room, a couple of rows behind the planners - you can probably find it on the webcast if you see fit - my computer won't let me.).

Hi Charlie

Would be so kind as to give your thoughts on post #15 of this thread.

Thanks.

[Rich]

Hi Rich

Given that we were both at the meeting, do you remember the council's retail expert bring quized on the levels of uncertainty in the data he had access to? I clearly do. And I remember him saying how difficult it was not having access to detailed data from the supermarkets, and also admitting there was a level of statistical error with the figures presented. (The retail expert was sat on your side of the room, a couple of rows behind the planners - you can probably find it on the webcast if you see fit - my computer won't let me.).

Hi Charlie

I do remember the event vividly, I keep reliving it.

The officer responded with very weak answers on several occasions, "I Don't know" was one beauty, I believe.

One reason he gave for not having specific figures about turnover, was that the relevant supermarket did not want this information known to rivals, so only the figures provided and the surveys could be used, which I think he said was all they had available.

I have some recollection of this process being decried by a councillor (I can't recall which one) because some of the findings were carried out by a phone survey.

Funny really, because when this was highlighted by myself in discussions with objectors, I was told by some people (Tony Dyer and the like) that these surveys were proof that there was no need for a new store.

So they are of use when needed and ignored when not.

[Rich]

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.

Unless he's moved, Tony Dyer lives in Chipping Sodbury, yet meddles in Bristols affairs. He claims to support city.

He has opposed every step of the clubs plans so far and is a main figure in the opposition group.

[arpaul]

Charlie I hate to say it, but we arent a multi-million pound football club, we're in debt. We don't make any money every year, we lose it.

But this is one of the issues.

With a new stadium comes hugely increased corporate matchday hospitality, and facilities that can be used for all seven days in the week.

I used to work for ThyssenKrupp, whose head office was based in Cradley Heath. And despite the size of their main site, all seminars, training, "Seasonal get togethers" etc were at West Bromwich Albions Hawthorns.

Every Christmas ALL their banqueting suites were booked.

I look at West Bromwich Albion as a "yoyo" club. A type of club we need to aspire to in the short/mid term.

However, Having toured the hospitality suites and the banqueting rooms, and comparing to Ashton Gate, I have to say, we are a million light years behind them off the field. Whilst it disappoints me to say, but when you see their infrastructure, you can see why supporters of these type of clubs look upon us as small time wannabees. (Believe me. I know; I worked with supporters of West Brom, Wolves, Birmingham and Villa!!!)

This is why we lose money.

This is why we can't compete with premier league boys or the top championship teams.

This is why the we can't afford to "downsize" the Ashton Vale proposals.

This is why the Sainsbury application was so important. We will never compete whilst Ashton Gate brings in revenue once a fortnight.

Yes we are in debt. But what an opportunity lost.

[Olé]

Can I just say what a lovely idea it is that we 'green activists' in Southville can stitch up a multi-millionaire, a multi-million pound football club, at the same time bamboozling LibDem councillors as we go.

Charlie, why is it central to the arguments you and your Green allies put forward to always refer to Steve Lansdown's wealth? Frankly I find it quite sinister and un-becoming of an ex-councillor as the implication seems to be that his wealth gives him some kind of advantage that only political corruption could achieve.

Quite the opposite, we've seen that the decision making process was influenced well beyond a representative level by a MINORITY of Green activists. And by creating an impression as unrelated members of the public to their LibDem sympathisers, wielded more influence than Steve Lansdown could ever secure.

It should hardly be a surprise to see Green/Liberal views uniting (however misguidedly) against business interests or local majorities. And on those LibDem councillors, we're at a point where the various stories make it almost a matter of record that LibDem councillors were swayed by a few local Green activists.

As you know these activists, it's very gracious and immodest to claim it wasn't organised but it doesn't change the complete mishandling of the decision by the councillors who opted to place such prominence on your views against all other advice including that specifically prepared for the decision and paid for by us!

And if it wasn't well organised, why did so many of the protesters deliberately make no mention of their links to one another or role as Green activists. Why was Tony Dyer pushing information as "independent retail consultant" and not the Green activist he is? Please don't tell me you've never come across him before!

[Geoff65]

Please don't tell me you've never come across him before!

Come off it Charlie had never come across him even though he is a facebook friend.

Why was Tony Dyer pushing information as "independent retail consultant" and not the Green activist he is?

or as an IT Business Development Manager as described on his blog?

[Rich]

The green activists were so unorganised that they as one, suddenly stopped their forums and did everything through Friends of the earth for the last week.

Tony Dyer was an independent, not an activist (Ha Ha). Ben Barker was representing Friends of Greville smythe park, not the secretary of the Greater Bedminster Community Project.

George and Alice were there to intimidate the councillors, whilst shifting seats and shouting from the public gallery,

Campaign for rural England were opposing (why?), as were the WI, friends of the earth, and numerous supposed individuals.

They had one common bond, they were all linked by being greens, topped up by a few genuine locals.

Were the the councillors duped or were they aware? If the councillors were not aware then they should have been.

In my letters of support for the scheme I made it known that there was multiple membership of different groups by opposition activists and the true numbers of opposition were not as high as recorded, unfortunately this is not acceptable comment in planning law and is ignored.

But you can form any number of groups to oppose a scheme, using the same membership and they all count.

Personally I think the councillors were aware, didn't like the land deals, (that's why they asked about them two days before) and SR who wants to be big in politics, saw this as a way to heighten his political profile. He's certainly done that but at what cost?

[chinapig]

Can I just say what a lovely idea it is that we 'green activists' in Southville can stitch up a multi-millionaire, a multi-million pound football club, at the same time bamboozling LibDem councillors as we go.

If only everything else was so easy.....

......frankly, the idea that we are well organised is a bit far fetched.

The evidence as to how easily Lib Dems can be duped is our national government. While Clegg has bragged about conning Cameron into a coalition by lying about what Labour were offering (I believe it is called cleaning up politics) the fact is they are now fully signed up to a neo-Thatcherite programme that would have had the Iron Lady herself looking like a wet. The formerly saintly and sane Vince Cable is now Osborne's lapdog. And in all likelihood they will not even get the electoral reform they were willing to sell all their alleged principles for as the two big parties join forces against them. So yes, not very bright and easily duped it seems, though Ministerial salaries will no doubt cushion the blow somewhat. But I suppose if you are a Lib Dem any opportunity to to wield any power over your fellow citizens, who tend not to put you in government, has to be grabbed even if you make all the wrong decisions and the outcome for your party is a disaster, as it will be both nationally and locally. Of course the party leadership are a pretty wealthy (and privileged) bunch themselves. I assume local party members ( and indeed Greens) are as contemptuous of their wealth as they are of Steve Lansdown's. Or possibly not.

[charliebolton]

Hi Charlie

Would be so kind as to give your thoughts on post #15 of this thread.

Thanks.

I'll give it a go.

''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!!!.''

Err, I went to meetings as a councillor where I strongly suspected i was being fed a line and sold an officer agenda, so I would not always take what they say at face value. I always reckoned the senior officers were better politicians than any of the actual politicians.

I actually except the planning officer for the Sainsburies application from this who was basically pretty much genuine, imo.

The problem with your line of logic is that it assumes there is only one interpretation of various pieces of legislation, and the priiorities given to them.. Different legislation carries different weight at different times. So, the regional spatial strategy, for example (which the Tories have abolished) had a level of significance, and the Local development framework (the local plan) has increasing significance. Most of these plans actually contain contradictory statements anyway.

As such, while officers develop a line of reasoning which may suit them, and may be right, it isn't the only one. Councillors have the right, and the power (more importantly) to contradict them and to propose an alternative line of reasoning.

Actually, leaving this application out of it, I think it healthy that councillors reject officer advice on occasion. If they didn't the committee would be pointless.

Was it a stitch up?

i suppose it depends what you mean by a stitch up.

I went into the meeting expecting Tories and Labour to support the application and LDs to be split, so expected it to go through. Like it or not, I'd suggest that some LibDems have a notion of sustainability which means they find it very hard to support the idea of a massive great supermarket being built, possibly at all, but certainly near local shops. they actually are sold on the idea of localism, including strong local shops.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Simon Cook (deputy leader of the LDs) is sold on the whole world cup bid/new stadium thing. (it's quite funny really, because he obviously doesn't know his offside rule from his elbow)

So basically, that is their dilemma. Want the world cup, but - at least some - don't want the supermarket. I don't think they ever took an official line on it - which is a pretty good sign.

In a funny way, i think the LDs who opposed the Sainsburies application were utterly principled in their decision. (Although, not your principles). No politican wants to alienate many thousand city fans for no good reason, but they have managed to do it anyway.......

[charliebolton]

Daniel Stone didnt know the reason so he handed over to the retail expert who did explain that the differences is due to different surveys produce different results i.e. if you sample one set of individuals within a sample area and then sample a different set of individuals within the sample area then there would be a difference between the two surveys. He said that you dont get a low margin of error until you reach circa 60%/70% of the population and it's not practical to survey 60 to 70 percent of the population. Can we be certain the turnover will be £49.5m? No but we are pretty sure it's £45m, it's the best that can be done and it's better than nothing.

Details at 3hours 3 minutes on the following link: http://www.bristol.p...t=&m=wm&l=en_GB

The only other question was from Mr Rayner who asked:

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.

3.06 (DS) the key distinction is that there will be 1 supermarket instead of 2 supermarkets, there isn't two sets of convenience offers and that has implications on the travel and retail impact and the advise we have received is that this wouldn't change the shopping patterns in South Bristol and wouldn't increase the catchment area of the store.

Charlie you were a Councillor, not sure if you ever sat on a planning committee, but can a deferment be appealed on the basis that a timely decision hasn't been arrived (after 13 weeks)?

I thought 13 weeks was a target, rather than legislative, but I am no expert.

[Barrs Court Red]

I think it is. There is cetainly a deadline.

[hooered]

Can someone please clarify if what Colin Sexton said shorly after the Council refusal, in that if the application is not approved on appeal and that the appeal had to be drawn up by October then the process would be delayed for another year does this still apply cause if it does there is not a lot of time left to have the appeal heard.

[BCAGFC]

I'll give it a go.

''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!!!.''

Err, I went to meetings as a councillor where I strongly suspected i was being fed a line and sold an officer agenda, so I would not always take what they say at face value. I always reckoned the senior officers were better politicians than any of the actual politicians.

I actually except the planning officer for the Sainsburies application from this who was basically pretty much genuine, imo.

The problem with your line of logic is that it assumes there is only one interpretation of various pieces of legislation, and the priiorities given to them.. Different legislation carries different weight at different times. So, the regional spatial strategy, for example (which the Tories have abolished) had a level of significance, and the Local development framework (the local plan) has increasing significance. Most of these plans actually contain contradictory statements anyway.

As such, while officers develop a line of reasoning which may suit them, and may be right, it isn't the only one. Councillors have the right, and the power (more importantly) to contradict them and to propose an alternative line of reasoning.

Actually, leaving this application out of it, I think it healthy that councillors reject officer advice on occasion. If they didn't the committee would be pointless.

Was it a stitch up?

i suppose it depends what you mean by a stitch up.

I went into the meeting expecting Tories and Labour to support the application and LDs to be split, so expected it to go through. Like it or not, I'd suggest that some LibDems have a notion of sustainability which means they find it very hard to support the idea of a massive great supermarket being built, possibly at all, but certainly near local shops. they actually are sold on the idea of localism, including strong local shops.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Simon Cook (deputy leader of the LDs) is sold on the whole world cup bid/new stadium thing. (it's quite funny really, because he obviously doesn't know his offside rule from his elbow)

So basically, that is their dilemma. Want the world cup, but - at least some - don't want the supermarket. I don't think they ever took an official line on it - which is a pretty good sign.

In a funny way, i think the LDs who opposed the Sainsburies application were utterly principled in their decision. (Although, not your principles). No politican wants to alienate many thousand city fans for no good reason, but they have managed to do it anyway.......

Thanks for the reply Charlie.

You are correct in saying, what is the point of having a committee if it is just there to rubber stamp applications.

But surely you have to agree, that the report/details that Cllr Rayner (& others) was quoting/using could also be wrong (as he says the independant document was), I suspect the truth is somewhere in between both reports and so the councillors could have used a bit of common sense and defered the decision to get a report that everyone knew was 100% totally independant.

BCAGFC

[charliebolton]

Hi Charlie

Would be so kind as to give your thoughts on post #15 of this thread.

Thanks.

Test to see if response gets posted...

[charliebolton]

Thanks for the reply Charlie.

You are correct in saying, what is the point of having a committee if it is just there to rubber stamp applications.

But surely you have to agree, that the report/details that Cllr Rayner (& others) was quoting/using could also be wrong (as he says the independant document was), I suspect the truth is somewhere in between both reports and so the councillors could have used a bit of common sense and defered the decision to get a report that everyone knew was 100% totally independant.

BCAGFC

The thing about politics is you use the information which suits your argument.

But you certainly give an alternative outcome they could have gone for.

[charliebolton]

Come off it Charlie had never come across him even though he is a facebook friend.

or as an IT Business Development Manager as described on his blog?

Oh, yes, I know Tony. I don't believe I ever said I hadn't.

Mind you, you come across a lot of people if you hang around in Bristol for long enough.

[chinapig]

The thing about politics is you use the information which suits your argument.

But you certainly give an alternative outcome they could have gone for.

What you say about politics is sadly true of course. But it does rather undermine any suggestion that this was an objective process and a decision based on law, evidence and principles. In other words it was a carve up by a self interested clique professing to behave rationally. Shock horror probe (copyright Private Eye).

[charliebolton]

The green activists were so unorganised that they as one, suddenly stopped their forums and did everything through Friends of the earth for the last week.

Tony Dyer was an independent, not an activist (Ha Ha). Ben Barker was representing Friends of Greville smythe park, not the secretary of the Greater Bedminster Community Project.

George and Alice were there to intimidate the councillors, whilst shifting seats and shouting from the public gallery,

Campaign for rural England were opposing (why?), as were the WI, friends of the earth, and numerous supposed individuals.

They had one common bond, they were all linked by being greens, topped up by a few genuine locals.

Were the the councillors duped or were they aware? If the councillors were not aware then they should have been.

In my letters of support for the scheme I made it known that there was multiple membership of different groups by opposition activists and the true numbers of opposition were not as high as recorded, unfortunately this is not acceptable comment in planning law and is ignored.

But you can form any number of groups to oppose a scheme, using the same membership and they all count.

Personally I think the councillors were aware, didn't like the land deals, (that's why they asked about them two days before) and SR who wants to be big in politics, saw this as a way to heighten his political profile. He's certainly done that but at what cost?

Well, I ducked out of all meetings until the week before the planning meeting, but the impression I had was no one was really doing anything up until just before the meeting. If they had, thee may have been many more objections (or not) - who knows....

Of course the GBCP also includes Sean Beynon, Colin Smith and Mark Bradshaw (all Labour councillors)

Opposition to supermarkets at AG has included varying numbers of ex-Labour councillors, me (Green) and George (LibDem) plus many people not aligned to any political party. Whether we count as green activists, well, depends on your definition.

Btw, I was one of the hecklers at the back. I actually felt a bit guilty afterwards - not for the councillors - who choose the life - but the officers.