Land Deal Imminent At Ashton Vale

[Taunton_City]

Looking that way ......... IMO.

I've stayed positive for last last 2 years. But I ain't gonna happen.

[Uncle Albert]

My reaction to this.... "wahhhhhhh!" When is this ever going to end!

If AV doesn't go ahead, realistically, what possible other sites are there we could move to?

(My family are all from Avonmouth but my Dad moved to Reading before I was born so I don't know Bristol too well..yet! I'm at the University of Bristol so getting to know it gradually!)

[icamanicity]

The landowners should apply to the Ombudsman for compensation, for being mis sold land, if it goes against them, (ppi)...

[stroudy]

The point is there was never going to be any development on this bit, it was just going to be a landscaped floodplain. In fact work stil has to be carried out on the land for drainage issues.

We just have to present the evidence well this second time around, it's pretty clear the council will go with the same decision as the inspector this time round. If the NIMBYs then try to appeal they are massive hypocrites after what's happened today...

To be fair i agree totally with this. I actually think the deal could be along the lines of this:

The appeal was how the decision was made NOT the decision.

The council say to save, we'll admit we cocked up and send it back to the inspector.

The council will then agree to let you keep the north part if the south is allowed to be built on following the inspectors report.

This way you (save) prove we messed up, you also get the top half, BCFC get the bottom half and you still get your nice maintained village green.

This also means you look good we look bad and you and the tax payer save some dosh.

Jobs a good un!

Well I can live in hope thats how it went!

[Rich]

As I see it, it's good that there's a new inspection. Going on the evidence provided in the first inspection, the majority of residents use was in the southern section, which bordered the housing and they had direct access to it from their gardens. That's where they held their parties, had their bonfires and went skating (ha ha). The majority of use in the northern feild (stadium site) was of dog walking and access to the A370 side of the site.

This northern section, is where the last area of landfil was in use, the other landfil areas being the park and ride site and the tennis centre site, neither of those were in the application for a TVG.

So now the residents have to prove substantial use of this northern site by a significant number of people for a twenty year period.

We all know this was a landfil site in commercial use during that period. Ross crail thought that if the residents couldn't use one section of land because of the landfil site, then another section was available for use, so she recommended TVG for all the site. That is not the case now, because obviously only one area is now being inspected. The area which was in use as a landfil site. This is the reason the council didn't register that section of land, as it did not meet the criteria for TVG status.

[KBbcfc]

Let's just face facts this stadium will NOT happen!!

Ah, classic OTIB use of the word fact there!

I'm still confident it will eventually get built with SL leading us. We will have to be patient though. Chin up

[Mendip City]

Who are ya, Rip Van Winkle ?

Hasn't Rip Van Winkle just scored for Holland against Germany at the Euros?

[VillageRed]

I also think that part of the problem with a so called compromise is that there are certain people within the Nimby's who aren't actually interested in the village green, they don't want Sainsburys, therefore they need the whole of the site to be a village green so that there can be no stadium and therefore no Sainsburys.

These are devious, devicive, two faced people we are dealing with, completely self interested, I think we can rank Red Trousers among this group, he says he isn't against a Stadium, however he is against Sainsburys, how does he come out of it smelling with roses and standing for Mayor? He backs the Nimbys for the whole village green and will not let the liberal tree huggers from Southville compromise on a 50 50 deal even if it is the right option.

They will never accept a compromise, it will be a judicial process of some sort that forces this through.

[weeble]

This is not good news , the council have back tracked and shafted us and SL . They was not going to contest the the JR so why do a deal.

We have been coned by the LibDems .

I don't see how? Having failed to put new evidence back to the inspector and incorrectly marked the TVG on a map, the council knew it would lose the judicial review. The judge would have overturned the decision and returned it to the council to arrive at a legally sound decision. As they have already agreed with the inspector that the southern part of the site meets town green status, it would have been impossible to reverse that decision without SAVE having an open route straight back to judicial review.

A new inquiry was bound to take place regardless of a withdrawal and the southern part of the site was almost certainly bound to be village green. Withdrawal just saves some taxpayers' money. The council will now feel obligated to go with the new inspector's recommendation, so it now seem obvious why Colin Sexstone was so frustrated at the lack of a plan B.

[Alex_BCFC]

It will happen but we will be going round in circles for about 5 more years I reckon before it all goes through.

[Rich]

I also think that part of the problem with a so called compromise is that there are certain people within the Nimby's who aren't actually interested in the village green, they don't want Sainsburys, therefore they need the whole of the site to be a village green so that there can be no stadium and therefore no Sainsburys.

These are devious, devicive, two faced people we are dealing with, completely self interested, I think we can rank Red Trousers among this group, he says he isn't against a Stadium, however he is against Sainsburys, how does he come out of it smelling with roses and standing for Mayor? He backs the Nimbys for the whole village green and will not let the liberal tree huggers from Southville compromise on a 50 50 deal even if it is the right option.

They will never accept a compromise, it will be a judicial process of some sort that forces this through.

Quite correct VR. That's why he was at the TVG BBC radio Bristol debate. The debate that was organised to suit the media the TVG applicants and anyone opposing greenbelt development only, it served no purpose other than to keep the story going. Ask yourself, why was he there?

[Frenchay Red]

The more I think about this the more I don't understand it. It makes no sense given what has gone on before.

The compromise suggested by the council was for half the site to be a TVG with all the landscaping and other works to make it really attractive and effectively screen the residents from the distant stadium. The NIMBYS said no you can't do that, we want the whole site for a TVG so we want a JR because you can't divide the site into two. Half for us and half for the stadium.

So leaving aside all the rubbish which the council came out with when the original objector withdrew, we all thought it was going to a JR to test whether the whole site under TVG application could legally be divided into two by virtue of the council's decision.

What do have now at the last minute? A "deal" between the NIMBYS and the council which divides the site into two sections. One half which will apparently be granted TVG status and the other half which will have to be considered again under a new inspector's report as to whether it will or won't qualify as a TVG.

So this "deal" has divided the original site into two sections. But hang on a minute, the NIMBYS wanted a JR because the council's first decision divided the site into two sections and they can't legally do that. Well guess what if it suits the NIMBYS then they obviously can!!!

Legal system? !!!

[weeble]

The more I think about this the more I don't understand it. It makes no sense given what has gone on before.

The compromise suggested by the council was for half the site to be a TVG with all the landscaping and other works to make it really attractive and effectively screen the residents from the distant stadium. The NIMBYS said no you can't do that, we want the whole site for a TVG so we want a JR because you can't divide the site into two. Half for us and half for the stadium.

So leaving aside all the rubbish which the council came out with when the original objector withdrew, we all thought it was going to a JR to test whether the whole site under TVG application could legally be divided into two by virtue of the council's decision.

What do have now at the last minute? A "deal" between the NIMBYS and the council which divides the site into two sections. One half which will apparently be granted TVG status and the other half which will have to be considered again under a new inspector's report as to whether it will or won't qualify as a TVG.

So this "deal" has divided the original site into two sections. But hang on a minute, the NIMBYS wanted a JR because the council's first decision divided the site into two sections and they can't legally do that. Well guess what if it suits the NIMBYS then they obviously can!!!

Legal system? !!!

They could legally do that if they'd got the process correct. They didn't and that's what allowed it to go to judicial review. SAVE obviously want the whole site as town green because they don't want a stadium there. Having already agreed with an inspector that the southern part meets the town green criteria the chances of reversing that and not facing another judicial review would be slim to say the least.

[italian dave]

To be fair i agree totally with this. I actually think the deal could be along the lines of this:

The appeal was how the decision was made NOT the decision.

The council say to save, we'll admit we cocked up and send it back to the inspector.

The council will then agree to let you keep the north part if the south is allowed to be built on following the inspectors report.

This way you (save) prove we messed up, you also get the top half, BCFC get the bottom half and you still get your nice maintained village green.

This also means you look good we look bad and you and the tax payer save some dosh.

Jobs a good un!

Well I can live in hope thats how it went!

Unlikely. The problem with this scenario is that they don't want a village green. They want no stadium.

[Red Skin]

Glad I'm not the only one! I'm really well and truly confused by this and admire the way other posters (seem to) know all about it and offer solutions / arguements

My head is spinning with it too.

Sorry but that's how I see it, we've gone backwards and SL has effectively lost half his land - hard to put a positive spin on things.

If SL currently owns the half that has already been designated VG, what compensation does he get for losing half his investment? I suspect the NIMBYs will not have to fork out for it (that would test their resolve and their desire!) but who does?

• Who was the previous owner?
  
• Do they refund SL the value of the land?
  
• If the previous owner was not the council, does the council have to step in to compensate previous owner/SL?
  
• If the council does have compensate anyone, how does the rest of Bristol feel about funding a VG for AV dogs to foul?
  
• Does SL just lose out?
  

Any clarification would be appreciated.

[weeble]

My head is spinning with it too.

If SL currently owns the half that has already been designated VG, what compensation does he get for losing half his investment? I suspect the NIMBYs will not have to fork out for it (that would test their resolve and their desire!) but who does?

• Who was the previous owner?
  
• Do they refund SL the value of the land?
  
• If the previous owner was not the council, does the council have to step in to compensate previous owner/SL?
  
• If the council does have compensate anyone, how does the rest of Bristol feel about funding a VG for AV dogs to foul?
  
• Does SL just lose out?
  

Any clarification would be appreciated.

The land was bought from a private owner. As it had no planning permission at that point and was in the green belt, it should have had the value of rather poor agricultural land. Village green status means the land still has exactly that value. If SL paid more than the market rate for the land then he is taking a risk just like any other developer and is not due compensation from anyone regardless of his outlay .

With the rise in the number of town green applications being used in the last few years to stop developments, SL (or his advisors) should have been aware of the possibilty and taken the threat more seriously.

[Portland Bill]

As I understand it the TG application is for the whole site.

The only reason people talk about the north and south area is because the council split the site as a compromise.

The Nimbys won't accept the compromise so the whole site is what's at stake.

If it is shown/proved by SL that any part of the whole site wasnt possible used for 20 years then SL wins.

SL has publicly stated that we will build the ground.

We were caught out by the Nimbys in the first instance, but since then new evidence has come to light which SL and his lawyers will show any new inspector.

The Nimbys must have been mad IMO not to accept the 50/50 compromise, they stand to lose the whole lot, and I'm convinced that's going to happen.... in time!

[weeble]

As I understand it the TG application is for the whole site.

The only reason people talk about the north and south area is because the council split the site as a compromise.

The Nimbys won't accept the compromise so the whole site is what's at stake.

If it is shown/proved by SL that any part of the whole site wasnt possible used for 20 years then SL wins.

SL has publicly stated that we will build the ground.

We were caught out by the Nimbys in the first instance, but since then new evidence has come to light which SL and his lawyers will show any new inspector.

The Nimbys must have been mad IMO not to accept the 50/50 compromise, they stand to lose the whole lot, and I'm convinced that's going to happen.... in time!

The council are saying they will designate the southern part of the site as town green - SAVE will not challenge this. Providing the council get the designation right this time then there is nothing SL can do about it even if he wants to. The northern part will then be subject to a new public inquiry.

[Portland Bill]

The council are saying they will designate the southern part of the site as town green - SAVE will not challenge this. Providing the council get the designation right this time then there is nothing SL can do about it even if he wants to. The northern part will then be subject to a new public inquiry.

Ok, thanks for putting me right mate.

I was of the understanding that SL was willing to go as far as he possibly could to now get the whole site.

I stand corrected though.

[LSR]

No because I think SL can now legally challenge this and the story goes on.

[CodeRed]

As I see it, it's good that there's a new inspection. Going on the evidence provided in the first inspection, the majority of residents use was in the southern section, which bordered the housing and they had direct access to it from their gardens. That's where they held their parties, had their bonfires and went skating (ha ha). The majority of use in the northern feild (stadium site) was of dog walking and access to the A370 side of the site.

This northern section, is where the last area of landfil was in use, the other landfil areas being the park and ride site and the tennis centre site, neither of those were in the application for a TVG.

So now the residents have to prove substantial use of this northern site by a significant number of people for a twenty year period.

We all know this was a landfil site in commercial use during that period. Ross crail thought that if the residents couldn't use one section of land because of the landfil site, then another section was available for use, so she recommended TVG for all the site. That is not the case now, because obviously only one area is now being inspected. The area which was in use as a landfil site. This is the reason the council didn't register that section of land, as it did not meet the criteria for TVG status.

This extract from the original report: which refers to "use" of all 42 acres.

I think the stadium is slipping away from us and would be amazed is a new inspector found any different despite the blind faith shown by so many that SL (and his money) will prevail. SL himself has said they're looking at other sites and at redeveloping AG as back up....................that's a shift for him so even he accepts it might not happen.

she says in her report: “I find that the whole of the Application Land (the 42-acre site) was extensively used throughout the critical 20-year period by local people for informal recreation.

“I base that finding on the oral evidence of the 22 witnesses called by the applicants (the residents) who all appeared to me to be honest witnesses. They did not give me the impression of exaggerating their personal use of the Application Land.”

She says the whole site was “patently an attractive place for recreation”.

She says: “It was open, peaceful and for the majority of the time unoccupied, allowing local residents ‘free rein’.

“It offered variety; open elevated grassland for e.g. walking, flying kites, kicking a football around, flying remote control planes, or hitting golf balls; vegetation which provided e.g. shelter for wildlife to spot, opportunities for den-making and playing hide-and-seek, and blackberries to pick; brooks, ditches, ponds and at times a ‘lake’ to e.g. fish or look for tadpoles in, watch birds on, or (very occasionally) ice-skate on.”

She also acknowledged that TIPPING DID OCCUR DURING THE 20 YEAR PERIOD but found it did not mean that recreation as defined by the (then) TVG guidelines did not take place

As in

It will be hard for many people to believe that a former landfill site where the new stadium would be built manages to pass this test.

But Miss Crail is unequivocal in her report: “In the ordinary way, one would not expect to find people indulging in sports and pastimes anywhere near a landfill site.

“But this was no ordinary landfill site.

“As recognised by the local planning authority, because of its proximity to housing it was not a location where tipping would have been allowed had ordinary planning controls applied.

“Local residents still needed to walk their dogs and local children still wanted somewhere to play.

“Given those factors and the background of previous recreational users, I find it credible that during the landfill period, people did continue to walk round and play on the untouched and restored parts of Field 1 (the landfill site) and in the other fields.

“I also find it entirely credible that as soon as Field 1 was fully restored and grassed, recreational use of the whole of it was resumed.

“I can see no reason why it would not have been. Indeed, there are several factors which support the probability of that having been the case.”

[Red Skin]

The land was bought from a private owner. As it had no planning permission at that point and was in the green belt, it should have had the value of rather poor agricultural land. Village green status means the land still has exactly that value. If SL paid more than the market rate for the land then he is taking a risk just like any other developer and is not due compensation from anyone regardless of his outlay .

With the rise in the number of town green applications being used in the last few years to stop developments, SL (or his advisors) should have been aware of the possibilty and taken the threat more seriously.

Thanks for enlightening me, weeble.

[Peter Griffin]

can someone put this into idoit terms for me as i ain't the brightest bulb in the box.

whats the chances of us getting the ground?

and when will we finally get a decision if we can start to build on there or not?

[Manon]

It still riles me, reading ross crails verdict/summary.

She seems so nonchalant in her acceptance of local statements, and with her view that they seemed genuine, honest people who wouldn't exaggerate.

But ultimately, this just highlights a failing on sexstone's part. The tvg challenge was taken far too lightly from the start, meaning they had to do the digging for evidence that they should've done straight away(to combat the nimbys who did their homework very well), after deal crails decision .

This was colins job, and think this is prob why he left muttering about selfish individuals, as it's was directly accountable for the fine mess we found ourselves in (with a fair bit of help from the council of course).

Wish I could remember the 'new evidence' which was presented at the prowc meeting, which they based their decision of splitting the site on, but I can't.

Wonder how it would hold up with an inspector?

[chipdawg]

I would take some perverse pleasure in them winning their TVG battle, SL walking away from the site and them then getting puddles of leachate in their back gardens or landfill gas arising in their gardens. With SL walking away and a thoroughly inconvenienced Council those residents might find that the recreational land they love so much for it's kite-flying and football-kicking possibilities suddenly renders their property worthless....

[Dolman Block B]

The point is there was never going to be any development on this bit, it was just going to be a landscaped floodplain. In fact work stil has to be carried out on the land for drainage issues.

We just have to present the evidence well this second time around, it's pretty clear the council will go with the same decision as the inspector this time round. If the NIMBYs then try to appeal they are massive hypocrites after what's happened today...

And their not already!!!

I despise them, not just for our sake but for holding up a development that would see our lovely City have a mountain of work, most for local contractors and local people

[myol'man]

Why would all of bendy bus/tram routes go via Ashton Vale if they didn't already know the stadium will happen?

Some kind of deal must have been done behind the scenes.

Kick off the new 2015-2016 season home to Villa in our shiny new stadium

[grove park city]

So what has happened to the housing on Ashton Vale that was going on to help fund the project ? and Sainsbury Ashton Gate project ? the access road from North Somerset is that still valid ? .. Just wandering round the City centre trying to hear a Bristolian accent gets worse every year i'm convinced a great deal of incomers don't give a toss about a new stadium , new jobs, building and investment for South Bristol......

[Guest]

So what has happened to the housing on Ashton Vale that was going on to help fund the project ? and Sainsbury Ashton Gate project ? the access road from North Somerset is that still valid ? .. Just wandering round the City centre trying to hear a Bristolian accent gets worse every year i'm convinced a great deal of incomers don't give a toss about a new stadium , new jobs, building and investment for South Bristol......

The house on the other side of the vale, sainsburys, the stadium itself, and access road all still have valid planning.

It all rests on the outcome of a second public enquiry into the north side of the site. It's been made clear BCC will go with whatever the inspector decides to minimise appeals and costs to the tax payer.

Lets hope the club/land owners put up enough evidence.

[grove park city]

Thanks Tomarse,,,, Really confused with what rulings get overturned who decides what ???? Watched the council meetings to the point of manic boredom and frustration as an old git fan i love the Gate but accept its outdated and just not a sound business venture anymore...... Still another wait of 5 years minimum to start building at Ashton Vale is just not acceptable the latest Sky/BT bid of billions means even more of a closed shop at the top 5 years even with Steve Lansdown money will see City doing well to stay in the Championship...