HOLA newsletter August 09

Have You Sent Your Objections (Stadium and BIA)?

This is really important. The number of objections makes a difference, get your neighbours to send an objection as well. If you don’t know what to say, see the HOLA responses at the end of this email. Change the words if you want, but send in something. It is easy to do on line or by letter. Addresses etc given below.

The big issue for both the stadium and the airport is the lack of adequate infrastructure. This is a real planning issue to which there is no easy answer, (from the developers) and needs to be emphasised.

Baker Associates (Land Trust)

The planning application has been received for the 9500 houses, but is not yet available on the North Somerset website. Again, it is important that every one responds. We expect North Somerset to turn it down and for an appeal and public enquiry to follow. The appeal is where the real decision will be made. All representations made to the original application are handed to the planning inspector.

Land at Failand

A planning application is expected soon.

Balloon Fiesta

The Whitchurch Action Group spent £400 from their own funds and attended the fiesta over the four days, gathering 3000 signatures on letters supporting the green belt. Sally and I helped for one day and were heartened by the extent of the support from all over the country. I was disappointed that there were no other volunteers from Long Ashton, as the number of signatures could have been even greater.

Other News

The stadium developers have started to remove the wildlife from the site, in anticipation of planning approval. It seems that most of the Bristol Councillors will support the application. The views of North Somerset councillors are not so clear. There is nothing for North Somerset in having the stadium on the boundary and the access in North Somerset so we will need to target NS councillors and make sure they do not approve the application.

A letter has been sent from the Government Office for the South West to Chief Officers of the District Councils saying the RSS should be given substantial weight in determining planning applications. However, it appears that this is contrary to government planning policy, which state that an adopted plan should given more weight unless it is old, and the NS plan is 2007.

Some good news

Perhaps?? There are rumours that the revised date for the RSS is to be announced soon and it will involve a long delay. Lets hope!

The following statement was obtained by another SOGS group from Tim Collins, Chief of Staff to Grant Shapps MP, Shadow Minister for Housing:

“We are fully committed to protecting the green belt. We will lend our cross-party support to measures which build sustainable, eco-friendly communities on Brownfield sites, provided the plans have local support. Yet we are concerned that Gordon Brown’s top-down plans will undermine local democracy, harm the environment and will not be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure.

Environmental protection and tackling climate change need to be at the heart of Government policy. We will not weaken national Green Belt protection (PPG2) or national protection for farmland, or undermine special designations like National Parks, SSSIs or AONBs. We shall also scrap RSS’s and if necessary local authorities will be able to re-designate the green belt that was forcibly undesignated by the RSS.”

The Secretary of State has refused an appeal against refusal of permission to build on a green field site near Swindon. The reason given was that it would hamper redevelopment of inner city areas of Swindon. Are there parallels here with Ashton Park and South Bristol?

Feedback Please

We have not had a meeting for some time. Do you want one? If so what do you want to discus, when is a good time? Should we wait until the schools are back?

Rod Sterland (Chairman)

How to Send your Objections

Address to: Planning Department Town Hall, Walliscote Grove Road, Weston-super-Mare BS23 1UJ, or through the North Somerset website, “planning” in the “do it on line” menu box. BIA is an immediate option, for the stadium go to “search and submit” and put in 1061 into the application number box, it will come up with the number 09/P/1061/F2. You will then be given the option to comment on the proposal. You can paste in comments from a Word document.

Stadium Objections

This application is opposed for the following reasons:

  • The proposed site is in the green belt and the application is not of “overwhelming” importance, such that re-designation of the green belt is justified. Even if it were, the views from the surrounding green belt would be adversely affected by the development. The economic benefits have not been adequately demonstrated, certainly not to the extent that would justify use of green belt land.
  • One of the roles of the green belt is to maintain separation between cities and surrounding villages. The green belt land proposed for the site separates Long Ashton and Bristol. This development would all but join Long Ashton and Bristol.
  • Part of the site is a SNCI and identified in the local plan as Wildlife network Site. Its proximity to a major city gives it special significance and it should be preserved. The developers need to establish more clearly the extent of disturbance to wildlife including that caused by light pollution and disruption to the flight paths of bats.
  • Part of the site is flood plain, which in itself provides a special habitat close to a major city. The developers must show that the arrangements for flood containment are robust to changes in climate which may occur over the life of the stadium.
  • The construction would disturb a recently closed rubbish tip. A report has shown that the levels of methane released are such that major construction is unlikely to be economically viable. The developer must state how this is to be overcome. The nature of the rubbish is unknown and may contain hazardous materials such as asbestos. The developer must produce details of how the rubbish is to be monitored and unwanted dispersal monitored and controlled.
  • Access from Long Ashton to Bristol will be severely impeded during events at the stadium. The developers should put forward suitable proposals to ensure adequate traffic flow between Long Ashton and Bristol at all times.
  • The visual impact of the stadium is completely out of keeping with the locality and its proximity to green belt.
  • The inconvenience and disturbance to local residents outweighs the supposed benefit of the stadium.
  • The travel plan produced by the developers is inadequate and has been produced using flawed unrepresentative and distorted survey data. In particular the numbers of cars expected to be used greatly exceeds that suggested when more reasonable data are used. More provision is required for public transport, cycling and walking. The adjacent roads are inadequate to permit the numbers of spectators planned for major events to access the site over a reasonable period. The proposed use of limited numbers of buses and the possible BRT will not divert sufficient spectators from the use of cars. The numbers of cars which it is proposed to allow to park on the site cannot be accommodated by the access roads, especially when taken in conjunction with the normal traffic and that to and from the park and ride. It would be essential to have a station on the nearby rail line and suitable links to Temple Meads and Parsons Street, combined with measures that will reduce the use of cars. HOLA broadly supports the transport related proposals made by Transport for Bristol.
  • A separate travel plan is required for non football related events, such as the concerts which are proposed. The number of these allowed should be limited by a planning restriction.
  • The developers should produce a sustainability statement for the stadium and show that the new stadium would result in lower overall emissions of CO2 than the existing arrangements.
  • Restrictions on parking in local roads are essential to prevent excessive disruption to residents. These need to be adequately monitored and controlled, at the expense of the football club. Parking needs to be prevented in Long Ashton. In order to show that this can be achieved a scheme should be started immediately and subsequently maintained as a planning condition. The developers must put forward suitable proposals that will be acceptable to the residents of Long Ashton.
  • The developers have not adequately shown that there is no alternative site. The existing stadium could be re developed. Other sites nearer to major transport links should be preferred. The provision of funding, by sale of the existing site, should not be allowed to over ride this planning principle. The proposed development on the existing site would have a negative effect on the local area, which is currently undergoing regeneration, partly as a result of the Tobacco Factory.

The prospect of the stadium being used as a venue for the 2018 Football World Cup, should not be seen as a factor in favour of the stadium, indeed quite the reverse. It is noted above that the roads and junctions will not be able to cope with a normal match day, so they would be completely unsuited for the additional numbers proposed for World Cup matches. The economic benefits have been greatly overstated and the potential disruption from the additional spectators has not been taken into consideration.

Helicopters should not be allowed to access the site except in case of emergency. This should be a planning condition.

This is a major development but does not appear in any of the current structure plans or even in the proposed RSS, which has yet to be approved.

Objections to Airport Expansion

The expansion would result in an increase in CO2 emissions whereas government policy is to drastically reduce these emissions. Why should Bristol Airport be an exception? Not only would emissions rise as a result of increased aircraft flights, but also from ground transport for passengers accessing the airport.

The transport infrastructure is currently inadequate and totally unable to support an increase in journeys to the airport. The roads in North Somerset cannot cope with the expected number of car journeys. Although the proportion of journeys by public transport is planned to increase this only represents a small fraction of the total and the total number of car journeys would increase. Before any expansion is approved the necessary infrastructure improvements must be designed approved and the funding committed.

We are opposed to any major development in green belt land. We therefore object to the proposal to extend car parking in the green belt. Any development should be within the existing site, making better use of the land currently occupied by the airport.

In making a contribution to improvement of the infrastructure BIA propose to contribute towards the construction of the South Bristol Link. HOLA is opposed to this link for a number of reasons. In this context, we do not believe that its construction would improve access to the airport. The Atkins report showed that this link would have minimal effect on journey times to and from the airport. Construction of the link will not take place until at least 2016, long after the proposed increase in passenger numbers. If BIA is to make a contribution to infrastructure this should concentrate on improved public transport links and in particular improving the radial routes into Bristol. A relevant example would be to improve the access from the A38 to Bristol Temple Meads, or better utilise Parsons Street as a rail link to BIA.

August 16, 2009 · Filed Under airport, general

Comment