Where am I? Homepage > How to get involved?

You can still object! Although the Council's official closing date for receiving letters of objection has now passed, you can still object right up to the Committee hearing. The Council have confirmed this is likely to be in January so if you're still wishing to object to the plans, please do!

Act now: Write to Ben Burke, Planning Officer, at the contact details listed on the Contacts List page, or email them.

What are the HowZat? group's concerns?

General Concerns

(a) The proposal is for the development of a sporting stadium of 18,500 permanent seats, a four-fold increase over the existing 3,668 permanent seats, supplemented by 1,500 temporary seats. The existing Ground is by your own admission situated in a very congested residential area, with relatively poor access. It is highly unlikely that if the current sporting use did not already exist that any local planning authority would approve the establishment of such a 20,000 seat stadium in such an area particularly as you clearly see it as a regional venue for the whole of the South West.

Given this, any re-development proposals must contain detailed safeguards to protect the area from the detrimental effects of such a development. It is therefore of great concern that no formal restrictions are proposed on the stadium’s use so under planning law this stadium will be available for use on any day of the year for any sport because there are no plans to legally restrict the use to cricket only. We believe that verbal assurances on the planned frequency and type of use are not sufficient and are not binding on either the current or future management of the Club. Formal planning restrictions are necessary to limit the use of the stadium to a given number of big cricket matches/events, in line with current usage. It is to be hoped that the Club would voluntarily enter into such an agreement.

On this point it is also pertinent to note that there is already planning approval for another 18,500 stadium at the Memorial Ground just over half a mile from the Cricket Ground. The cumulative impact on this wider residential area is likely to be great.

Physical Impact

(b) We are concerned about the physical impact of such a major development on the local area. So far we have only been given diagrammatic representations of stands and buildings and it is of concern that the Club, in submitting a ‘hybrid’ planning application, may provide little more detail to properly judge the impact. Whilst we were told that information on the shadowing effects on adjacent properties was available this was not presented at the consultation meeting. This contrasts with the more detailed information provided at the public consultation on the proposed school adjacent to the ground. The effect on neighbouring properties has therefore not been adequately addressed as part of the public consultation.

Student Enabling Development

(c) We are extremely concerned that despite initial objections the Club is still pursuing student accommodation as enabling development. This accommodation concentrates a one type use in the middle of a mixed residential area. Normally such blocks would be located on a university campus or in city centre areas with access to a wide range of facilities. Government housing policies emphasise achieving a mix of housing that relates well to its surroundings, is well integrated and has good access to green amenity space.

(d) This six storey development for 350 students is likely to dominate both the whole ground redevelopment scheme and the local area; it is noted that the ground is immediately adjacent to a Conservation Area. It is likely to overlook both the proposed school and residential properties in close proximity. The current sketches do not provide adequate details of this part of the development and given its potential impact it is unacceptable that that the Club apparently intends to only apply for outline permission for this part of the development without providing such details.

We also believe that this part of the plan distorts the proposals for other parts of the redevelopment. It restricts the seating at the Ashley Down Road end of the Ground, behind the wicket where spectators like to sit, and necessitates maximising the size and height of the stands on other sides of the Ground where they have a greater impact on residential properties.

(e) The proposed flats also have no amenity space and this must intensify pressure on existing local public open spaces, for example St Andrews Park which is the nearest open space and which already suffers from heavy use on fine warm days.

(f) As the Club is unwilling to identify a provider for this accommodation it is impossible to know how it will be managed and indeed if it will even be linked to any specific further/higher education provider. Whilst it is proposed that students sign a tenancy agreement which bans them from keeping a car within 1.5km of the flats there is no proof that this is legally enforceable. Even if it were it would be unworkable without detailed surveillance of individual students; we are appalled at the suggestion that local residents would effectively have to police such an arrangement.

The suggestion that visitors to the student accommodation will be able to use the stadium’s parking spaces on non match days, and perhaps on match days, suggests that there will be pedestrian access from the Nevil Road end of the Ground to the student flats despite your assurances to the contrary. This needs clarification.

(g) The reduction of the numbers of students in the enabling development does not affect these arguments and in any event we note that this reduction is dependent on securing funding from other sources.

Transport and Travel

h)Transport remains a major area of concern - the traffic and parking impact of 20,000 spectators trying to access the stadium. The current proposals do not place a limitation on the use of the stadium or on the number of events, and we do not therefore believe that the plans can be based on disruption being ‘acceptable’ on a few days a year and that minor modifications of the existing traffic and transportation measures is all that is needed.

To date no Traffic Impact Assessment has been produced and it is to be hoped that this will now be done so it forms part of the consultative process and is then submitted with any planning application. Basic information should include data on the existing pattern of travel to big matches/events including the origin of spectators and mode of travel. Only then will it be possible to properly judge the type and scale of traffic management measures needed and produce a proper Travel Plan.

(i) Whilst the Club has quoted that the recent Elton John Concert as an example of an event that had a capacity of 20,000 people we understand that only about 10,000 tickets were actually sold and the event still caused unacceptable local disruption and gridlock. In any event the increase in capacity to around 20,000 spectators from the current 16,000 for occasional events is not insignificant- it is 25% and represents 2,000 extra vehicles if everyone car shared. What the impact on Park and Ride Services would be is impossible to estimate without the Club providing details of its existing Park and Ride operations, the number of buses and the number of spectators they have normally carried. Again this should be part of a proper Travel Plan.

At many other major stadiums there are pick-up and drop-off facilities for Park and Ride buses; this makes such a service more attractive for spectators and avoids large numbers of fans walking through residential areas. However, this is not currently the case for the Cricket Ground, causing disruption on Ashley Down Road. In the second round of consultation there still do not seem to be any proposals to change this and simply adding in Gloucester Road and Muller Road will not resolve these issues.

(j) The current traffic plan also includes on big match days ‘road ahead closed’ signs on a number of streets. Whilst welcome, and acknowledging the extension of these, they are often not enforced and apparently have no basis for enforcement. In addition whilst some roads are left open for local residents to access their homes, without any policing of these we believe that cricket fans will quickly be able to find their way into the local streets for parking. These issues need to be properly addressed in a comprehensive Travel Plan.

(k) On a day to day basis the already congested car parking situation in the local area is likely to be greatly exacerbated by current proposals to significantly expand conference facilities at the Stadium. Whereas now the conference facilities appear to virtually match the 166 car parking spaces available at the ground the proposal is for a new conference room of 330 spaces and other suites which would cater for an additional 530 places -860 in total. Despite this, ground car parking spaces would only number 165. Unless there is a restriction on the numbers using these conference facilities on non big match/big event days we expect increased pressure on parking in neighbouring streets which is already a huge problem for residents.

Although the consultation sought to assure us that conference delegates would be encouraged to car share or use public transport, we see no possibility of enforcing this. In a commercially competitive environment we cannot see that emphasis would be placed on this. Suggestions that parking next to the City of Bristol College could be used ignore the fact that this is owned by the College and is fully utilised by the students in term time. Any agreement to use this parking for matches, events, or the conference centre would result in students and staff parking in local residential streets, an issue not addressed in the consultation.

We also understand that the enlarged conference centre would be available for events such as weddings and parties, and this is likely intensify the parking problem in late afternoons/evenings on surrounding streets and result in increased late night nuisance for local residents from noise and drunken behaviour.

(l) Increased parking restrictions with double yellow lines around most junctions within a wide radius of the ground and along significant stretches of local roads will also intensify existing parking difficulties causing huge problems for local residents 365 days a year simply in order to try and mitigate the situation for big matches and events. Some of these proposals are simply not needed and will cause unnecessary friction between the Club and residents particularly those no longer able to park outside their own property. Separate consultation is needed on these measures.

These proposals are in addition to the plan to completely close Nevil Road for big match/events excluding any access and parking. This is likely to cause unacceptable disruption for residents who live there and a local GP Surgery, especially as we understand that the Nevil Road entrance is to be designated pedestrian only.

(m) In summary our position is that the traffic and parking problems engendered by the stadium expansion cannot solely be addressed by the measures proposed by the GCCC, and that some form of residents parking zone is required to address these issues.

Noise

(n) We are concerned that a Noise Impact Assessment has not yet formed part of the public consultation on these plans. It seems apparent that the current proposals will intensify the noise nuisance to the area. This will come from greatly increased attendances at large sports matches and concerts, functions in the conference centre and probably from the student accommodation and will have a greater impact at night when there are evening events. Unrestricted use of the stadium will also intensify this nuisance.

Floodlighting

(o) The impact of floodlights on people living in a very wide area around the ground is also yet to be addressed in these proposals. Although these do not form part of the impending application we understand that a separate application is to be made in the future. As such we believe this is a material consideration at this stage, particularly since in the interim there is likely to be increased temporary use of lights. Temporary floodlights used at existing events at the ground cause very significant disruption to residents over a very wide area and are sometimes used late into the night and considerably beyond the finish of matches and are tested for long periods on nights before events.

Primary School

(p) Finally we would wish to briefly comment on the proposal for a new primary school on the College site. The Club’s concerns about the siting of a new school and its basic incompatibility with the development of the Cricket Club are well documented not least because of the large loss of car parking spaces. However, it appears that behind the scenes negotiations have now taken place with the City Council on this issue and that as a result the School has been moved further on to the Brunel Playing Field site with the Club’s implicit agreement. Neither the City Council nor the Club have sought to involve the local community in these negotiations despite the fact that when the planning application to redevelop the Brunel site was eventually approved in 2002 it was agreed that part of the Brunel Field be upgraded and safeguarded for future school and local community use. This was in response to local representations and those by Sport England. This means of doing things is totally unacceptable.

Given the now obvious close links between the school planning application by the City Council and the Club’s own proposals both of these developments should now be considered simultaneously, not least because an expanded stadium will have a significant impact on any proposed school and the latter is also likely to generate even more traffic which should be part of the wider assessment.

photo