Ashton Vale
Bristol City Football Club have spoken of their “disappointment” and “frustration”, after it emerged it is likely a judicial review will take place over the council’s controversial Ashton Vale town green decision.
The Evening Post said today an application for a judicial review over Bristol City Council’s “split site” town green decision is expected to be made in the next few days.
Earlier this month, former Labour councillor Peter Crispin told Bristol24-7 a letter was sent by the Save Ashton Vale Environment Group (Save) to Bristol City Council’s chief executive.
The letter is the first phase in a judicial review procedure. The Save group are complaining about the council’s planning process and, therefore, must contact the council for a response. If no agreement with the Save group is found, then the group can apply to the courts for the review.
The group wants the legal review of Bristol City Council’s decision-making process which led to the compromise deal over the town green application.
Councillors on the Public Rights of Way and Greens (PROWG) committee voted six to two in favour of accepting a recommendation to split the site – with only the southern area kept as a town green. The decision paved the way for the football club to finally start work on their new stadium, which was approved by a planning committee in 2009.
This morning, the club released a statement saying: “Whilst the news of this letter being submitted so late into the three month appeal period is disappointing, the club remains confident any review will be rejected as it is felt the city council’s decision is a robust one and has taken into account all the evidence provided to it by both sides.
“We appreciate the frustration that will be felt by the thousands of people who have backed this much-needed development and investment into the city. The club remains fully committed to delivering the new stadium which will not only benefit the city, but the wider region.”
Mr Crispin told Bristol24-7 earlier this month: “We feel so strongly that the way the council handled the thing made it so one-sided that we our side didn’t get a fair crack of the whip.
“Residents still have grave concerns and we have been operating under a cloud of fear. We’re not anti-football club, just anti the development. ”
Council spokesman Peter Holt said the council was ”very confident that due legal process was adhered to at every stage and we will robustly defend our decision”.
considering that quote came after the letter of intent, think of it more as the cherry on the cake, or more precisely, a golden 'foot in the mouth' moment.
What the same 'cherry' you thought you had with the inspectors report?
"The process by which the decision was made took place over many months and a great deal of time and effort was made in order to reach a decision which addressed everyone's concerns."
So the basis for the JV application was something a press officer said?
Please, please, please tell me that that's all you've got.
Just a thought. Stephen Lansdown has set up a new investment company in Guernsey. Hargreaves Lansdown share price dropping like a stone. No money for the new players we certainly need. Does he really want a new stadium to worry about as well?
What is your argument? You wanted a village Green and have probably got the largest one certainly in the South West of England if not the country.
Lets leave this one for the courts, as I am sure common sense will prevail.
You lot must have deep pockets !
I have a aerial photograph of the site in 1988 NMR OS/88029 frame 108.
This shows that tipping had ceased in the northern half of the tip field and this was now grass.Tipping was still active on an area the size of 2 school football pitches up against the hedge at the top of the south field..Tipping was reported complete by the end of 1989 and the field was to be reseeded in 1990.So tipping activity was not complete at least in part of 1988.
The only part of the field not available fo recreational activity in 1988 was the tip area,so even being extreme the only part of the land that has any dispute is the area of the tip in 1988,you cannot conclude that the whole field was not usable.
This is the only area that could be excluded from a TVG not the whole site.
…yet another City supporter who hasn't actually read any of the documents freely available on the internet, but instead relies upon 'bloke in the pub told me' logic.
The evidence proves otherwise – aerial photography showed the landfilled area as 'complete' way before the waste licence expired (the much-vaunted 'smoking gun' thrown about by City supporters).
In fact, the previous landowner admitted the works were complete in a letter dated 19th May, 1988.
Now that's the kind of evidence supplied to BCC, yet apparently witheld from the PROWG meeting.
Are you sure you are right on the timeframe of the landfill Mark ? Closely involved in the evidence were you ?
And is that really what this is about – whether then landfill finished in 1988 (according to the inspector) or 1990 (according to Will Godfrey, BCC Strategic Director) ?
Even if this was passed back to the tvg inspector the fact is and evidence proves , the site was used as landfill within specified time limit and does not meet criteria for tvg, end of.
Dream on Nimbys, the clock is ticking.
You've got to admire Leaky Holty's propensity for absolute cock-up.
He's now kindly published high quality evidence for the benefit of the High Court that the council didn't base their decision on the law as it stands but on "everyone's concerns"!
Top work.
Now, how long before he blames "opportunist anarchists" for the council's Ashton Vale fiasco?
So:
1. Peter Holt is still releasing confidential legal letters on an exclusive basis to the Evening Post. Nice work for a council officer.
2. On the BEP site many BCFC fans are resuming their printed hatred of the residents of Ashton Vale, Long Ashton and Southville, all green space campaigners and the legal system in general. How long until their gate falls below 10,000
3. Meanwhile, on the OTIB site, the BCFC Fans Trust has been so burnt by its members making repeated threats of violence against their neighbours that all threads concerning the stadium are now hidden and kept in a separate non-public directory.
Isn't it great to have this story back in the news again ?
"a decision which addressed everyone's concerns" is what he has been quoted as saying, in his role as Spokesman for BCC.
It was not the committee's place to 'address everyone's concerns' in it's decision. It's role was actually pretty much the opposite – to 'not consider the desirability of the land's being registered as a green or being developed or put to other uses'.
So by considering the 'concerns of everyone', i.e., the landowner, the BRT route handily added on and the apportioned TVG, the Council actually broke the law.
It doesnt say that though does it.
Council spokesman Peter Holt also said: "The process by which the decision was made took place over many months and a great deal of time and effort was made in order to reach a decision which addressed everyone's concerns."
If the decision was made 'to address everyone's concerns' (including those of BCC's BRT route) in advance, then this is blatant pre-determination by the supposedly neutral Registration Authority.