Sainsbury’s Application at Ashton Gate – Response to Conspiracy Theories
Some silly conspiracy theories have been floating around the internet, following my involvement in determining the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury’s at Ashton Gate. I am completely satisfied that I had no conflict of interest in determining this application.
I am an architect employed by a local practice. This does not in itself prevent me from sitting on a planning committee. It has the potential to create a prejudicial interest, in which instance I would declare it and not take part in considering the related matter.
As declared on the Council website, my employer is Alec French Architects, who have no interest in the Ashton Gate site.
Architect George Ferguson has been vocal in his opposition to the Sainsbury’s application and George Ferguson’s firm, Ferguson Mann does in fact have an interest in the Ashton Gate site, as he mentioned in his statement to the committee. Alec French Architects have previously worked with Ferguson Mann on a number of occasions, but none of this work has any connection to the site in question. Alec French have not worked with Ferguson Mann during the time I have been employed there, and I have never met George Ferguson. They are not currently involved in working together, and the partnership between the two firms has now ceased. Unsurprisingly, both Bristol-based firms sometimes work for the same clients, on separate projects. This fact is obviously not relevant to the application in question. The particular developer mentioned by conspiracy theorists has also employed, among others, Buro Happold, who are currently working on the BCFC stadium project!
I made my decision in good faith, and am completely confident that I have acted lawfully in chairing this committee. I understand that people feel strongly about the outcome of the meeting, but attempts to drag my employers into the issue simply feel like a malicious attempt to damage my livelihood.
The decision the planning committee were asked to make in relation to the Sainsbury’s application for Ashton Gate was a difficult one. There were strongly held views on both sides, and the only certainty was that the no decision would please everyone. I have had many e-mails condemning the outcome, and many in support of it.
The job of a planning committee is to consider the relevant planning matters, and come to a view on whether the application is acceptable. The committee is legally obliged to decide the application on its own merits – the viability of the stadium is a separate matter and was not a major consideration to the application. The Committee carefully considered the report from Council Officers on the application, and received representations both in favour of and opposing the application. It was clear that many people felt the application presented a risk to their community and local services. I, and other members, felt that the Planning Officer’s report understated the likely impact on the vitality and vibrancy of nearby local centres, as well as the effects on CO2 emissions, traffic levels and air pollution, all of which are relevant planning policy matters. After considering and debating these issues, the Committee voted to turn down the application.
I have no interest in scuppering Bristol City’s stadium proposals. I actually voted for the stadium proposals when they came before the planning committee for a second time (after my concerns at the first meeting were addressed). The club obviously has a financial interest in loudly supporting the Sainsbury’s application, but the decision on Wednesday does not have to mean that their hopes for a new stadium are dashed. I sincerely hope that BCFC can find a way of funding its new stadium, but without the risk of the negative impacts on the community that the Sainsbury’s application presented.
