Well, first off, congratulations to Colin Sexstone and Gary Johnson, for not only making the best speeches, but also for winning.
I lasted til 10 past 10 - God only knows what the fans and opponents who turned up at 5 must have thought, 5 hrs later. I left when the second, or was it third LibDem councillor said they supported the development of the green belt. (Grudgingly, but supported none the less).
I revckoned before hand that the Tories and Labour cllrs would support the stadium proposal. So it was only waiting to see what the LDs thought which was an issue. Mind you, it took an hour and a half of statements (ie a footie matches worth) before the meeting got going.
It was a bit like lambs to the slaughter, I thought. Professional officers v amateur politicians. And those most likely to oppose (and a couple of LibDems were clearly unhappy) just didn't have the political nous to know how to do it. I don't blame them, they are new to the council, and I don't know what reasons I would have had for opposing the development (which would have counted). John Bees (old Labour bruiser) was the only one there who would have had the nous to do such a thing, and he obvioulsy supported the development.
Anyway, a couple of snippets. I think everyone was a bit nervous of how the meeting was going to be - football fans and all. But they were extremely well behaved, and what complaints there were came from the residents of Ashton Vale.
Also, it was confirmed that the subsidy or non-taking of monies from the club amounted to £12.5 million (£5 million for Alderman Moores and £7.5 million inS106 not taken). This does have to be set against an unspecified sum for transport initiaitives, and may be some other.
Right, barring Sainsburies, time to do something else.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
I think massive words of credit must go the Marie and Miles from the Bristol City Supporters Trust.
Both bravely stepped into the spotlight and delivered their words with passion and desire.
Colin Sexstone also delivered a highly passionate, forceful and inspiring speech.
Fair point.
Charlie
"Professional officers v amateur politicians"
That transport officer Cockburn was a disaster. He couldn't cost anything and ummed and ahhed his way through.
Some shrewder players could have taken him down completely.
The £5 million for Alderman Moores is I believe a mistake - the officer said something like - if we were to grant planning permission and then the developer can get £5m by building houses then in that sense it could be called a subsidy, one of the Councillor's said but we're talking about the Alderman Moores part here, the officer said oh yes I got it wrong again I was talking about the Southlands Development - you might want to check it but I think I'm right that the discussions then moved onto something else and no answer was given for the Alderman Moores part of the development.
Well, it doesn't matter. it's a statement of what is, rather than being contentious, whatever the amount turns out to be.
Charlie
So is Moorelands already in the ownership of the developers - or will they have to buy it from the council? If so, at what price?
The confused exchange in the discussion last night was incomprehensible.
I thought Fi Hance and Simon Rayner did very well. They picked up on many issues (possibly drawing on Green Party and Neil Harrison material?) and had the courage to vote against the stadium scheme as it stands.
It was embarrassing to see officers admitting that they don't have the policy resources to make sure the stadium is 'greened' to meet FIFA's world cup expectations - and clearly, the club just isn't interested.
Yes, Fi Hance and Simon Rayner did their best to ask the right questions but lacked the experience and confidence to carry that through to a rejection of the application.
I hope they will continue to ask awkward questions but in a more determined and directed way after having been outmanoeuvred by Blees.
The application has to come back to committee for full approval and there is the question of the publicly owned land so there's still plenty of leverage if only the council leadership could grow some.
"Well, it doesn't matter. it's a statement of what is, rather than being contentious, whatever the amount turns out to be.
Charlie"
Charlie, I dont want to quibble here but my understanding is that the Moorlands Allotments are not being given to the developers - they will have to pay fair market value for that piece of land - have you got information that contradicts this?
Also if you look at the debate between 3hrs27mins22seconds to 3hrs28mins15seconds you will see that the error from the planning officer regarding the "subsidy".
The factual parts are the £7m waiving of 106 agreement and the added cost to the BRT of £5m due to the new stadium, which the officers said was being recompensed for by the developers agreeing to transfer land to allow the BRT - the officers did seem very satisfied with that deal as there would be compulsory purchase needed and no legal fees arising from not having to go down the compulsory purchase route.
It was my memory of the meeting. I'll ask.
Charlie
"added cost to the BRT of £5m due to the new stadium, which the officers said was being recompensed for by the developers agreeing to transfer land to allow the BRT"
Yes. But the officer, Cockburn, could offer no valuation for this transferred piece land. Why not?
If we're paying out £5m and only getting a few hundred grand back that's a crap deal.
"the officers did seem very satisfied with that deal as there would be compulsory purchase needed and no legal fees arising from not having to go down the compulsory purchase route"
The officers may well be satisfied with that because the general impression I got was that they don't really give a toss about throwing around millions of pounds of other people's money.
Their general attitude toward our land, s. 106 monies and the importance of providing public services when you develop was appalling.
How they have the gall to call themselves "planners" I do not know. That's precisely what they're not doing.
Bristol Blogger, their answers didnt appear to show any depth of knowledge on the matters at hand, neither did the councillors.
My wish would be that the figures are all revealed and everything can be shown to either all above board or the logic that they used in coming to their conclusions, because the innuendo of all this is not healthy for anyone.
Geoff, it has been symptomatic of this whole stadium business that the facts and figures are kept out of the public domain.
BB and others have bemoaned this lack of crucial information and we have tried to persuade the stadium promoters and the council to reveal more, but to no avail. We are left with no choice but to speculate on what little information can be gleaned.
what was scariest of all was the complete incompetence on display.
These people purport to run our city! I wouldn't trust them to run a bath.
Its been pointed out here that they were 'amateurs'at work and the excuse made that councillers were'nt that good because 'they were new'
Oh, OK thats fine then is it?, Not for me.
When can we get someone to run our City that has some knowledge and experience, (or even basic common sense.) Rather than the ego filled blather merchants on display.
Burn down the council house and start again.
Chris,
I can see that it is frustrating, however the freedom of information requests that were put in revealed that the land valuations can not be given as it will muck up their negotiation stance with the developers. The land valuations also depend on whether or not there is planning permission on the site.
The Council would be wrong to sell the land without planning permission and they can only negotiate once the planning approval has been granted.
Other than land valuations, the 106 waiver has been disclosed and the BRT extra cost has been disclosed. What hasnt been disclosed yet is the cost of the benefit of the developers giving land for the BRT but I suspect the same argument that the Council uses that it can not be known until planning permission has been granted is true of the land for BRT, that a valuation and benefits can not be given until the BRT has been approved.
It's a bit sad how some, Bristol Blogger especially, are attacking the new councillors for being new.
The irony is that these people doing the attacking are the very same who frequently call for the whole of the Council House to be cleared out of the old crowd so that a new and modern bunch of representatives can replace them.
Well, at the last election over half of the councillors elected were new. Great! Oh, no actually not great, because now what everyone wants is not new councillors at all, but the opposite - veterans. Duh.
Several people noted before the meeting that actually new councillors are more likely to go against officer advice in planning meetings, because over the years councillors get ground down by "safe" legal advice. And surprise, the only councillors who voted against the scheme were new.
What thanks do they get for that? Obviously attacked by hundreds of City fans, but - amazingly - also attacked for being "incapable" by the very people whose views they supported! Unbelievable. And people wonder why councillors are afraid to put their head above the parapet.
'What thanks do they get for that? Obviously attacked by hundreds of City fans, but - amazingly - also attacked for being "incapable" by the very people whose views they supported! '
I suspect thats what councillors are really for. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, damned by your friends, damned by your enemies.
You either get out, or gain a rhino-thick skin for which you get damned for looking like a second-hand double glazing salesperson.
I have not called anyone "incapable" either on this thread or on my blog.
Why is it in quotes?
Here's what I actually said on my blog for the avoidance of confusion:
"At a very long meeting featuring a very short debate – skillfully dominated and dictated by Labour old-stager John Bees – the lack of experience of some members of the committtee proved to be a predictable problem.
Lib Dem rookies Fi Hance and Simon Rayner, both clearly unhappy with substantial elements of the plans, failed to ever really assert themselves or their views much at all during the debate allowing Bees to seize the meeting by the scruff of the neck and force a result for the football club with the minimum of fuss.
Ultimately, Rayner and Hance failed to convince their own Lib Dem colleagues – let alone the Labour and Tory establishment figures who were always unlikely to turn down the application – of their genuine concerns."
'It's a bit sad how some, Bristol Blogger especially, are attacking the new councillors for being new.'
awww, poor things
you're right, we need to be more gentle and let the dim bulbs have a few years to warm up and get used to things
Whoooosh! (the sound of the point being missed) it's about the calibre of counciller, we seem to have managed to gather together a pretty thin and inadequate selection to represent our city.
Think you could do better?
you know what - yes I do.
and I know what comes next so save it.
I am happy running my company, which I have done succesfully for the last 25 years, (with a great team of some 20-30 people.)We don't pretend or posture or puff and huff, we get on and do a good job.
'and I know what comes next so save it.'
No balls then?
"I am happy running my company"
c.f.
"I know how to save the world but dont have the time"
"I know the solution but I'm not telling you"
"I can quit smoking any time I want"
"No balls then?"
is that it?
honestly, is that all you can come back with?!!
walk on by.
Post a Comment