What are the grounds for the JR?
The claim proceeds on three grounds. Firstly, the Council considered a retail mitigation proposal as a material consideration to offset the accepted significant retail impact caused by the development. The Council had been advised that this package could not be considered as material and with nothing else to offset the significant retail impact should then have rejected the application. The second ground concerns the misrepresentation of the advice the council received from their retail consultant on the retail impact of this development. The third ground concerns an error in the summary reasons given for granting the application.
What exactly is the money going toward?
All funds raised will be used for the costs incurred in pursuing a Judicial Review. These costs consist those of our own legal team and a fund to cover the costs of the Council’s legal team should the claim be lost.
What happens if the JR is rejected?
If the Judical Review application is rejected there could be funds remaining once those of our legal team and costs of the Councils legal team have been paid. In this case the remaining money would be divided between the two neighbourhood partnerships in the areas immediately affected by this development namely ‘Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Neighbourhood Partnership’ and ‘Horfield and Lockleaze Neighbourhood Partnership’.
What happens if the JR is succesful?
If the JR is successful then any funds remaining will be divided between the two neighbourhood partnerships in the areas immediately affected by this development namely ‘Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Neighbourhood Partnership’ and ‘Horfield and Lockleaze Neighbourhood Partnership’.
What are the chances of winning the JR?
The grounds of the claim are good. We are advised by conservative lawyers that prospects of success are greater than 50%.
Who is the bank account stated on the website in the name off?
The bank account stated on the website has the account name ‘TRASH’. It is the business bank account for the group Traders and Residents Against Sainsburys Horfield and Company TRASHorfield Ltd.
Why a limited company?
TRASH have consulted widely on the issue of who should be claimant. It was universally recognised that a sole claimant, resident or trader, would present a single focus for any unwelcome attention. So despite the financial disadvantages it was decided to set up a limited company. TRASHorfield Ltd has a number of directors making it clear that it is a community who are opposing the redevelopment of the Memorial Ground into an enormous Supermarket.
Does the limited company have financial benefits for TRASHorfield?
No. Before the Judicial Review can proceed an agreement will be reached on how much finance each party should have to cover the other sides costs should they lose. TRASHorfield will have to raise sufficient funds to cover the Councils costs should TRASHorfield lose the Judicial Review before proceedings can commence.
Do TRASHorfield want to prevent Bristol Rovers building a new stadium at UWE?
No. TRASHorfield only want to prevent the destruction of Gloucester Road high street, traffic chaos and pollution.
Are there alternatives to a supermarket development that still enable the UWE stadium to be built?
It is understood that Sainsbury’s are offering circa £29M for the site, we are advised that this is somewhere between 30% – 100% more than for example a property developer would be able to offer (although the property market is showing signs of improvement since the application was first announced). BRFC argue that only a supermarket can give them the money which will enable them to build a stadium with capacity 22,000 -35,000 despite average attendances of 2012 being little over 6000.
TRASH do not oppose the UWE stadium development but this should not be at the expense solely of BS7 residents and traders.
The Memorial Ground is just that, a Memorial, given to the amateur rugby players of Bristol for services rendered to their country in two world wars – it is fitting that some community element should be retained that is IF the ground genuinely cannot be retained for sport which was the intention of the benefactor. Local opinion includes developments such as a much needed school ‘The Memorial School’, more housing to meet the shortage, green space & growing space. There would appear to be many more acceptable solutions for the site as opposed to a Goliath supermarket. We would argue that BRFC should find other ways of financing any shortfall, the directors of the club perhaps?
Would this prohibit the UWE stadium development?
The UWE development is a £200M project we are told. If the Memorial Ground was sold for half the understood agreed sale price eg £15M then the shortfall is is 7.5% of the total project cost. What this community gains from a less lucrative deal is worth so much more. BCC’s independent retail consultants forecast Sainsbury’s Horfield to remove £7.7M of trade from the Gloucester Road EVERY YEAR.
The present deal is in essence a huge subsidy, determined by the Council, to a private football club and paid for by independent Gloucester Road traders and local residents.