Bristol's supermarket - stadium swap

Good story Dave, but you accept the basic premise that the new stadium cannot go ahead without a superstore but don't provide any analysis of this point. The draft planners report for the previous application calculates that a new store provides only 17.5% of the capital needed, which did not outweigh the harm done to other business in Bedminster. In other words they did not accept the basic enabling development argument that the benefits outweighed the harm. The key issue is funding, for which there are clearly alternatives available to the club. For instance offering a shares issue for fans and residents to invest in the new stadium could yield a considerable amount. This might not raise as much, but maybe enough to fill the funding gap the club seem to have.

If there are other ways to raise the capital, then going for planning permission for this store (which based on the previous planning report looks unlikely) could itself be regarded as the risk to the world cup in Bristol.

It would be good to see some analysis of the key assumptions.

Finally, your blog seems to imply that the fact Sainsburys is already there makes opposition to it abit odd. Demolishing a perfectly good store, and building a new one 500m away whilst doubling the size of the store doesn't strike me as a sensible or environmentally sustainable move and seems alot more odd to me.

The existing Sainsbury's store in Winterstoke Road is large and rarely seems to be running close to capacity. The size of the proposed store is so great that all the arguments against the original Tesco proposal still hold true, although with 2 superstores in the area rather than 3. The planning officers had very grave concerns about Teso - see https://beratebedminster.wordpress.com/ , and they should feel the same about Sainsbury's too.
I fear that some politicians feel that there are more votes in being seen to support Bristol City football club's dreams of building a new stadium in Ashton Vale and hosting a few World Cup games, rather than the reality of risking serious damage to a thriving local community and causing environmental damage. Alternatives to the superstore should be considered.

Hi Dave,

As a Green Party activist and blogger, whilst also being a Hartcliffe boy who, when asked in census forms about his religion is always tempted to put "Bristol City FC", I have to admit that this is one of those "issues" which I really wish would just go away.

Unfortunately "real life" doesn't work that way.

My reaction to the Sainsbury's proposal is that it is an attempt to add a third superstore to an already adequately provided for market by stealthy means.

The size of the new store is big enough to be two stores, for example;

Existing Sainsbury's = 5,126 sq metres
Existing Asda = 4,733 sq metres
Total Floorspace = 9,859 sq metres

New Sainsbury's = 9,300 sq metres

A "rose by any other name" scenario?

As the planners have already concluded (in response to the earlier, eventually withdrawn Tesco-oriented application) that there is no demand for additional retail space, and that the "enabling development" argument doesn't outweigh the disbenefits of the new store, it would appear that any approval of the new store will be based on whether the inclusion of a promise to deliver housing at the existing Sainsbury site will outweigh those concerns - although the obvious point is that if housing is so important then why are we building a supermarket on a prime site for residential use, part of which is owned by the council itself?

In addition, there is a strong possibility that by supporting an injection of extra retail in Bedminster, the council could undermine attempts to regenerate other parts of South Bristol that are considerably more deprived than the Ashton Gate area. This, again, is not my conclusion but the conclusion of the planning officers who put together the report for the Tesco application.

We are being asked to believe that if planning permission is not given for the proposed Sainsburys Bristol won't be able to host any world cup games in 2018. The owners of Bristol City Football Club are business men who will have considered the implications of not selling the site to Sainsbury and will have other arrangements in place. Bristol has been accepted as a host city in England's bid - I can't imagine that this would have happened unless BCFC had been able to prove that their new stadium would be built. Sainsbury have confirmed that if they get their planning permission they will be opening the doors of the new store in August 2013. To achieve this the new stadium must have been built. I would assume therefore that BCFC have already commmitted contractually to building the new stadium and as succesful business men the owners of the club would not have commmitted themselves unless they knew for certain that they could fund the development. Its time to break the link between getting planning permission for the new Sainsburys and the success of BCFC's plans for a new stadium. Granting planning will certainly ease the financial burden on the club but this new stadium will bring in extra revenue to the club and give it the stadium it needs in preparation for joining the premiership which in itself will increase its revenue. The future prosperity of Bedminster should not be sacrified by Bristol City Council just to ease the financial burden on the owners of BCFC.