The following are facts:


•The CHAIR of the South Bristol planning committee is Sean Beynon, who lives in and represents the local ward of Southville. He had to stand down from the planning decision meeting as he is a Bristol City Football Club season ticket holder and therefore he was considered to have a conflict of interests.
•The VICE CHAIR of the South Bristol planning committee is Simon Rayner, who represents Kingsweston in the north of the City but lives in Clifton. Neither of which, not that you need reminding, are in South Bristol.
•Simon Rayner not only chaired the Sainsbury's application meeting but had a vote, which he used against the plans.
•Simon Rayner was also in the minority of 2 out of 9 who voted against the successful application for the stadium itself.
•Simon Rayner commented at the time in the media that he did not like football.
•Simon Rayner works for Alec French Architects a business who, like George Ferguson, has a commercial interest in alternative opportunities to develop the land
•Here's the best bit "Alec French Partnership" and George Ferguson's "Acanthus Ferguson Mann" are well established partners under the name of "Concept Planning Group" who tender for urban planning projects in Bristol
•Simon Rayner's employers "Alec French Architects" and George Ferguson's "Acanthus Ferguson Mann" partnered to win and execute the £90 million taxpayer funded tender to develop @Bristol
•Simon Rayner's employers "Alec French Architects" and George Ferguson's "Acanthus Ferguson Mann" are preferred partners of Westmark Developments, a privately-owned developer in Bristol specialising in, wait for it, residential and mixed use schemes, precisely what George Ferguson advocates and Simon Rayner voted for

So there you have it:

A Bristol City Season Ticket holder who represents the local neighbourhood declares a conflict of interest on participating in this decision, but his deputy, who chairs and votes on the decision and does not represent any BS3 neighbourhood, does not declare that he works for a firm that has a very well established partnership with the firm owned by the proposal's most outspoken critic George Ferguson, and who collectively have an interest in alternative uses of the site, apparently with no conflict of interest.

Just to be absolutely clear on the level of conflict of interest here, George Ferguson attended the meeting and spoke against the plans as a highly visible member of those against the plans. Across the room from him, the chairman of the meeting and a key decision maker with a vote on the application, works directly in partnership with George Ferguson since his employers are commercially aligned with George Ferguson in seeking opportunities to work on mixed-use development in the greater Bristol area.

New reasons given as to why the sainsbury's was rejected:

- Viewed as being too far from the city centre and too big to be sustainable
- It will encourage people to be dependent on their cars
- The store will have negative effects on the traders of north street.

Reason 1 - too far from City centre? It's a 10 minute walk maximum from the current site, too big to be sustainable....isn't that Saninsbury's decision.

Reason 2 - again 10 minute drive from current location, so how will people be dependent on their cars? Well maybe because Bristol's traffic system is complete shite therefore people rely on cars.

Reason 3 - Only locals use the north street shops, will that change with a new sainsbury's considering there is one 10 minutes away. If anything it will attract more people to the area.

Reason 1 - too far from City centre? It's a 10 minute walk maximum from the current site, too big to be sustainable....isn't that Saninsbury's decision.


************************************

I've walked to Ashton Gate, and it took me about 10 minutes. If this stadium is further out by 10 minutes, then that means sod all. the Memorial Gorund is much further out of the city centre than that (albeit in a much more residential area...)

Just sounds like Rayner is putting personal gain ahead of the needs of the city. At it's bluntest, without a new stadium, Bristol would not host any world cup games if we host it in 2018.

I'm guessing ground sharing with Rovers is out of the question then?

yeh pretty much, they wouldn't be able to put any financial assitance to the project anyway, theyve had planning permission for years never did anything with it due to lack of funds.

sorry i wrote the first part wrong. reasons why saninsbury's was rejected not the stadium.

to add to the reason of over reliance on cars, this is the same council who have stopped a bus route and have said they are unwilling to add more park and rides. Whose fault is it then that people rely on their cars!!!