I am writing as one of the members of the Traders and Residents Against Sainsbury’s Horfield Group which is pursuing a judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission to Sainsbury’s at the  Memorial stadium.

The purpose of the judicial review is not to question the decision, but the process that lead to that decision.
The planning application included a retail assessment by the applicant and an independent review commissioned by the council.  This forecast Sainsbury’s Horfield to remove £7.7M of trade from the Gloucester Road every year. The location of the supermarket is such that it will draw trade from several town centres in North Bristol, and the supermarket would be bigger than Tesco Eastville. 
I would like to make you aware of the grounds for the judicial review. These could have ramifications for other supermarket developments:

1.      That 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.

2.      The misrepresentation of the advice the council received from their retail consultant on the retail impact of this development.

 The recently launched “Good Food Plan for Bristol” has as its first aim to, “halt and reverse the decline of independent food shops on our high streets.” Working to reduce the prevalence of supermarkets is an important step on the way to doing this. If it is firmly established that supermarkets cannot ‘buy off’ their damage to high streets by a cash donation it will support the national planning policy framework and make it much harder for supermarkets to open in such conditions.

 So far, we have raised £16,000 from our local community. £10,000 of this goes towards a protective costs order, and is what will go towards the council’s costs if we lose. This sum was decided by a judge and the sum is limited because we have brought the claim under the Aarhus convention which limits costs in cases that involve environmental issues.

 We need to raise approximately another £10,000 to go towards our lawyers’ fees. I am writing to you to ask you to contribute to the costs of this case. 

You can donate through the paypal account: http://trashorfield.wordpress.com/trash-jr-fund-faq/

Use our bank details to make a BACS transfer.

Account name: TRASH,
Sort Code: 089299
Account No: 65655568

Yours sincerely,    Daniella Radice

NOTE: the articles shown above are merely the most recent 10 in our Planning section. There's lots more as you'll see by clicking through to the sub-sections Commentary, Architecture, Licensing and Policies.