From the Ciderspace Archive – 8th June 2014
I write as a 61 year old Yeovil Town fan, supporting them since 1967. Whilst I live in Cheshire, in my job as an architect I work with many Local Authorities Planning departments, and most work broadly along the same general lines.
I have a good first name term working relationship with most of the Planners, Highways and others at SSDC Planning office in Yeovil, through my role as architect for a new village hall in Montacute, and other projects. Sadly the hall has become stuck in local village politics, with no obvious way forward. It has meant however that for the past 3-4 years I have had a continuous working relationship with Yeovil Planners, so know them well even at a distance.
The first comment I will make is that I am desperately concerned at what has happened with the Planning Application, as I believe it was avoidable, and ultimately a time wasting outcome (over two years). There are some key choices Yeovil Town has to make to come up with a successful Planning Application, which from my knowledge and contact with Planning, is a possibility but with a real rethink.
In April I offered my professional architect assessment of the key areas of the current application and why it was being viewed by SSDC Planning as it was. In the time since the application was made the Planners have stated that there has been no real response from the developer led application, in terms of the key Planning issues, some of which are major, others less so.
To try to demystify the Planning position I would like to offer the following by way of an explanation; I have already shared this with the club. Most is information already in the public domain. The one area of advice I have offered from a new perspective is the future, my own personal way forward .
Planning policy and the application
The proposal for a single large out of town unit is contrary to Planning Policy. There is also the key matter of sequential testing, a term I know will mean little. Essentially for Planning to consider the design for a retail unit at the ground, it has to be shown that all possible empty sites in town have been considered fully. It fails as there are a number of places which are possible.
There is also a test of matching the club’s stated need for a Food Store, with the town’s known capacity and population growth.
There is a Save Local policy attempting to ensure that any new building is built on brown land not green fields.
The submitted impact study was based on out of date figures – this relates to the effect on local villages and shops by the proposed retail unit.
The design of a single large retail unit also causes issue over the high volume of parking.
Planning has noted that there has been an inadequate response to the issue of providing replacement pitches, and similarly the response to highways’ wider concerns has been inconclusive.
There are also other comments from Planning on less key areas of concern, alongside the comments of Sport England and others.
The Future
SSDC Planning are of the view that there has been almost no real response to the issues as they were raised at application stage over two years ago. There therefore needs to be the earliest level of dialogue opened up between the Club and SSDC Planning.
As much as financial considerations are key to the club, they are of much lesser concern to Planning other than to say there needs to be evidence to back up the stance taken by the club over financial aspects of the development and long term thinking.
I am of the view that Planning would support a redevelopment strategy based on two areas of development. Part of this would go on one of available brownfield sites in town itself. The rest would be a more favourable response to a smaller building at the ground itself.
That in turn would take away much of the parking and highways issues. It would reduce the loss of local land. The club would carry out the same level of development , but over two sites not one.
A split site in town offers all sorts of potential to act as a town centre secondary outlet for the club, possibly supporting a minibus link-up (as some clubs such as Leeds, Sheffield or Derby offer fans – I went one at an away day!) with the rail transport network to get visitors to and from the station on match days.
I must add that I am speaking as a fan, and not on behalf of the club or developer. My motivation is my love of YTFC, and sadness at seeing the way the current position has evolved. I make no criticism of any of the club personnel, or application team acting on the clients behalf.
I do however see the essential need for a fresh point of contact acting for the club in all future dealings with Planning over what would be quite different development plans. I hope I have helped to explain the Planning factors in an understandable way, but happy to offer follow ups if needed.
‘Yeovil til I die’
Northern Glover