Taken from The Post.... please log in to view this image ONE of the prime movers behind a legal challenge which could bring plans to build Bristol Rovers Football Club’s new stadium to a grinding halt has been labelled undemocratic for launching the campaign. Councillor Daniella Radice, leader of Bristol’s Green Party, has denied accusations that she is “spitting in the face of democracy” by backing a judicial review which could cost the city council thousands of pounds in legal fees. Ms Radice is one of a group of campaigners who set up a limited company called Trash with the sole purpose of launching the judicial review calling into question the decision to grant Sainsbury’s planning permission to redevelop the club’s Memorial Stadium. The new supermarket is a key part of the plans as it will pave the way financially for Rovers’ new stadium in South Gloucestershire. The legal challenge is expected to cost council-taxpayers at least £100,000 in legal and consultants’ fees and council officers’ time. And there has been widespread criticism that by setting up a limited company the people behind the move will not be liable financially for legal costs. Stella Perrett, from Redland, has written to Bristol City Council and Ms Radice to complain about the move. Ms Perrett believes the decision by Ms Radice to become a director of a firm which has issued a legal challenge to the council is unprecedented. Ms Perrett said: “The issue is not that there is a call for a judicial review, or who funds it. The issue is an elected member being a director of the company set up to pursue the judicial review. In my opinion, as an observer of this council for 34 years, since I was 19, and also a participant in the democratic process, Councillor Radice is spitting in the face of democracy – and I am sure it appears that way to many other voters. Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. Many councillors take a position on issues and give their vocal support to pressure groups, but I believe it is Ms Radice’s position on this limited company that is totally incompatible with her role as an elected member. She should stand down from one or the other. Ms Radice’s position is directly comparable to an employee of a company who had taken a similar course of action to challenge the decisions of their employer – it would be a sackable offence.” However, Ms Radice claims there is no conflict of interest. Ms Radice said: “If I were an employee of the council then there would be a conflict of interest. I am not a member of the planning committee and was not involved in the decision-making process so I do not think there is an issue. My responsibility as a councillor is to represent the people of Bristol and as far as I am concerned that is what I am doing. As a group we have always made our position in relation to supermarkets perfectly clear.” Ms Radice denied that the decision to launch a limited company was anything to do with money. She claims the creation of Trash is linked to the legal process and the nature of the legal challenge.
Bizarre you would have thought that a supermarket was preferable to the locals than a football and rugby club with all the issues surrounding supporters. Assume also that the local properties would enjoy an uplift in prices with the sports facilities no longer in situ. A tenuous argument on both counts Ms Radice COR
“If I were an employee of the council then there would be a conflict of interest. I am not a member of the planning committee and was not involved in the decision-making process so I do not think there is an issue. My responsibility as a councillor is to represent the people of Bristol and as far as I am concerned that is what I am doing. As a group we have always made our position in relation to supermarkets perfectly clear.” Only until the next local election you tree hugging backward thinking bitch.
Update: Councillor Daniella Radice has replied to the post with the following statement........... "You should not believe everything you read in the papers ! I am not anti-football. Football is a fantastic sport and I really enjoyed seeing Englandâs women beat New Zealand at the Olympics last year. I would like to see a new stadium built for Rovers at UWE, but not at a cost we can all afford. So why am I part of a group pursuing a judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission to Sainsburyâs? The right to judicially review is a fundamental part of the democratic process. None of us ever know if we may one day be on the wrong side of a flawed decision that we may need to chalIenge. I do not criticise those who apply for judicial reviews of the decisions to give permission to wind turbines, even though I support those things, because it is important that councils makes their decisions lawfully and fairly. The UK planning system does not have a third party right of appeal as they do in many other countries. Judicial reviews are not to be undertaken lightly which why substantial sums of money are needed to pursue them. So far, many, many, individuals in our city have given money to our judicial review fund. We formed company for reasons of solidarity as we knew that it would not be an entirely popular course of action. With my fellow directors I am jointly responsible in a way that we could not have achieved if any one individual fronted the application Forming a Ltd company is actually financially disadvantageous. Under the Aarhus Convention a company needs to raise a, âprotective costs orderâ of double that of an individual, increasing the amount needed from £5,000 to £10,000. Planning should be a process by which we PLAN what is to go where in a city. The council had to go against its own policies to give permission to a supermarket at this location, what confidence does that give us in our planning policies? The supermarket will generate a large volume of traffic at this important part of Bristolâs road network and has been shown by the Councilâs own independent retail advisors to have a huge impact on the Gloucester Road town centre, taking £7.7 million a year away each year. We believe the process was flawed for the following reasons: ⢠The council relied on an undefined and untested retail mitigation package to offset the significant impact the supermarket would have on the Gloucester Road Town Centre. This is no small mistake, if your livelihood and community depends on this high street then you would expect the Council to do all possible to protect you from the harm of an out-of-centre supermarket. ⢠The planning committee were not given an accurate account of the calculated effects of the supermarket on Gloucester Road Town Centre in the Officerâs report or at the committee meeting. This lead the committee to believe that Gloucester Road Town Centre was not significantly affected by the development. I stood for election talking about my involvement in Trashorfield and opposing this development, and have always been open about my views so no one can say I have misled them." http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Green-...launch-legal/story-19916682-detail/story.html the comments at the bottome by readers are interesting!!
