Work on Ashton Vale stadium could start in autumn

Work could start on a new 30,000-seat stadium at Ashton Vale in the autumn.

But this depends on whether there is a legal challenge to last night's council decision to register part of the development site as a town green.

Councillors decided to register the southern section of the site as a town green – but not the former landfill tip in the north of the site where the new £92-million stadium would be built.

The club and fans now have a nailbiting three-month wait to see if the council's "split-site" decision is challenged in the courts.

After the landmark decision, the club's chief executive Guy Price said: "All things being equal, we would hope to see a start on the new stadium in the autumn.

"But we will have to be confident there will be no legal challenge to the council's decision before we can go ahead."

The meeting saw emotions run high after the council's eight-member Public Rights of Way committee voted in favour of the recommendation for the split-site option by six votes to two.

Alderman Peter Crispin, a former Labour Councillor for Bedminster ward, described the decision as a "travesty of justice".

"When you get a result you don't like at the independent inquiry, you don't just throw the ball away," he said.

He described the mediation talks as a sham and the additional evidence that was submitted by the club as "mythical".

Committee chairman Peter Abraham was barracked as he left the chamber but later insisted the decision was fair and lawful.

He said: "I have spent the last few weeks checking whether a decision which takes into account this additional evidence would be lawful and all the legal advice that I was given was that it would be."

But Steve Micklewright from the Avon Wildlife Trust, who submitted a statement in favour of making the entire 42-acre site a town green, said the additional evidence should have been tested the same as the original evidence – with an independent inquiry.

He said: "My worry is because this has not gone back to an inquiry, then it will be tested in the courts and if it goes as far as the House of Lords, then it could take three or four years to resolve."

Stephen McNamara, the council's top lawyer who advised members, said the council would have to wait three months to see if there was a legal challenge, known as a judicial review.

Will Godfrey, the council's strategic director for corporate services, told the meeting that it was right for him to consider the additional evidence because the council had a duty to reach a fair decision. He said on the balance of probabilities, the northern area of the site did not pass the test for being registered as a town green because during the past 20 years, it had been used as a land tip or was in the process of remediation.

In order to qualify as a town green, local people must prove the site was used continuously for 20 years for pastimes and recreational use. Mr Godfrey said the southern area of the site did pass the test and should be registered.

Mr McNamara spelled out at the start of the meeting that the test for town green status did not take into account what the land might be used for in the future – it was only looking backwards at the historical use of the site.

Mr Price was asked after the meeting why the additional evidence was not submitted to the town green inquiry held last year.

He replied it took a long time to research and bring it all together.

Green Councillor Tess Green, who has supported the town green campaigners, said she was very disappointed with the decision.

She said: "It doesn't give the people of Ashton Vale what they want. It would be much better at Filton on the former airfield where there is easy access to the motorways."

Linda Stone, one of the Ashton Vale residents who applied for the site to be registered as a town green, declined to comment.

After a public forum session, the committee was briefed by the council's chief executive Jan Ormondroyd.

She said the committee could refer the matter back to the inspector, which would take time and both parties had indicated they wanted to avoid any delays.

The committee could go with the inspector and register the whole 42 acres or it could choose not to register any of the site.

The fourth option, which was recommended in the report, was to part-register the site.

She said whatever decision they took, there was a risk of the council facing a legal challenge.

Mr McNamara made clear that the committee was not obliged to follow the inspector's recommendation and neither did they have to refer back the additional evidence to her for further examination.

The report before the committee outlined the additional evidence including statements by nearly 50 residents, aerial photographs, evidence about the tip, farming evidence on the use of land for grazing and a consultants' survey in 1993, which suggested part of the site was damp, flooded or impassable.

Committee member Councillor Alex Woodman (Lib Dem, Cabot) said he would like to see the matter referred back to the inspector so the additional evidence could be tested under cross examination.

Councillor Neil Harrison (Lib Dem, Cotham) asked why the additional evidence was not submitted to the inquiry. Mr Godfrey replied he did not know but it was only fair he should have taken it into consideration before putting his recommendation to the committee.

After the session on questions ended, the chairman Councillor Abraham moved the recommendation in favour of the split-site option should be approved. His motion was seconded by Councillor Kevin Quartley (Con, Bishopsworth).

The committee then voted 6-2 in favour of the recommendation, with Councillors Woodman and Harrison voting against.

The other councillors in favour were Chris Davies (Lib Dem, Knowle); Peter Main (Lib Dem, Brislington West); Chris Jackson (Lab, Filwood); and Derek Pickup (Lab, Hartcliffe).