The story so far! Hopefully the Non League Paper will be interested - even if just for "filler" in the event that a lot of matches get "rained off" one weekend.
BRISTOL ROVERS v SAINSBURY’S A "fixture" to be held in mid-May which will have a huge impact on the future history of Bristol Rovers and their plans to develop a new 21,700 all-seater stadium near the University of the West of England in Stoke Gifford, Bristol.
EXPEDITED TRIAL IN THE BRISTOL ROVERS v SAINSBURY’S LITIGATIONOn Monday 9th February 2015 at a contested hearing in the Chancery Division Mr Justice Roth ordered that a claim for breach of contract brought by Bristol Rovers football club against Sainsbury’s Supermarkets should be expedited on the basis that the claim had an objective urgency which justified it “jumping the queue”. The expedited trial will take place in mid-May of this year.
David Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie represented Bristol Rovers at the hearing, and sought the order for expedition with detailed directions to facilitate a speedy trial.
In 2011 Bristol Rovers contracted to sell Sainsbury’s the site of their football stadium for a superstore-led mixed use redevelopment. It was envisaged that the funds from the sale – some £30 million – would enable the club to construct a new state-of-the-art stadium on the campus of the University of the West of England.
Bristol Rovers claims that, in breach of the contract, Sainsbury’s failed to use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that a satisfactory planning permission for the proposed superstore was granted and acted in bad faith in respect of their contractual obligations towards the club. As a result it seems clear that the delivery of the new stadium will be a significantly more complex and expensive enterprise than had originally been anticipated.
The judge also ordered Sainsbury’s to undertake an onerous disclosure exercise which, he ruled, must be completed within the next 7 weeks. Sainsbury’s had argued that the exercise could not be accomplished within less than 3 months and indicated that they would not be ready for trial before 2016.
Not suprisingly the case has already generated significant public interest. The Bristol Post reported on Monday’s hearing here:
www.bristolpost.co.uk/Key-hearing-pushed-forward-Bristol-Rovers-plans/story-25997409-detail/story.htmlDavid Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie appeared for Bristol Rovers and were instructed directly by Jim Tarzey of Pegasus Planning. They were assisted by Burges Salmon who are also instructed on behalf of Bristol Rovers.
Sources:
www.ftb.eu.com/2015-news/expedited-trial-in-the-bristol-rovers-v-sainsburys-litigation.aspbristolroverssc.co.uk/2015/02/13/aim-4-long-grass/NEW STADIUM UPDATE: Bristol Rovers Statement12:30 10th February 2015
Bristol Rovers is today one step closer to a prompt outcome in its dispute with Sainsbury’s over the sale of the Memorial Stadium, Bristol. The sale will fund the development of a new stadium at land next to the University of the West of England.
The Club issued a claim against Sainsbury’s in December seeking court orders clearing the way for the sale of the stadium. This followed the Club’s successful planning application removing the final planning hurdles to the development of the stadium site by Sainsbury’s.
Sainsbury’s is nevertheless refusing to complete the purchase, instead claiming that it is not bound by the planning permission and that this was not obtained in time under the terms of its contract with the Club.
The Club sought an order from the court that the claims should be heard as soon as possible, given the importance of the new stadium scheme to the Club, UWE and to North Bristol. At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial. The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015.
The Club remains confident that its claim against Sainsbury’s will succeed and therefore anticipates that its stadium development and relocation plan should be back on track by July 2015.
No further comment will be made by the club at this time.
Read more at
www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-update-2260093.aspxKey hearing pushed forward for Bristol Rovers' plans to build new stadium and sell old one to Sainsbury'sBy The Bristol Post | Posted: February 09, 2015
A hearing date for Bristol Rovers' new stadium plans has been pushed forward
One of the country’s top judges at London’s High Court today fast-tracked a key court hearing in Bristol Rovers' plans to build a new stadium and sell the Memorial Ground to Sainsbury’s.
Mr Justice Roth scheduled the seven day hearing to begin between May 11 and 15 after being told that it is vital for the club to know by June whether it can hold supermarket giants, Sainsbury's, to a £30m deal to buy the current stadium.
At the end of the May hearing, the judge will almost certainly reserve judgment to give a written decision, probably in June.
However, in view of the urgency of the matter he could give an off the cuff decision immediately at the end of the legal argument and then give his reasons in writing at a later date.
Rovers – whose lawyer David Matthias QC told the court - were currently "in the doldrums" in the Conference Premier following relegation from the Football League - seek to boost their fortunes by leaving the 12,000 capacity Memorial Stadium and moving to a new 21,700 all-seater stadium near the University of the West of England in Stoke Gifford.
However, Mr Mathias said that the June date was important for keeping the University on board with the scheme.
There have been complications over plans for a shared car park used by the University during the week, and the stadium on match days, he said.
He told the court that it was felt that, if a result was known by June, it was likely that the University would "bear with us".
In addition to seeking to hold Sainsbury’s to the deal the club also seeks damages for alleged breach of agreement by Sainsbury's. However, in respect of the latter part of their claim any compensation would have to be assessed at a second trial if the club are successful at the May hearing.
Sainsbury's say that planning conditions were not met by a cut-off date last year, and so they were entitled to terminate the deal which was to buy the Memorial Stadium for just short of £30m.
They seek a declaration from the court that the contract with the club is at an end - which would come as a devastating blow to Rovers' hopes of completing the move.
Sainsbury's lawyer Mark Wonnacott QC agreed with the club that it was desirable that the hearing should be fast-tracked.
He told the judge: "If we're stuck with this contract it's as much in our interest to know that quickly as it is the club's."
Read more:
www.bristolpost.co.uk/Key-hearing-pushed-forward-Bristol-Rovers-plans/story-25997409-detail/story.htmlTimeline: Bristol Rovers' stadium supermarket campaign2011:Site of the proposed Bristol Rovers stadium The proposed site of the Bristol Rovers stadium is alongside the University of the West of England
June: Bristol Rovers Football Club proposes a move to a new £40m stadium near the city's ring road.
December: Contracts are signed for a new Bristol Rovers stadium. The football club reached a deal with University of the West of England (UWE) and Sainsbury's so it can build a new stadium on university ground.
line break
2012:Bristol Rovers proposed new stadium from above The football club wants to move to a new 21,700-seat stadium in Frenchay
April: Hewlett Packard criticises UWE Stadium plans in its submission to the planning process, primarily on the ground that it would devalue neighbouring commercial properties.
May: A planning application to develop a supermarket on the site of a football stadium in Bristol is submitted to the city council.
July: South Gloucestershire councillors approve plans for 21,700 seat stadium on UWE land. They vote 12-1 for the development at Stoke Gifford subject to certain conditions.
November: Bristol City Council delays its decision on whether the Memorial Stadium can be redeveloped by Sainsbury's. It says it wants more time to consider the effect a stadium would have on traffic in the area.
line break
2013:January: Plans for a supermarket and 65 homes and apartments at Bristol Rovers' Memorial Stadium are backed by Bristol City Council. The plans are referred to the government for approval.
14 January: A petition on the Bristol City Council web site supporting the Sainsbury's plans is signed by 1,750 people.
March: The government gives the go-ahead for plans to build a supermarket on the football ground in Bristol.
September: Campaigners TRASHorfield submit request to the High Court for judicial review into the Sainsbury's planning application. The Green party donates to the judicial review fund.
November: A High Court judge rules a judicial review into plans for a supermarket at the Bristol Rovers football ground can go ahead. Bristol mayor George Ferguson and Bristol MP Charlotte Leslie speak out against it and urge people to sign a petition opposing the judicial review.
line break
2014:Bristol Rovers fans at Downing St Bristol Rovers fans handed in a petition with more than 13,000 signatures to Downing Street
5 March: A petition in support of Bristol Rovers' plans to sell their football ground to Sainsbury's is handed in to Downing Street.
13 March: Judicial Review held at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre before Justice Hickinbottom. Bristol Rovers chairman, Nick Higgs, says it is "excellent news" a final decision will be revealed on 20 March.
20 March: Justice Hickinbottom dismisses the judicial review paving the way for the supermarket - and stadium - to be built.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-2654432625 August: Bristol Rovers issued a writ against supermarket chain Sainsbury's for what it claims to be breaches of contract over the planned redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium. According to the writ, the supermarket chain's position is that unless the planning condition over lorry deliveries could be changed, then the planning consent was not acceptable.
www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-insist-stadium-ahead-despite/story-22818740-detail/story.html12 November: Bristol Rovers gained permission for extended delivery hours (5am – midnight) for the proposed supermarket at the Memorial Stadium.
www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2014/re/re9/1112_7-1.pdfBristol Rovers' new stadium bid: How events unfoldedMarch 28, 2011: Bristol Rovers signs a contract to sell the Memorial Stadium to Sainsbury's, subject to a number of conditions.
If all of these conditions were satisfied then the supermarket chain was obliged to buy the site for the purchase price, believed to be £20million.
Advertisement
But one of them deals with planning permission being acceptable to Sainsbury's to build a new store.
The contract explains that restricting the number of delivery lorries to the new store between 5am and midnight on any day and limiting the unladen weight of the vehicles would not be acceptable.
May 4, 2012: Sainsbury's submits a planning application to Bristol City Council for the redevelopment of the ground with a new store, car parking, 65 new homes and community facilities.
June 14, 2013: The city council grants planning permission.
July 10, 2013: Sainsbury's informs the club that the planning permission is not acceptable because it breaches three conditions. The club waives two of them but the condition about deliveries remains outstanding.
November 2013: The pressure group TRASHorfield starts a legal challenge to stop a new store being built at the ground.
In the same month, the club becomes concerned that Sainsbury's "did not sincerely wish" for the sale to be completed. These concerns were fuelled by newspaper reports that supermarket chains were pulling out of building large new stores in order to concentrate on smaller High Street outlets which were considered more profitable.
The writ says such reports culminated in March 2014 with announcements by Sainsbury's that it was proposing to pull out of 15 large schemes, to write off up-front costs of about £92 million.
By the end of the month, the club became even more concerned because Sainsbury's did not appear to be actively supporting the council in its opposition to the TRASHorfield campaign.
November 27, 2013: Sainsbury's submits an application to the city council to vary the planning condition so that delivery lorries could turn up at the new store between 5am and midnight on any day of the week. The application was accompanied by a noise assessment.
November 28, 2013: Concerns were raised over Sainsbury's new store policy at a meeting between club chairman Nick Higgs and finance director Toni Watola with Ben Littman, the supermarket chain's regional development manager.
Mr Higgs stressed the importance of the new store with the club's hopes of building a new stadium and that any delays had serious financial consequences, particularly the rising building costs.
January 28, 2014: The council's planning officers refuse permission for varying the condition and the deadline for an appeal is set as July 28, 2014.
Around February 12: Mr Watola speaks to Mr Littman about the supermarket chain's intentions.
The writ says: "Mr Littman responded that he believed that the defendant (Sainsbury's) was entitled to terminate the contract by reason of there being a Store Onerous Condition attached to the permission and that the defendant intended to do so at the earliest possible date.
"The claimant's (Bristol Rovers) concerns that the defendant did not wish the sale to be completed were accordingly confirmed."
The club disputed Sainsbury's right to terminate the contract and in a solicitor's letter told the supermarket chain that it was obliged to lodge an appeal against planning refusal to varying the condition on deliveries to the new store.
February 26: Sainsbury's informs the club that it will not lodge an appeal.
March 20: TRASHorfield's legal challenge is dismissed in the High Court.
April 2: TRASHorfield confirms that it would not appeal against the ruling.
April 16: The club tells Sainsbury's that it does not believe a restriction on delivery lorries amounted to a Store Onerous Condition and offered to pay the costs of an appeal against planning refusal.
May 9: Mr Higgs repeats his offer to Sainsbury's to bear the costs of an appeal.
May 16: The club commissions independent acoustic experts to assess the noise implications of varying the planning permission on deliveries.
June 12: The experts came back to say there would be no detrimental effect on local residents if mitigating measures were taken and extra ones implemented.
June 22: The club were told by a leading barrister in planning law that an appeal had a 60 per cent chance of succeeding.
June 23: The club informs Sainsbury's of the barrister's opinion and repeats offer to pay for an appeal and any extra mitigating measures that might be needed. The club also pointed out that a refusal to take up these offers would be a breach of contract.
July 23: The two sides eventually agree that Sainsbury's would lodge an appeal while the club would pursue its own variation of the planning consent.
25 August: Bristol Rovers issued a writ against supermarket chain Sainsbury's for what it claims to be breaches of contract over the planned redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium. According to the writ, the supermarket chain's position is that unless the planning condition over lorry deliveries could be changed, then the planning consent was not acceptable.
www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-insist-stadium-ahead-despite/story-22818740-detail/story.htmlThe writ alleges Sainsbury's had breached its contract, meaning that the club had therefore suffered loss and damage.
It claims the club has incurred legal fees amounting to £138,201 and £200,000 in increased building costs. The writ, dated August 1, also claims VAT on the damages, and further legal costs.
Read more:
www.bristolpost.co.uk/events-unfolded/story-22818770-detail/story.html12 November: Bristol Rovers gained permission for extended delivery hours (5am – midnight) for the proposed supermarket at the Memorial Stadium.
www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2014/re/re9/1112_7-1.pdf20 January 2015: Bristol Rovers to take Sainsbury's to High Court
Bristol Rovers have confirmed that they will take supermarket Sainsbury's to the High Court in an final attempt to save their hopes of building a new £40 million stadium.
Speaking on their website, the club published this statement:
It is with regret that we have felt it necessary to revert to High Court action to complete our contract with Sainsbury’s but it was felt that this course of action was necessary to allow us to invest in our new stadium at UWE.
– Bristol Rovers website
Plans for a new stadium have been uncertain since Sainsbury's announced a dramatic cutback in new stores following a slump in profits.
A hearing is due to be heard in the High Court next month where the club will try to persuade a judge that Sainsbury's have entered into a contract to buy the site, which should be honoured.
www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-01-20/bristol-rovers-to-take-sainsburys-to-high-court/www.bristolpost.co.uk/Going-courtLast-ditch-bid-save-stadium-dream/story-25891520-detail/story.html