Skip to content

Devious planning skullduggery and the Stasi Post

March 17, 2011

The evening lost has unrelentingly campaigned for a massive mega-monster-sized Sainsbury hypermarket at Ashton Gate. Now its pretending to be concerned over another shop chain co-op moving in on North St to join the nearby Tesco (x2) Aldi, Lidl and Asda. As if nobody round here new about this. And is it thoughtfully taking up the cudgel on the residents behalf, maybe to pretend to allay some guilt over editor Nortons blanket bias and appalling Stasi-like vendetta and victimisation of politicians, residents and traders? Doubt it.

This is a relentless takeover of high st shopping by the hidden greed merchants who render our politicians powerless to stop them in their billionaire megalomaniac world, and is aided and abetted by the shortsighted and/or bent local rag.

They’ve propped up a devious campaign of confusion by puffing up the so-called enabling argument, despite being told by planning experts that this carries little weight. So despite all the bucket-loads of reasons for chucking out the stupidly big hypermarket that would not stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting passed by anyone other than an oligarch of KGB leaders in a Gaddaffi tent in the forbidden city, sainsbury greed-merchants get the friendly nod from a bunch of swiftly changed planning committee clones, who wouldn’t say boo to a goose.

And the sorry tale of the vain chairman, flying all this way to threaten councillors that he would walk if they didn’t give him his money-grabbing hypermarket. Only to tell the foolish suckers when he got his way, that haha he was  ‘walking anyway’ and had planned to ditch the club (ok pass it on to his son) a frigging YEAR ago!! Like a good pirate, retreating to his treasure island.

I vote we get a statue built for Long John Lansdown and erect it by the Admiral Benbow or The Spyglass, anywhere in fact that the seagulls and pigeons can perch and do their stuff. His faithful cabin boy Evening Lost editor Norton can be alongside, the poodle on his masters leash, the lapdog for his masters voice.

Long John Lansdown and His Masters Voice

Long John Lansdown and His Masters Voice

  1. Richard Lane permalink
    March 18, 2011 8:07 pm

    Do you realise that you are the opposite character of Mike Ford, yet you use all of his irritating analogies, name calling and abusive comments.
    Two offensive commentators yet on opposite ends of the spectrum, congratulations.

  2. Deano permalink
    March 18, 2011 8:22 pm

    Yet, when Mike Ford was making his ” irritating analogies, name calling and abusive comments”, not once did you criticise him for doing so.

    In fact you went out of your way to avoid condeming his comments even when directly asked to do so.

    It is only now, long after the Mike Ford character stopped writing his bile that you suddenly decide to lump SacredSpring in with Mike Ford.

    We know perfectly well why of course. It’s similar reasoning to all those pleas to accept the recent planning decision by people who had refused to accept the previous planning decision.

  3. March 18, 2011 11:32 pm

    Mr Ford of course was none other than Norton’s alter ego, who continued to publish the repugnant diatribes against ordinary people and my neighbours.
    Pity Norton had to align himself so deeply with the Lansdown/Sainsburys conspiracy.
    A statue in their honour for the biggest planning swindle in history is a fitting tribute.
    Lansdown got his way in turning Ashton Gate into the supermarket dustbin of Bristol.
    The man’s achievement is the stuff of legend.

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    March 19, 2011 1:23 am

    I think you’ll find that I frequently distanced myself from Mike Fords comments.
    I’m not going to condemn his comments, he’s entitiled to them, whether you agree or disagree. I agreed with some of his comments but not all, so I can’t condemn them en-mass. I agree with some of the comments made on here but not all.
    His more derogatory comments were made towards groups of people mostly and not individuals and I must say that in my opinion were more based on the truth than some of the comments made on here, which appear to be dreamed up codswallop.
    When have you ever condemned the lies and other derogatory comments made by posters on here? You have not, you have either ignored them or been party to them.
    As for lumping them together after a space in time, so what? Sacredspring is as vile in his comments if not more so than Mike Ford, he always has been. In fact I wonder if Ford modelled his character on Sacredspring.

    I’m sorry but I don’t understand you last paragraph.

    George Ferguson stated in his last post on the Basic site that, we had to now to expect the filth and abuse from the pro Sainsbury lot, after the first decision was made. The truth is, there is just as much filth and abuse coming from the side that was successful in that first meeting, but can’t accept this decision anymore than they expected others to except an earlier decision.

    You continue to link Mr Norton with Mr Lansdown, yet Mike Norton made a public statement during the TVG debate, that he was no friend of Mr Lansdown, yet he knew what was good for Bristol in his opinion. As he represents the voice of the majority of Bristol, as opposed to the politically biased 24/7 , I believe he is entitled to use his and the papers knowledge of it’s readership, gained through the general correspondence to that paper by the biggest readership in the area over many years. To then use that information and make that opinion. Of course you will say that not all of Bristol makes their voices heard through that medium, that is true but they are still the most representative and largest group in the area.

  5. March 19, 2011 8:41 am

    A long way from reality again Mr Lane. So Mike Norton knows that a massive hypermarket is good for Bristol and uses all his power to promote it? And how can you have the memory lapse to compare you and your compatriots campaign of vilification after the first sainsburys planning meeting when the committee was unafraid of debating and discussing the real hypermarket issues? No one I know is personally targetting councillors with any of the kind of threats they endured last time round -that was the official reason why the panel was changed at the last minute, remember?

  6. March 19, 2011 8:57 am

    The Mike Ford fiasco was run and run by the Evening Lost using its circulation to try to drive a Daily Mail type wedge between neighbours. You have to question the editors motives for this personal attack on normal people going about their lives. Its not news.
    I started this blog to give ordinary people the opportunity to have a voice against the unrelenting propaganda machine. If you can’t beat them join them. Blogs like this give ordinary folk the voice against the all-powerful media-mogels and the mega-rich oligarchs who are championed as pillars of capitalist democracy, who think they are beyond criticism.

  7. harryT permalink
    March 19, 2011 4:10 pm

    What I am struggling with is the sheer misinformation being spread by BCFC and BEP and in fact ITV/BBC about the issue.

    Take this below from Otib. This is paraphrasing what Lansdown said about the Town Green applicants on his ITV interview after his resignation. He said the club would bring Judicial Review proceedings:

    “The VG applicants would then have to decide wether to appeal and be prepared to go to court and give evidence under oath and be cross examined by a QC (Barrister) who are experts at exposing lies and getting at the truth. Presumably if they are found to be lying under oath they risk a perjury or contempt charge?

    This is misleading on so many levels:

    1. The club had a QC at the TVG hearing. He cross examined 1 witness for 5 hours, 2 for more than 3 hours and the remaining for at least an hour each. That was why there was only time for 22 witnesses for the Applicants at the hearing. There was more than enough time for all 17 witnesses from the club, whose evidence mainly finished early.

    2. It was the clubs’ witnesses who changed their evidence or were found to be misleading in their evidence. The most important witnesses from the Club changed their evidence from their written sattements and supported the Applicants’ case. The BEP and BBC/TV have never repored this. The lands’ farmers for the whole 20 years and the waste depot manager from’86-’88 changed from their written evidence and supported the Applicants’ case at the hearing. Why, when all the slurs are being thrown about lieing has this not been reported.

    3. In a Judicial Review there can be no witness evidence. The Inspector’s hearing of the evidence was the only evidence allowed. Anything from here on in is legal argument only. Yet ITV allowed the opposite of the truth to go out unchallenged.

    4. The established truth of the Applicants’ evidence was well proven and cannot be challenged, except by proof of the bias of the Inspector. The Inspector was chosen by BCC because of her expertise and experience. She was very well known to the Club’s QC and he certainly made no challenge to her impartiality.

    5. The Applicants will not have to pay the Clubs’ costs, mainly because of what are known as Cost Protection Orders. Each side will only have to pay its own costs.

    The problem is that challenging this misinformation is just so tyring and time consuming. The wealth of BCFC and Sainsburys and Vence and JT Group is so huge and can hire so many people to spend so much time on propaganda that challenging misinformation is a constant battle.

    And in all this, Lane dares tar this site with the same brush of Mike Ford and with the campaigns of violence and threats against the councillors. You are a disgrace Richard Lane and you owe Sacred Spring an ap0logy. This site is the one place only where anyone can dare challenge the Established propaganda.

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    March 19, 2011 10:44 pm

    Mike Norton was not advocating the benefits of the supermarket. As I’ve said, this comment was made at the TVG debate. The reference he was making to being good for Bristol was the stadium over a village green. To obtain the stadium other things need to happen.

    I have had no campaign of vilification or been part of one. I have worked entirely independently from anyone else. I have questioned how the original decision was obtained and whether it was pre determined by some councillors but I have never villified anyone. This is yet another of your smokescreens to try and paint a different picture from reality. The reality is, that from the outset you have attacked everyone with anything to do with the developments in Ashton, from the reporting of plans to anyone in support of those plans, nobody has been spared from your verbal assaults.

    You seem to forget that after Mike Ford came George and his form of indoctrination of the masses into opposing these developments. Both had the paper to thank for promoting their individual opinions onto others.

    You say: “I started this blog to give ordinary people the opportunity to have a voice against the unrelenting propaganda machine”. What a laugh! you are the propoganda machine.
    As for ordinary people, they have had more than their fair share of opinion voiced in the very mediums you claim to be biassed against them.

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    March 19, 2011 11:21 pm

    Harry T
    You are taking personal opinions from the OTIB site, which are from a wide spectrum of posters, all are speculation and you’ve linked this one to Mr Lansdown. He has never been quoted as saying anything of the sort.
    His reference to the judicial review was a statement of intent should events not go as planned or expected.

    Your statement: “And in all this, Lane dares tar this site with the same brush of Mike Ford and with the campaigns of violence and threats against the councillors. You are a disgrace Richard Lane and you owe Sacred Spring an ap0logy”.

    Please take the time to read my statements properly. It would seem that you form opinions and read into things what you want.
    I have stated that in my opinion, Sacredspring is akin to Mike Ford with his vitriolic attacks. I have not said there is a campaign of violence and threats against councillors on this site. It is you that is a disgrace for once more lying about statements I’m supposed to have made. And you claim misinformation.
    There certainly won’t be any apologies from one of the few posters to be able to say that they have been truthful throughout.

    With your references to the procedures at the TVG hearing, it would seem that you are either part of the application or very close to it.
    That would mean that in previous posts you were, either lying when claiming that the only land offered was the wetlands, or, misunderstanding what the offers were when claiming that it’s hard to know what is true, or you are breaching someones confidentiality.
    Which is it, lies, misunderstanding or breaching confidentiality ?

  10. harryT permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:42 am

    Three basic errors Mr Lane

    1. see Lansdown’s interview for ITV following his resignation where he clearly makes the statement I refer to

    2. you seem to be relying upon the BEP statement as to what is occurring in the mediation as being truthful. It is not.

    3. you. Truthful. No dairy cows on the TVG. I say no more.

  11. March 20, 2011 6:51 pm

    Thanks Harryt for a good summary of what is needed in the TVG debate, the true facts. Sadly the Evening Toast and BCFC directors are way off the mark.

    Richard Lane can’t admit that they’ve received a sound thrashing from my razor sharp satire and wit.

    Hypermarket goes against democratic local area plan and damages historic shopping streets and residents and families homes. That’s what Norton and Sexton and the Treasure Island castaway demanded and got. Do they vainly think we should thank them for messing up centuries of history and communities with their grubby money-grabbing Sainsburys monster? The once proud Ashton Gate becomes the supermarket dustbin of Bristol.

  12. Richard Lane permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:16 pm


    I have watched and listened carefully to the interview given by Mr Lansdown to ITV concerning his proposed stepping down from the chairmanship of the club 8 minutes plus were transmitted in the interview I saw.
    Unless there is another interview, which it is possible I’ve missed, then there is certainly no reference whatsoever to judicial proceedings.
    Even if there was in another interview, I would not blame him in the least. He has chosen to take the path of mediation, which proves he would prefer not to take the option of legal action against the applicants for now. But I believe it would happen.

    I am not relying on the BEP as a reference for the truth, the EP states that they believe the wetlands and the land to the south of the site has been offered as a TVG to the applicants. They used the word (believe). It is you that makes the claims of truth or not. If you are in a position of knowing the truth, then you are as I’ve said before, either lying, misunderstanding what has been told to you while at the same time breaking the trust or confidence of someone that is involved in those confidential talks.

    As for cows on the TVG, I stated that I had not seen any and thought it too dangerous for cattle to be grazing on the area of land to be developed for the stadium due to the pipes, concrete blocks, cables, plastic bags, sticks, concrete drains and other general rubbish breaking the surface. As it turns out, I was wrong about the cattle being there, and admitted so. At some time they were allowed or managed to gain access to the field where the stadium is to be built, in fact not long after my statement one of the poor cows had to be rescued from the drainage ditch. There was some evidence of cow shit alongside the dogshit which led to me admitting my error.


    Thanks Harry! This is the Harry that wants the stadium built on Severnside, where there’s no pedestrian access, where everyone would have to be bussed in, or use their cars. And the shops of Ashton and Southville would die along with the area, because of the lost trade from football supporters. Never mind though eh!
    Satire and wit? Sarcasm and shit more like. You have delusions of grandiuer.

  13. BobS permalink
    March 21, 2011 1:11 pm

    “At some time they were allowed or managed to gain access to the field where the stadium is to be built, in fact not long after my statement one of the poor cows had to be rescued from the drainage ditch”

    richard Lane = lier. There have been grazing agreements for dairy cows, stock cattle and sheep for every year since 1950, escept for 86 to 88. If you knew anything about the land, you would know that. If you had read the Inspector’s report you would know that. Why come on here and claim the opposite of the truth.

    Can we also see a copy of your letter to the BEP where you state that you have lunch overlooking the land. Can’t find it on ther BEP site but it was a crock of lies

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    March 21, 2011 7:58 pm


    You are totally mistaken in your accusations.
    If you read my post properly, you will see that I only refer to the field where the stadium is to be built. I have never claimed that cattle do not graze in the other fields, it’s very obvious that they have. I have never questioned whether there are agreements to graze cattle either. You may also notice that I admitted that I was wrong and there was evidence of cows being on the site of the new stadium, even if it was only briefly.
    So how am I claiming otherwise, or to put as you say Lying?

    I think you are probably very emotionally charged and think I have said or written things that upset you when you read them, this leads to your wild reactionary accusations.
    As with other posters, you don’t seem to read the post properly before replying.

    You have no idea what you are talking about regarding where I have my lunch. I don’t need to find a letter to know where I’ve had my lunch.
    You have no way of knowing if what I’m saying, or have said is true. The only thing that is true about your references to me is that they are wrong. So using your theory you are lying.

    For your reference, I have eaten my lunch while overlooking the site from Silbury Rd and also wat the southern end by the trading estate. I have visited the site with my wife (twice) with work colleagues and on my own, totalling about twelve times now. At no time have I seen anyone other than people walking their dog (two from memory), or doing what I was, looking at where the new stadium is to be sited.
    So to sum up your post. They are a crock of lies born from misunderstandings.

  15. BobS permalink
    March 21, 2011 9:18 pm

    Why do you do it Rich ?

    The stadium field is the main field for grazing. That is the farmers’ evidence. Why do you continue to claim that it isn’t ? Cows are on the stadium site year after year when grazing. This is the first year they won’t be there.

    Why do you come on here and make stuff up ? This isn’t Otib. People here know what happens on this land. Its in the Inspector’s report is you want to check.

    And you cannot see the land from either of the sites you say you watched it from. There are large hedgerows in the way. Why do you make it up? If you really had been to the site you would know that.

  16. Richard Lane permalink
    March 21, 2011 9:40 pm


    When will it get through to you that I have not claimed the cows grazed there?

    Bob, if you go to the trading estate, the fields are clearly visible through the hedgerows. The oak trees are visible, as are the backs of houses and the wetlands with clear views through to the car auction site. I’ve even walked through those hedgerows (that some describe as a copse) to get better views. Obviously the visibility will vary depending on the time of year and density of foliage when you are looking. If you go to where the garages are, off of Silbury Rd, next to the site of the proposed stadium, by the concrete bridge over the stream, where the boulders are in the muddy patch, the concrete blocks and steel tubes in the stream. You have clear views of the site as well as from the slightly raised up section of Silbury Rd, which is where I park when viewing the site, so as not to intrude on the locals.
    Now, don’t try and tell me what I can and can’t see, or whether I’ve been to the site.

    To use your tactics, why do you lie?

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    March 21, 2011 9:41 pm

    I meant, claimed they have not grazed there, remember I admitted I got it wrong.

  18. March 21, 2011 10:21 pm

    Garages were demolished a good while ago-obviously no real grasp of facts.
    Lane’s persistant tirade of misinformation is really boring and tiresome, but no doubt it gives him some perverted pleasure.

  19. Deano permalink
    March 21, 2011 10:44 pm

    Obviously Lane hasn’t been there since;

    1) The garages were demolished
    2) Since the environment agency went through and cleared Colliter’s Brook all the way from the Brookgate Industrial Estate down to Winterstoke Road including any concrete blocks or steel tubes (imaginary or otherwise)

    Last time they did that Lane put a comment up on the OTIB site warning City fans that the Ashton Vale residentals were tidying the stream – how dare they? This didn’t stop him from going back on the BASICS site to argue that the stream was still full of rubbish.

    Note to Mr Lane and other people not familiar with the land – once a year the Environment Agency have a statutory obligation to ensure that the streams and ditches are clear of any blockages (including rubbish, concrete blocks, steel tubes and unfortunate cows) in order to alleviate the flood risk because, being in a flood risk zone, it is liable to..umm…flooding.

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    March 22, 2011 9:54 pm


    Sorry I should obviously have said where the garages were. I didn’t take much notice of that site to be honest, still at least we’ve established that I have been there.
    Do you want to meet and see the steel tube and concrete blocks in the ditch? You’ll find them to the left of the concrete bridge when looking towards the stadium site on the far bank. If the E A clean the ditch annually, then they must unearth even more of the landfil site as they do so.

    As for your other inaccurate selective comments. I didn’t say they were tidying the stream, I said the stream and fields looked like they had been tidied up prior to the inspectors visit.
    Even if it had been cleaned up, there was and I believe still, is rubbish in the stream, as there is all over the site of the new stadium. So my statements are and were accurate, whether to the Basics site, on OTIB or here.

  21. Richard Lane permalink
    March 22, 2011 10:04 pm

    Who’s next to have a pop at Lane?
    Still waters hasn’t been heard of for a while, though he has commented on the EP site. Perhaps he thinks there’s more readers on there.
    I do wonder if the applicants and associates have been advised to avoid public comments, but that leaves Harry!

    Some of you lot must have better things to do than trawl sites searching for my quotes with the hope of finding a snippet of ammunition. Sad !

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    March 22, 2011 10:17 pm

    You say: “Obviously Lane hasn’t been there since;

    2) Since the environment agency went through and cleared Colliter’s Brook all the way from the Brookgate Industrial Estate down to Winterstoke Road including any concrete blocks or steel tubes (imaginary or otherwise)”.

    You follow that with a contradictory comment : “Last time they did that Lane put a comment up on the OTIB site warning City fans that the Ashton Vale residentals were tidying the stream”.
    How could I have made the comment about the stream being cleaned, if I hadn’t been there, since it was cleaned. As usual the flaws are there in your claims. If your going to try and rubbish my statements, at least try and get yours nearly correct.
    I actually said it had been tidied.

  23. March 23, 2011 7:26 am

    Triple post backpedalling-impressive.
    The point is the herd mentality of Lane trying to portray one of the few Bristol streams, Colliters Brook, as some kind of rubbish tip when in reality it is a valuable wildlife natural resource.
    The litter problem is something that he shouild know about. Residents near Ashton gate testified about the removal of beer cans and fast-food rubbish from front gardens after match days.
    The planning Skullduggery includes misinformation about the TVG and Sainsburys giant shop-the enabling argument is a con-trick to enable a massive store to ram-road through planning consent, against the adopted Bristol Plan.

  24. Deano permalink
    March 23, 2011 1:16 pm


    I said very clearly that

    “once a year the Environment Agency have a statutory obligation to ensure that the streams and ditches are clear …..”

    So it is obvious that you have not visited the site since the most recent annual clearance, and that when they had cleared it last time (i.e the time previous to the most recent clearance), you tried to say it was the local residents tidying/cleaning up because, as per normal, you were ignorant of something that happens on an annual basis because you know litte or nothing about the land in question.

    Try reading AND understanding comments properly before making yourself look a tit.

    PS Just because you have the memory span of a Goldfish, resulting in you repeatedly writing statements contradicting yourself because you can’t remember what you had previously said only a few days or weeks previously don’t assume the rest of us have similar limitations. There is no need to trawl sites for your comments, some of us remember your blatant lies even if you prefer not to…..

  25. Richard Lane permalink
    March 23, 2011 9:31 pm


    If you start the insults I’ll return them.

    You made very clear contradictory comments about me not having visited the site and then implying that I had visited the site. Now if you want to look a tit, look no further than DEANO. If I had the memory span of a goldfish it would be infinately longer than yours, as you can’t remember making those comments. Or most likely, it’s another case of back tracking to deflect from your cock ups, by spouting another load of bullshit abuse?
    You can tell when someone is losing an argument, they start abusing the opponent.
    You admitted defeat with your first derogatory comment, ie: “Obviously Lane hasn’t been there since”

    I never said the residents were cleaning the stream. ” I said the stream and fields looked like they had been tidied up prior to the inspectors visit”. But because of your lack of memory, you could not remember, as it was more than one sentence ago.

    I inspected the stream and field today. The steel tube from the stream has gone, or is no longer visible. What is visible is an assortment of concrete blocks, paving slabs, bottles, cans, bricks, a steel spring, a vast variety of different plastics from rubble bags to tubs protruding from the banks and the bed of the stream. It is generally a poor representation of what is described as a babbling brook on the Ashtonvale heritage site.
    These are not items that have been thrown into the stream, they are as a result of the landfil site spilling into the stream. They are the same type of items that protrude the surface in several areas of the field.
    Now before you say they are only there because of Lansdowns contractors. I have scoured the satellite images of that field using the timeline facility. Those same areas of scrubland where the detritus breaks the surface, are highlighted in historical images before any contractors went near to that field. The reason they are scrubland, is because nothing will grow through the plastic bags, cable, concrete blocks and timber which breaks through the surface.

    I’ll once more offer to meet you and show you the rubbish strewn stream and fields. No doubt you’ll ignore the invitation and instead carry out another load of personal abuse, which we’ve come to expect from you.

  26. Richard Lane permalink
    March 23, 2011 9:46 pm


    Are we talking about Ashtonvale or Ashton gate? “The litter problem is something that he should know about. Residents near Ashton gate testified about the removal of beer cans and fast-food rubbish from front gardens after match days”.
    Since when have football fans been getting fast food wrappers, beer cans and, going to the stream and depositing that rubbish in the stream. That’s leaft to the locals with their grass cuttings, tree lobbing, furniture and garden fires to do.

    You and everyone from Ashtonvale know that there will be no access for football fans into the stadium from Ashton vale. The situation will be infinately better than at present for the local residents, as there will be a residents only parking scheme. This does not exist at present and no football supporters other than those invited will be in the area.

  27. March 23, 2011 11:08 pm

    I inspected the stream and field today.

    Yes Ashton Gate=Ashton Gate as in the locals have to fill up bin bags from their gardens after match days. Must be all the away supporters obviously
    Congratulations on your visit to the special site of nature conservation-you should get out a bit more.
    Maybe a pleasant jog along the Avon gorge or the New Cut by Asda, you could do more litter and shopping trolley spotting, and slag off the Avon Gorge and the New Cut as well. There’s far more rubbish in these beauty spots. I suggest a new pair of glasses that starts to see the wonderful natural resources we need to protect and cherish. Take a few more walks along the brook and you may spot the kingfisher dipping in the water, the heron doing a spot of fishing.
    Your description of the brook and meadow is not worth the internet space its written on.

  28. Richard Lane permalink
    March 24, 2011 12:46 pm


    As we were previously discussing the rubbish in Ashton vale, I wondered how you could link it to the rubbish accumilated after football matches in Ashton Gate. Obviously you are trying to apportion blame for the rtubbish in the stream and on the site of the new stadium to football supporters, as if it’s been deposited there by them and not as part of the landfil operation. You then deviate even further to include the Avon Gorge and the New cut.

    I think it is you that needs glasses, the type that are not rose tinted when surveying the former tip. I acknowledge that there is wildlife in those areas. You on the other hand positively refuse to accept the truth, that there is rubbish from the landfil site polluting both the stream and the field, if not chemically then at least visually.

    We all know that wildlife will survive in hosts of different environs, an eagle owl made it’s home in central Bristol last year, on top of the university. The important thing here is that those environs in Ashton vale and at Ashton gate will be increased in both size and quality and will further the amount and variety of wildlife in those improved areas. You argue against affecting the wildlife on one hand, yet on the other try to stop the improvements to that wildlife habitat. Kingfishers, Herons and the like will not be put off by a stadium, they co exist and have done for decades amongst the chemical works and other industrial sites of Avonmouth. And will thrive in the new habitats being provided.

Comments are closed.