‘There should not be reasons for the arena decision that are not public’

A cross-party group of councillors has ‘called-in’ the decision to scrap the arena at Temple Meads to expose issues not considered. A panel will determine if the decision should be reviewed to take account of all the evidence previously not revealed.

It is clear that this decision was made some time ago and conflicting options were dismissed while a string of announcements and actions paved the way for the financial site decision. This is a balance sheet approach rather than demonstrating support for the greater value of sustaining our city in the face of challenge from a Filton/Cribbs Causeway axis, which the mayor’s decision encourages.

The Liberal Democrats want to expose the huge financial and risks to reputation, the failure to be open about dealings with the Filton developers, efforts to neutralise the Temple Island site for an arena, undermining our own Local Plan and planning process and launching the tall-buildings policy, which makes the arena site more attractive for private commercial developments.

We want to know why Harvey Goldsmith’s private offer to build the arena was not taken into consideration, despite it overcoming the mayor’s often-stated concern about debt arising from a public scheme, and even though he also has not considered offers from the present developers to resolve this.

As his usual practise, the mayor said no decision had been made until revealed in the key papers selectively released only six days before the Cabinet. But we now know the die was cast many months ago. The Lib Dems asked him to delay his decision until after the next Full Council, five working days later. He refused, which forced us to call a special meeting with support from all parties. This favoured building the arena at Temple Island. The following day the Mayor rejected that council decision.

There should not be reasons for this decision that are not public. What we do know is that some information and approaches and machinations have not been revealed.  If this decision must be made by one individual, there is even more obligation on consulting as widely as possible on freely available information with no dark corners.

The early sell-off of the adjacent site to the University of Bristol killed the flexibility and potential for supportive development to the arena. The Freedom of Information process released an email trail showing BCC officers working for 15 costly months to neutralise the Temple Island site, to ease the Filton Arena developers’ planning application. Further revelations show officers moving jobs between rival sites and other private bids to deliver a city centre arena ignored by the mayor.

The mayor has done all in his power to talk down the economic, social and cultural benefits of an arena at Temple Island. He has described it as a “vanity project”, wrongly said that the arena will create massive debt, and has said that public arena money cannot be used by YTL for a Filton Arena when emails show that it is essential for its viability.

Bristol deserves better. Better, braver, clearer, faster, more open and honest decisions. Decisions sound enough to sustain open challenge. I believe the mayor’s personal choice will damage the wellbeing and future of this city. Public opinion and the majority of councillors agree with me. That’s why we will keep fighting.

Anthony Negus is a Liberal Democrat councillor for Cotham.