Halfbaked Hopkins

In the ongoing online discussions on this Post story about the mayoral election Lib Dem Councillor for Knowle, Gary Hopkins chips in this spin,

by gary_hopkins ...Polling shows
1 Non voters and genuinely undecided in a clear lead.
2 Mr Rees in a narrow first preference vote in front of Jon Rogers.
3 The Tories nowhere with their voters either giving Jon First or second preference to keep out Labour.
The other overwhelming stat that comes back is that, liked or not ,George Ferguson is known to that tiny % of the chattering politically active classes but 95% + are completely unaware of him...__________________________________________

My reply: What polling is this? Who is it conducted by? Please give actual figures and the source(s) - otherwise what you say is not backed by facts we can check out. Its quite a common practice for Lib Dems to state a so called 'fact' or a quote in the 'Focus'  newsletters without giving the source for it. Lib Dem materials very often skew figures via very dodgy bar charts and illustrations. If its deliberate its unethical if its not its very poor and sloppy thinking and communication.

By choosing to have a dig at George Ferguson the Lib Dems, a) show they have something to be concerned about and, b) reinforce Ferguson's credentials as a candidate independent from party politics.

[Update 14 Oct: Cllr Hopkins has been challanged three times to produce figures and sources but has not done so - in fact he's made things worse through more party politics and attempted point scoring. No surprise there then.]

Tackling transport

Copy of my comment on this story, trying to bring Bristol City Council Cabinet Member and Cllr Gary Hopkins (pictured) back reality through proper transport performance indicators for our city:

@ gary_hopkins - can I remind you that we need to see positive transport outcomes in Bristol eg traffic reduction, significantly lower congestion and delay, much lower air pollution, carbon emissions falling in line with what best science says is needed and in line with the Climate Change Act...We simply aren't seeing significant improvements in the major performance indicators. I also remind you that part of the current transport plans includes building new roads - hardly likely to produce the transport outcomes I've indicated. If you have solid evidence to the contrary then I'd like to hear it.

Cllr Hopkins reply simply made no comments at all about traffic reduction - and no comments at all about carbon emissions. On congestion he said, rather lamely, ‘...conjestion [his spelling] and delays are down but not by as much as they should be because the dividends of these are for the time being being swallowed by First instead of being passed on to customers.’ This appears not to be about overall congestion and delays but in any case admits there is no significant reduction.

On air pollution he admits there is still a problem but that the European green capital assessment rates Bristol as best (!!!). In his words, ‘Air pollution is still a problem but it was interesting that the technical assesment for European green capital rated us best of any entrant on that area. The BRT will run on non fossil fuel and will make a significant contribution.’

Green capital assessment rates Bristol’s air pollution as best! This only goes to show how low their standards are. No evidence in his comment to back the claim that BRT will make a 'significant contribution'. It’s mere assertion therefore.

Cllr Hopkin’s denied it was mere assertion and gave some additional waffle and opinion but did not actually give any data or reference to data to back his assertions. It’s note-able that he simply did not comment at all on traffic reduction and on carbon emissions from transport which I specified along with air pollution and congestion as performance indicators. What forecasting/modelling has been done that shows that current transport plans will produce significant reductions in these? Does Cllr Hopkins have this data??

What Cllr Hopkins seems unwilling to recognise and acknowledge is that key transport outcomes such as overall traffic flow, air pollution, congestion and delay and carbon emissions are very unlikely to significantly improve under current transport plans such as GBBN and BRT with its associated road building. In fact some of them may well get worse. An RAC Foundation report in 2011 said there will be four million more cars will be on the roads in the next 25 years. It goes on to forecast a 43% rise in traffic volume by 2035. Department for Transport figures show that by 2035 traffic will rise by nearly 50% and delays more than 50%on average (more here). To make real and lasting improvements realities have first to be acknowledged.

Some useful information on transport in Bristol here.

Lessons learned?

Sadly few lessons seem to have been learned by Bristol City Council on flogging off green spaces as this Post report* demonstrates. We are not living in a city where people are genuinely listened to - and certain councillors dont know that they know almost nothing!!

* CRITICISM of the green spaces sell off plan has continued, despite Bristol City Council finally agreeing local people should have the final say.

There are 51 sites that are still under threat of sale, as part of the council's parks strategy.

The authority had hoped to sell the land to developers to raise money to improve other parks across the city, but there was a major public backlash from people who felt it was like "selling off the family silver".

After the Liberal Democrats lost their majority in last year's elections, they were forced to compromise and at Thursday night's cabinet meeting they finally approved giving the final say to Bristol's Neighbourhood Committees.

A timetable will now be drawn up for when these decisions will be made. Ward councillors for each area will have the final say, after they are discussed at local committee meetings.

But there are still concerns about the process, nearly two years after it began.

Avon Wildlife Trust has long called for green spaces with significant wildlife to be removed the process, but members are concerned they are still on the list of potential disposals.

Director of Community Programmes Steve Micklewright, pictured, said: "These include two Sites for Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and 10 Wildlife Network Sites (WNS).

"This is one quarter of the sites proposed for disposal. This indicates that the council is still not taking ecological factors into full account during the process as advised by their own scrutiny committee...

See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Concerns-raised-future-wildlife-sites/story-15096090-detail/story.html

Who will voters in Knowle go for?

The Lib Dem vote share in the polls has fallen. The Greens poll share has risen. Cuts, broken promises and the huge compromises of being in coalition with the Conservatives are turning people away from the Lib Dems. In my ward, Knowle, the Lib Dem vote is likely to reduce for these reasons in addition to local reasons and it will be very interesting to see where votes go. As the Evening Post has said, the extremely unpopular and controversial policy of selling off green spaces, including part of ‘The Jungle’ in Salcombe Rd, Knowle, could cost the Lib Dems votes. Hundreds signed a petition opposing the sell off and the man in charge of the sell off policy, Knowle Councillor Gary Hopkins, dismissed these concerns, controversially suggesting that local people were pressured into signing. Cllr Hopkins has seriously upset campaigners working to save their green spaces all over Bristol. As a long term and consistent campaigner for the protection of and increase in green spaces I hope people concerned about this issue will vote for me.

The Post also says that the regeneration of Knowle West is another big issue. A small slice of Knowle West (from Salcombe Rd to Newquay Rd) falls within the Knowle Ward, with the majority in Filwood Ward. This issue may be on the minds of some voters, though it has not become a matter of much party political debate. Political parties have not really involved themselves in the issue very much except where they are in direct decision making roles eg on the council Cabinet or in some cases being the local councillor. I have had some involvement in the issue and contributed in some detail, ideas on sustainably developing the area, where I spent my primary and secondary school days and where both my parents were also brought up. I’m a strong and consistent supporter of the detailed – and pretty green – regeneration plans put forward by the Knowle West Residents Planning Group which I was directly involved with for a period. The council should actively be helping this group bring their ideas to fruition but instead have often been more a part of the problem than the solution! I hope anyone who wants to see the principles of community-based regeneration and sustainable development truly put into practice will vote for me as a long term and ongoing advocate.

Green spaces sell-off? Bristol City Council has no Plan B

What sort of environmental decision making is it that does not properly consider - and in fact reconsider - all the options available, planning for a range of situations? Very poor quality, irrational, unsystematic and unsystemic - in short rubbish! Even on its own money raising terms the green spaces flog off favoured by Lib Dem, Labour and Tory Councillors alike is failing as income expected is now only a quarter of that originally envisaged. Cllr Gary Hopkins high handed, dismissive tone is again clear in the Post report on this though. Pity this man is not at the end of his 4 yr term yet - resign and put yourself up for re-election this May Gary and see how you get on!

BRISTOL City Council has never looked at ways of paying for the £87 million parks improvement plan that didn't involve selling off green spaces, it has been revealed.

The authority has always maintained that disposing of up to 64 sites across the city was the only way that enough money could be raised to pay for improvements in up to 200 others.

But it turns out that in the last five years of the Parks Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS), the council has never costed or even considered a plan that doesn't involve land sales.

The original funding for the improvement plan was £41 million from land sales; £21 million of grant funding; £15 million of money from developers and £10 million from the council parks budget. Since these 2006 estimates, the council has dropped the amount it expects to raise from selling land from £41 million to £11 million...

Bristol Green spaces Bristol City Council Liberal Democrats

Plot 6 - a breakthrough? | Cabinet Councillor Hopkins confirms a proper transport hub

This has all been prompted by the excellent, persistent campaigning of Stockwood's Green Party Campaigner Peter Goodwin and work on the council by Green Party Councillor for Southville Tess Green. We must hold Councillor Hopkins and his Lib Dems to the words he has spoken on Radio Bristol.

Campaigners in Bristol are giving a guarded welcome to hints that Plot 6, at Temple Meads, could become the city's core transport hub.

In a BBC Radio Bristol interview on Wednesday, the city's executive member for Transport, Gary Hopkins, showed unexpected enthusiasm for the Green Party policy, which has previously been shunned by other politicians. Answering questions from presenter Steve Le Fevre, Cllr Hopkins confirmed that so far as the council is concerned, Plot 6 is definitely going to become a transport hub, bringing huge potential benefits...

Plot 6 - a breakthrough? News

Illogical and unreasonable Cllr Hopkins

Those campaigning to save their local green spaces from being flogged certainly wont be thinking that their concerns are 'facile', though Knowle's Cllr Hopkins does (see quote below from today's Post). But we've come not to expect reason and logic from Cllr Hopkins and the Lib Dems on this. The consultations have, as very large numbers of people agree, been rubbish. The planned sell-off is a dud even on its own money raising terms because its very far short of its target - and not all income gained would be spent on parks and green spaces or in the localities that lose spaces in any case. As for buying more land than is sold: most will find this idea ludicrous and unbelievable at this time of huge spending cuts - and spending money undermines the amount available to spend on improving green space quality and access. Since Cllr Hopkins Lib Dems would be buying existing green spaces that are limited in supply the total green space of all kinds in Bristol will decrease as flogging proceeds and so people will lose the valuable functions their green spaces provide.

Liberal Democrats on the city council have used their majority to block an attempt to reconsider selling off parks and green spaces....

...The executive member responsible for the scheme, Gary Hopkins (Lib Dem, Knowle), rubbished any criticism of either the consultation or the plan.
He said: "It is facile to concentrate on things being flogged off.
"We know not everyone is going to be happy about every decision but that is what we are there for – to make those decisions strategically.
"Lots of people do want a large number of things in their parks but all of that costs money and it can't be magicked out of thin air."
Mr Hopkins said the council would also acquire more new land than it sold off...

Lib Dems Bristol City Council green spaces rethink

Unanswered green spaces questions

Lib Dem and Labour Hypocrites

Knowle Councillor Gary Hopkins has been hypocritical by saying he values green spaces whilst also deciding to flog many of them. However, it’s very rich indeed for Labour’s Dawn Primarolo to criticise him ('Gary got it all wrong', Post 13 Dec) because Labour were running the council when the green spaces plans were drafted and then adopted (2007 and 2008)! She is now jumping on the green bandwagon. I would remind her, as the person who has lead the Green Party’s consistent, principled and practical opposition to green spaces flogging, that I lobbied and petitioned the then Labour Cabinet running Bristol very hard indeed – and not a single Labour Cabinet member or Councillor would do anything to oppose the plans. In fact they argued strongly in favour of selling our green spaces! You can’t trust the protection of green spaces to the Lib Dems, Labour or the Conservatives because they’ve all supported the sell-off policy in the past.
_____________________________________________

Note: In this report ('MP condemns consultation as 'shambles' ', Post, Dec 10) Cllr Hopkins gave some details of the meetings that dealt with green spaces issues in Knowle - including 'The Jungle' (Salcombe Rd Rec). He refers to '...a few people against the principle of the PGSS (green spaces strategy)...'. I was there and I am certainly one of the people he is referring to here. There was zero Labour campaigning to save green spaces whereas the Green Party had a clear policy against sell-off from the start.

Local Lib Dem mess; national Lib Dem mess - people should vote Green Party instead

The news on Bristol's green spaces is mostly very depressing isn't it. About three quarters of all sites proposed for sell off by the council, around 48 sites at least I believe, will still be sold, despite very strong objections from multiple directions.

The Lib Dem local position on green spaces is a real mess. Their national position on student tuition fees is also a real mess. They said they believe in the value of green spaces but then agree to sell them off. They said they believed in the abolition of student tuition fees but then agreed to massively increase them.

The Bristol Cabinet still has to meet to agree all that was reported in the Post - I think they might be meeting on the 16 Dec. I suppose they could (and will) be lobbied and a question or two could be put to them.

After that I think many local people in many areas will have to look out for individual land sales proposals and then for planning applications in the event of development proposals. Some might well campaign in the run up to next May to remove any local Cllrs they now object to!!

Flak for Cllr Gary Hopkins 'build over green spaces' tsar

Remove this superior, arrogant, rude - and undemocratic - Cllr from office the next time he stands for election - along with any who side with him.

L ISTENING to Councill0r Gary Hopkins made me extremely suspicious and concerned that the green spaces debate is a "fait accompli".

Mr Hopkins seemed to be on a different planet or wavelength regarding the reaction of the people living in the communities affected.
The majority of the communities are not in favour of these proposals, quite the reverse I would suggest, unless you are within an area that would be gaining some facility yet losing areas. Many people have attended meetings, responded to questionnaires, written letters and voiced opinions on these proposals, including those with a great love of their environment and years of community experience, plus others with a great deal of experience from their working careers.
Mr Hopkins' attendance at our local meeting was a disgrace as a representative of our council. His superior, arrogant and rude attitude towards those attending did nothing to present the council's proposals to attract useful comment or a reasoned discussion. It made those attending feel that "your thoughts are a waste of your time" and resulted in a majority vote for him to leave the meeting, which he did not...

Several green spaces petitions handed in and applauded again and again

PEOPLE opposed to plans to sell off swathes of green space across Bristol packed into the Council House last night to hand in petitions filled with thousands of signatures.

Residents from across the city received round after round of applause as they each presented bulky petitions to councillors and delivered passionate speeches at the end of a five-month consultation into the project. Dog walkers, boy scouts and brownies were among those who united to vent their anger at the proposals to sell 90 acres of parkland at a meeting of Bristol City Council's cabinet. Residents attacked plans to sell green space they claimed was regularly used for recreational and sporting activities or as a tranquil getaway from hectic city life...

THE Conservatives have tabled a motion calling for the £87 million plan to sell off up to 62 green spaces across Bristol to be scrapped.

Its not often that I have cause to praise the Conservative Party in Bristol but on this occasion I have to say well done to them for changing their minds and calling for the councils plans to sell green spaces to be abandoned, especially given the strength of the widespread public opposition. I hope that Labour and maybe even some Lib Dems will support the Tories on this - and respect local people's wishes.

THE Conservatives have tabled a motion calling for the £87 million plan to sell off up to 62 green spaces across Bristol to be scrapped.

The group has also launched an online petition for people to support the motion [click here to sign]

Councillor Mark Weston (Henbury, Conservative) said: "Public consultation has clearly shown that Bristolians simply do not want to lose any more of their recreational space.
"The area green space plans are fundamentally dishonest, in that many potential plots of land suggested for sale are not, as previously promised, of low value or quality.
"This version of the strategy has also proved itself to be extremely divisive, in that it requires some wards in the city to make land sacrifices not shared by others."

Labour group leader Helen Holland told the Evening Post she didn't want to pre-empt her group's response to the Tory motion, but she criticised the consultation process.
She said: "The consultation has been flawed, with a lack of information.
"The one thing you need to do if you want major change is have absolute transparency."

Councillor Tess Green (Southville, Green) said: "The Green Party has always opposed selling any green space which is valued by local people, although we could see the logic of selling off space that is not valued in order to improve green space more generally.
"The voice of local people has been very strong on this issue and needs to be taken seriously."

Q and A on the huge green spaces sell off that's backed by Lib Dem, Labour and Tory Cllrs

Q THERE has been vocal opposition to a quarter of the areas put forward for sale at the very least – is that an acceptable number?

Just added the comment below to this Evening Post article on green space flogging (link above) to correct the errors made by two 'conveniently forgetful' Lib Dem Cllrs...

This statement in the article is incorrect 'The whole point of the strategy, which all parties signed up for..' because the Green Party opposed the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy sell off plans from the very beginning and are still opposing them now.

Cllr Rogers comment 'The Area Green Space Strategy was supported by all three parties on the council' is wrong because there are four parties with councillors in Bristol - and one of them, the Greens, opposes the large scale green space flogging. Cllr Rogers is right to indicate that Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem Parties all backed this extremely unpopular and short-sighted green spaces sell-off.

*

Update: Just added a further comment (below) because Cllrs Rogers has replied saying, 'There remain only three parties on Bristol City council - the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Labour Party.The Green Party do have a councillor on the council, but one person is not regarded as a party! The Green Party councillor did, as Mr Vowles suggests, vote against a proper green space strategy for Bristol.'

*

Cllr Rogers - its clearly ridiculous and absurd to say that there are three parties on the council. The Greens have an elected Cllr - fact. Because it is one person does not mean the party does not exist it simply means that Green Party GROUP STATUS is not recognised (until there are at least two Cllrs ie next May!). If you were fully open and honest here you would tell the whole truth ie that there is a Cllr representing a party on the council that opposes these green space sell-off plans. The Greens do not recognise the current approach as a proper green spaces strategy because of its flog off plans - and looking at the scale of opposition it appears that Bristol's public agree with us not the Lib Dem, Tory and Labour Cllrs that all endorse it.

STOCKWOOD residents say they do not want more houses – they want more facilities and to keep their green spaces.

In my experience Cllr Gary Hopkins (Knowle) often disrespects the public's views and laughs at comments made too...Bristol's Parks and Green Spaces Strategy is and always was more of a 'build over green spaces' strategy...

STOCKWOOD residents say they do not want more houses – they want more facilities and to keep their green spaces.

In a public meeting at Christ the Servant Church last night, more than 150 people came to discuss the city council's Area Green Space Plan.

There are ten Stockwood "disposal" sites identified for possible sale and development, including: part of Craydon Road open space; part of Sturminster Close open space; and small areas near Burnbush Close and Maple Close.

The city council has promised to reinvest 70 per cent of any money made from sales back into improving parks and green spaces across the city. The other 30 per cent will go into general funds...

...In a fiery public meeting, the council's cabinet member for strategic transport, waste and targeted improvement, Gary Hopkins, came in for criticism.

Residents said he had been "disrespectful" and "appalling" for apparently laughing several times as he fielded questions.

The Liberal Democrat member said he was not laughing at the issues in hand but found it ironic that Conservative ward councillors Jay Jethwa and David Morris had been "doing nothing for two years" while the plans were being developed by officers, with input from the Bristol Park Forum.

**Mr Hopkins said: "All three political parties, not including the Green Party, were in agreement with the strategy two years ago.

"I fully understand that people are very concerned about the land next to them. I would be."

Mrs Jethwa accused Mr Hopkins, whom she called a liar...

Bristol Lib Dem cuts in support for public transport

FERRY and rail services will be affected by one of the biggest shake-ups of taxpayer-funded public transport Bristol has seen.

Bristol City Council is putting all of its subsidised transport services out to tender from next month, inviting companies to bid for the right to run them.

The Evening Post revealed how this would affect local bus services last week, but it will also affect a number of ferry and rail services that serve the city.

The council part-funds the Bristol Ferry Boat Company weekday commuter service between Cascade Steps and Hotwells Road; the cross-harbour ferry between the ss Great Britain and Porto Quay; and the Severn Beach rail line between Severn Beach and Temple Meads...

Bristol's transport boss Cllr Gary Hopkins says this not about cuts. The Post story says the council would like to cut its support for train, ferry and bus services by this move. Something's got to give somewhere if support is cut, so does Cllr Hopkins want to correct his statement or does he not bother with logic much??

Government at all levels should ensure the incentives are right for all modes of transport and should ensure that the price we all pay for travelling reflects its total net cost ie accounting for external costs and benefits as well as private costs and benefits. This would mean that clean, efficient and safer, more sustainable transport would be cheapest, so improving the incentives to use it and putting all transport on a rational footing. As it is now dirty, unhealthy, unsafe, inefficient transport modes like cars and lorries are wrongly given priority.

'Answers' to questions on sale of Bristol to Bath Railway Path land

Copied below are some questions recently put by me to Bristol City Council Cabinet members. The reply to Q1 is in my view disingenuous. Whilst it is interesting to note that no Bristol to Bath Railway Path land has yet been sold the response to Q1 gives the misleading impression that the council is consulting about the future of all affected railway path land. This is not the case. The hedgerow section I refer to is not covered and that the sale of this land will go ahead has been confirmed to members of the Bristol Parks Forum. The only indication of this in the answer I got was this bit '...on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path.' This new consultation is quite unnecessary as the views of locals on all the land concerned was established in a consultation only months ago!!

________________________________________________________

C1. Glenn Vowles to ask Gary Hopkins, Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety and Jon Rogers Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability

Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses

Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.

Q1. Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?

C1.Q1 Reply:
No land has yet been sold. The Cabinet believe that, on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path. However, we are not persuaded that the design solution currently proposed represents the best balance between regeneration, environment and use of the Railway Path, and we are therefore seeking the public's views as to the respective merits of shared or individual access from the 'cycle houses' to the path.
This administration is also concerned that there remain aspirations for Bus Rapid Transit along the Railway Path. We are therefore also reviewing the terms of the access arrangements between the Railway Path and the Chocolate Factory development to protect the Path.

Q2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?

C1.Q2 Reply:
Yes. Liberal Democrats (and others) have raised concerns about the placing of the cycle houses so close to the Railway Path and the consequent loss of hedgerow. These concerns were raised as part of the planning process and in earlier consultation.

Questions to Council's Cabinet on: hedgerow loss; green belt; environmental decision making

Questions to be put to the Bristol City Council Cabinet meeting of 25 June, for the attention of Cllr Gary Hopkins:

*Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses
Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.

1.Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?

2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?

*Development on green belt land
1.Should large scale development be permitted on green belt land around Bristol, whether the development impinges on green belt in whole or part?

2.If development is permitted on green belt land should the developers plans and designs be required to compensate as much as is practically possible for all the environmental impacts they cause eg through maximising the use of green design, green technology and green schemes?

*Environmental decision making and corn starch bags
In a debate on Cllr Bolton’s blog I said ‘…the decision on the [corn starch] bags has been taken without full information being sought! This is irrational. Environmental decision making should be put on a firm evidence-based process. This has not been done by any party running the council…’ to which you Cllr Hopkins replied ‘I do not base my judgements on guesses but on evidence’. My subsequent request for data on the total environmental impacts of the corn starch bags in this debate was not replied to and so I doubt that full information has in fact been sought.

1. What figures does the council have for the carbon footprint of these corn starch bags, in order to assess whether they more than make up for their carbon cost?

2. What figures does the council have for any other environmental costs the corn starch bags may have eg water footprint, land take, biodiversity impacts...?

3.Can you outline if/how you intend to quantitatively and fully assess the net effects of corn starch bag introduction: on the environment; on the economics of waste management for Bristol?

Bristol Civic Society help protect Knowle's Friendship Inn from Tesco plans

That the Bristol Civic Society have applied to English Heritage to have The Friendship Inn protected as a listed building is great news. If successful it is a very big obstacle in the way of Tesco’s plans to build a car park over the pub garden followed by converting the building into an Express store. I’m personally uncertain whether it could stop plans altogether, though local Cllr Gary Hopkins is reported as saying it will. I hope he is right.

The story says Tesco has an option to buy the pub. This is of course true but flatly contradicts a letter I and other locals have from Tesco which says that they recently purchased it – this is not true, but Tesco have never, to my knowledge, publicly corrected their error! Tesco Corporate Affairs Manager Juliette Bishop is I note happy to talk to the press but has failed to respond to communications from local people directly affected.

The whole situation has and continues to be rather bizarre. The council’s planning officers and councillors sitting on the planning committee have told campaigners who’ve been working hard from the start to oppose the plans, myself included, that they can only consider Tesco’s application as a car park for a pub – even though its common knowledge that Tesco plan an Express store, bringing many disadvantages to this part of Knowle in addition to those of a car park alone.

Early on I asked the council officer in charge of the case if any trees would be lost (no drawing had been made public at this stage). I was given a categoric no, trees would not be lost. Clearly an error as the larger mature trees in the garden would have been given the chop due to the location of the car park inside the garden walls.

Its bizarre that council officers, including those with planning and transport ‘expertise’, recommended that the planning committee accept the original plans submitted by Tesco for a car park. Officers had apparently visited the spot and regarded the design as safe and appropriate – but after a site visit by councillors and strong representations from many locals, this design was thrown out as unsafe and inappropriate. This inevitably cuts one’s belief in the abilities of some officers, yet these same officers have been given the task of dealing with Tesco’s revised car park plans.

Things may be looking up though. Revised plans have not been released for public view and comment yet because officers had some issues with them (I presume they sent them back with suggested changes??). Its good news too that Cllr Hopkins reports he has gained officer assurances that objectors will have 21 days to give their views on any revised proposals. I will be taking the opportunity to again point out that building any car park on the pub garden, aiding the set up of a Tesco Express in place of the pub, would worsen road safety, add to light, noise and air pollution, damage wildlife and weaken the diversity of the local economy.

Corn starch bag introduction: poor environmental decision making

Councillor Gary Hopkins introduction of corn starch plastic bags free to all households that want them is a waste of £100,000 per year of our council taxes and is poor environmental decision making. I sympathise with many of the sentiments expressed by letter writers Bernard Seward, Ambrose Porter and Malcolm Leslie (Feedback: Corn Starch Bags, Post, April 28).

It makes little economic sense to have the council bearing the cost of introducing a manufactured bio-plastic bag into a recycling system where the vast majority of Bristol's public are already managing perfectly well wrapping their food waste in a free, otherwise waste, product. They use newspaper, other waste paper or empty cereal packets etc.

Its makes little environmental sense either, as the bags increase the total environmental impact of the recycling system itself. Even if the bags in isolation are carbon neutral, the farming of the corn to get the starch and the manufacturing and transport of the bags certainly are not. Additionally, land used to grow corn for the bags is land that could be growing food for people! Land may even be cleared to grow the corn, at a cost to wildlife.

Its worrying that environmental decisions like this aren't approached rationally ie by gathering full information and assessing it before deciding. Greens have persistently requested that data on total bag environmental impact should be gathered before their possible introduction. No attempt was made at getting even broad estimates. Poor and incorrect responses were given to questions. One council official claimed, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that because the bags were made from biomass (material from living origins) they were carbon neutral -mahogany doors are made from biomass but no-one would suggest that its carbon neutral to cut down and process rainforest trees to get them!!

The idea of the bags is to get more people recycling food scraps, cutting council waste costs and cutting environmental impacts. However, since the total environmental impact of bag introduction has not been established we will not be able to calculate whether any environmental gains made from increased recycling fully compensate for the environmental cost of making the bags. Even if they did its a very inefficient and expensive way to cut impacts - £100,000 per year more for energy saving, getting people out of cars and onto bikes or getting people to grow some of their own food, can easily be shown as far better options. Less chance of 'green' publicity and kudos for Cllr Hopkins with these options perhaps?? Or is this all much more about saving money alone??