'Cycle House' Plans Statement - Taking full account of all community views

Copy of email sent to Bristol City Council:

Please ensure that the planning committee meeting of 1 April dealing with the 'cycle house' plans (08/03862/F) has the statement below submitted to it (I'd be grateful for an email confirming submission). I hope to be there to present the statement in person.

Statement - Taking full account of all community views:

The Bristol to Bath Railway Path consultation has finally been published. It cost £12,000 according to an FoI request. It dealt with all issues relating to this proposed development, not just the land sale/lease issue (as you can see from the its conclusions - see bullet points below). In any case the development cannot proceed as it is without land sale/lease and so the matters are intimately entwined and inseparable.

We were lead to believe by Cllr Rosalie Walker, then Executive Member responsible for green spaces, that this consultation was the next best thing to an Area Green Space Plan (which the council could not get itself together to do in time to inform this committees decision). What was the pointof the consultation if you are not going to fully account for it??

The Executive Summary and the Conclusion of the report state what bloggers and campaigners have been saying all along!! Developers, who say their work on this is rooted in the philosophy of community participation, and this committee, should to see to it that the 'cycle house' plans are modified to match what local people want.

These bullet points are directly from the consultation report:

* That green, open space should be preserved.

* That the wildlife corridor, in particular the hedgerow, should be protected.

* That the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site should take place within the existing boundary and that the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stay in the public domain.

* That the individual accesses to the cycle houses are flawed with concerns about safety risks; changing character of path; de facto private gardens; impact on existing natural environment; security risks.

* The importance of Bristol as a ‘Cycling City’ and the need to protect cycle routes.

* Concern that land sale would set a precedent.

In conclusion, although there is general support for the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site the majority of those participating in the consultation felt that the development should be contained within the original footprint of the factory site and the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stay in the public domain. The majority of individuals and organisations felt that plot 1 should not be sold although there were some suggestions for a compromise solution with partial development. A greater majority felt that plot 2 should not be leased particularly for individual access points – many respondents felt that these were unnecessary to the development. There was, however, some agreement to provide an access across plot 2 to the square, café and other facilities.

Bristol to Bath Railway Path consultation findings published: over to you Cllr Hopkins and Cllr Rogers et al...

The Bristol to Bath Railway Path consultation has finally been published (this web page here has a link to the Public Consultation Statement pdf file). The Executive Summary and the Conclusion of the report state (below in bold italics) what bloggers and campaigners have been saying all along!! New Cabinet members, especially Cllr Hopkins and Cllr Rogers, who have responsibility for green spaces and for transport and sustainability, now have a responsibility to see to it that Squarepeg's 'cycle house' plans are modified to match what local people want. The hedgerow should not be torn up and the path not encroached on....

* That green, open space should be preserved.

* That the wildlife corridor, in particular the hedgerow, should be protected.

* That the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site should take place within the existing boundary and that the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stayin the public domain.

* That the individual accesses to the cycle houses are flawed with concerns about safety risks; changing character of path; de facto private gardens; impact on existingnatural environment; security risks.

* The importance of Bristol as a ‘Cycling City’ and the need to protect cycle routes.

* Concern that land sale would set a precedent.

In conclusion, although there is general support for the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site the majority of those participating in the consultation felt that the developmentshould be contained within the original footprint of the factory site and the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stay in the public domain.The majority of individuals and organisations felt that plot 1 should not be sold although therewere some suggestions for a compromise solution with partial development. A greater majorityfelt that plot 2 should not be leased particularly for individual access points – many respondentsfelt that these were unnecessary to the development. There was, however, some agreement toprovide an access across plot 2 to the square, café and other facilities

Update 19 March, Bristol Evening Post coverage of the issue here.

Statement to council committee on Elizabeth Shaw Factory and surrounding land

Former Elizabeth Shaw Factory and surrounding land

Statement about planning application number: 08/03862/F,

submitted to council and which I hope to read out at the planning committee meeting Weds 18 Feb:

I currently have a complaint lodged with the Local Government Ombudsman (ref 08 013 849/LMP) which relates directly to this planning application and a number of other issues. Its been with an investigator for a month or so now. I will be in discussions with the investigator over the coming weeks and have asked them to look at several issues relating to this application.

Given that the LGO process is ongoing and involves both broad matters about policy and procedures not being followed and matters specific to the planning application it would in my view be inappropriate for the committee to proceed further with considering this application at this stage, unless you are minded to refuse permission. It forms a very important part of the context. If further details of my LGO complaint are required during any delay I will supply them.

___________________________________________________________________

Update (25 Feb) - Received official confirmation in writing that the committee has deferred finally deciding on this issue probably until 1 April (no joke) - but only on the grounds that they await the successful completion of a legal (S106) agreement, the terms of which had not been finalised at the time of the meeting. Unfortuneately this will be the only matter they will discuss from now (unless something striking happens during Feb/March) as they are minded to approve the application. Not sure what effect, if any, the change of administration following Helen Holland's resignation will have. I will know more about the LGO complaint before the committee next meets I hope but it seems unlikely that the committee will take any notice - even if the decision is very damning!!

Further questioning Bristol City Council on green spaces and transport

The question below has been submitted by me to the next full Bristol City Council meeting (13 Jan 2009) for Cllr Rosalie Walker. It follows up on a series of questions I put to the November Cabinet meeting (see B1 on the list if you follow the link) and follows my complaint to the council that official green spaces policy is not being followed.

Note that a 31 page, 13,000 word document of complaint was sent to the Local Government Ombudsman by me this morning saying: that Bristol City Council has not followed its own green spaces policy and procedures; that senior officers have taken ad hoc decisions; that prominent figures with a vested interest in developments have had undue access to officers and influence over decisions; that officers and councillors did not respond adequately and promptly to communications; that the decision on not conducting an environmental impact assessment on the 'cycle house' plans may not have been taken on a proper basis; that dealing with my complaint was consistently delayed, lacking in detail, lacking in references, lacking in explanation and lacking in direct response from those with the most specific expertise; that current consultations are sorely lacking compared to official policy.

I've been compiling this document as the issue has developed over weeks/months and every time I've thought it was complete another relevant development has occurred eg the 'consultation' referred to in the question below (very ably criticised by the Bristol Greengage and Green Bristol Blog).

Q. Consultations have begun over the sale/lease of land on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to property developers Squarepeg, though the process appears to be a very, very poor substitute for the Area Green Space Plan process laid out in official policy, the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and appears to focus in much more on the development issue via leading questions than on the land sale/lease: can you explain why the Area GreenSpace Plan process, now underway in several parts of Bristol, was not brought forward for the locality encompassing this land ??


Follow-up questions to Cllr Mark Bradshaw on transport issues in South Bristol also submitted to the same meeting:

Q1. In response to questions I put to the November Cabinet [see C2, C3, C4 on the link] meeting about the South Bristol Link you informed me that estimates of the impact on air pollution and congestion in the Knowle/Brislington area had not been released: what are your thoughts on the importance of information such asthis being made widely available asap during a consultation period??

Q2. In response to questions I put to the November Cabinet meeting you confirmed that you may use Cycling City cash to buy land along the Callington Rd Link (intended to be part of a strategic road network): will cash be returned to the cycling budget if a road is built there??


Further detail on previous green spaces and transport questions here and here.

Appeal to Bristol City Council's Chief Executive

Email sent to Bristol City Council Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd this weekend appealing for her to review my complaint about the council not following its own green spaces policy:

I've been looking at the council complaints policy and conclude that Stage 3 involves a review by the Chief Executive. I asked Complaints Manager Tim Sheppard about this and was told that 'The CX will not have "reviewed" your complaint but she will have read it and will be aware of the issues.' Having pondered this I find myself somewhat confused.

Tim did confirm to me that the council complaints system had been exhausted (leaving me free to approach the Ombudsman) but I dont think this can be considered the case until you have reviewed it. Can you confirm that the council complaints policy involves, in Stage 3, a review by the Chief Executive?

Can you confirm a) that you have read my complaint and are aware of the issues b) that you will now review my complaint or do whatever is required to fully comply with council complaints policy?

Sorry to be a pain but I really must insist that you conduct a review, unless you can explain that its not a compulsory part of council policy of course. This is because I need to ensure that I've gone through the whole of the council complaints procedure before it can be considered exhausted. I dont want to go to the Ombudsman only to find that they reject what I send, telling me to get back on to you/the council. This would represent considerable waste of time and effort.

Many of the key issues are addressed in the most recent exchanges between Tim Sheppard and myself ( see below).
__________________________________________________________

In addition to a response to the above email I'm also awaiting a reply from Complaints Manager Tim Sheppard to the points I made in the post below. I'm also waiting for a response to my request for a meeting with David Bishop, Strategic Director for City Development and Regeneration at the council and Steven McNamara, Head of Legal Services at the council. I've also sent a message to George Ferguson asking if he is willing to meet with me to discuss modifying the cycle houses development plans and a range of other matters (I previously contacted him but had no ackowledgement).

Council green spaces policy to classify land not needed - senior council officers on the council have done it for us!

The latest on my complaint to Bristol City Council about them not following their own policy on green spaces. My response to each point from Council Complaints Manager Tim Sheppard is in blue:


Dear Mr Vowles

David and I have now discussed this matter and for information, I have described below the Council's position.

Tim, the word you used in your email to me was that you would ‘investigate’ the matter (ie David Bishop's decisions in this instance). ‘Investigate’ means to search and examine – have you done any searching and examining outside of the discussion with senior officer David Bishop you refer to??

You will be aware that this development offers an opportunity for an innovative exercise in linking cycle houses with the Bristol to Bath cycle path. Difficulties initially emerged as the strip of land in question has some ecological merit. This prompted George Ferguson to contact David Bishop to discuss the merits of the scheme and ask him to examine the council's initial position on the sale of this stretch of land.

With respect, the merits or not of the proposed cycle houses is not the issue since the development that features them could easily go ahead without destroying the hedgerow and being built up close to the cycle path. It just needs shifting a short distance back from the path and a little redesign and/or scaling back as appropriate.

Interesting that officers within the council advised that the land has ecological merit, which is my view, whereas in a recent Bristol Evening Post story George Ferguson called it ‘pointless scrubland’. Interesting that George Ferguson a) gets to know of the view formed and advice then given within the council on land he has a significant interest in and b) easily and promptly has access to a senior council officer who has significant powers to make key decisions c) obviously has had considerable influence on decisions made given that ‘difficulties that initially emerged’ before contact are not difficulties after. How much did the public know, especially in the local area, and how much access to senior council officers could they easily get? How much influence on David Bishop would they have had? Council policy, the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy says about land value, on page 36,

"...value will, therefore, be assessed at the stage when Area Green Space Plans are being drawn up and sites are being identified as possible candidates for change of use/type of green space or disposal".

Clearly in this case this has not happened. The complex issue of total land value has been decided by senior officer David Bishop and a few other officers, following an intervention by the highly influential George Ferguson.

Given that the Council was on the cusp of becoming the first Cycle City, a proposition that used a small piece of the Council's land to enable such an innovative idea - almost a cycling service station on a flagship cycle route (notwithstanding the fact that planning permission still needed to be obtained and no-one could make any presumptions about that) - was very attractive. If such an idea came to fruition, Bristol would enhance its cycling/green capital reputation still further, and more people would be attracted to cycle and walk along the path in future. Bristol's residents would get healthier as a result and any traffic modal shift would make a contribution to reduced congestion and enhanced air quality, all aims the Council is vigorously pursuing.

Please see my previous comments about the merits or not of the proposed cycle houses not being the issue. There are many ifs in this third pragraph that I’d like to point out though: if Bristol became the first Cycle City (the decision had not then been made in Bristol’s favour); if any development successfully went through the planning process (official plans were not submitted at this time and so there was no public consultation on official plans); if the cycle houses enhance city cycling/green capital reputation significantly; if traffic modal shift is significant…

Promises are not a firm basis for a major decision that goes against advice and does not involve consultation with the public, stakeholder groups nor, so far as I know, elected councillors. The paragraph sounds to me more like someone’s sales pitch, based on imagery and inflated potential impacts, rather than solid ideas based on evidence.

There is more to a piece of land than its size, though we are talking about well over 100 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow which officers judged to have ecological merit. Quality, value and significance of land are not a matter that can finally be decided completely objectively or should be decided by a small number of people – the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy acknowledges this and outlines a procedure (the drawing up, by agreement in localities, of Area Green Space Plans). My complaint also raised the issue of plans not being accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment - responses from you have not explained the council decision that an EIA was not needed. Is it the case that an EIA was deemed unnecessary just on the basis of the size of the land involved??

Bristol City Councils green capital reputation depends in part on the quality of and implementation of its policy on green spaces. No doubt the city’s application to become the European Green Capital includes outlining the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy. However, the procedures it outlines clearly have not been applied.

A discussion about the proposed land sale and the questions that it raised, was had with Transport, Property and senior Culture & Leisure Services staff, which included the relative merits of cycle houses versus negative localised ecological impact. It was felt that because the eventual development control process could ensure that ecological mitigation measures were secured, on balance we should support the principle of the land sale, subject of course to the development progressing.

The fourth paragraph raises more questions than it answers. Just one discussion? Seems a cursory treatment to me. What laid down, publicly available criteria were used to judge the relative merits, so that accountability for decisions is built in? How does one objectively weigh up very different types of benefits/costs? Cycle house benefits are only promised whereas ecological loss due to habitat destruction is relatively easily established – was this accounted for? Were any elected representatives involved at any point? Were any stakeholders involved? Were the public involved? What reference was made to the letter and spirit of council green spaces policy and the principles and procedures it outlines? Was the option of promptly getting an Area Green Space Plan put in place for this land ever discussed? How/where does accountability come into play??

No ecological mitigation measure details were then available and so assessing the quality and potential success rate of these was not possible. In any case there is a serious debate about whether mitigation measures are often just a sop to developers, allowing their plans to proceed by requiring environmental action sufficient to appear to be full compensation when in fact it most often falls short.

Property Services staff were advised to progress their discussions with the developer accordingly, which we believe will have given them the necessary confidence to progress their scheme to the next stage, albeit of course the land sale will not be finalised until much later, if planning permission is secured and the development progresses.

The decision that the benefits of ‘cycle houses’ outweighs ecological losses and that therefore selling the land is ok in principle, is a big decision in favour of the plans now submitted. This decision by senior and powerful council figures puts massive pressure on any officers and councillors involved in processing the plans and making decision on them. The pressure is clearly favouring the granting of planning permission because if it was refused then all those supposed net benefits that some are convinced of are lost.

These sorts of balanced considerations, and resultant decision making, are the day to day function of senior managers such as David and I am satisfied that no policies or advice has been ignored or over ruled nor was it a hasty decision. I am also satisfied that the necessary checks and balances are in place to ensure the public have an opportunity to express their views.

Sorry but how do you expect me to be satisfied with your conclusion? If there were straightforward answers to my complaint why were they not made available within the initial 15 working day deadline? Two months have passed now since I complained. The appearance, at least, of the situation is that its taken the council all this time to agree a line of argument!!

It may well be that this sort of decision is within the remit of senior officers like David Bishop, though I will ensure that I ask he Ombudsman to look into this to check.

I see little or no evidence that the procedures outlined in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy have been followed – perhaps you can provide it for me??

Clearly the weight of initial officer advice about the ecological value of the land has not counted for much compared with David Bishops view after the intervention of George Ferguson followed by discussions you outline. The key decisions on land selling appear to have been made within a timescale of less than two weeks - very short compared with the two months its taken for the council to reply to basic questions from me! It appears, at least, that Mr Ferguson's intervention speeded along the decision nicely.

You’ve still not provided me with any reference to documents showing arrangements/criteria used for making judgements if policies conflict (not that they should). Likewise you’ve not outlined any interim arrangements that were prepared in order to allow sufficient time for Area Green Space Plans to be put into place. Are there or have there been meetings since my complaint to outline criteria I refer to or to make interim arrangements? In short, how is the council building in accountability and participation of some sort? Does the council admit that David Bishop and other should have consulted more widely eg via stakeholders before deciding that a land sale was on and that further discussin with a buyer could proceed?

At present it seem perfectly clear that development pressures will most often win against the need to protect and conserve green spaces – I had this made pretty clear when attending recent initial meetings on establishing the Area Green Space Plan for Knowle, Filwood and Windmill Hill (discussion of Filwood’s green spaces was ruled out by officers running the meeting, who explained that this was because big ‘regeneration’ plans were due to be finalized in the coming months and they did not know what the ward might look like should plans go ahead!)

I believe this now brings all these matters to a close. Should you wish, you can now add this to your complaint to the Ombudsman.

I felt it was worth replying to this latest message even though your closing sentences sound very much like you want no further communication with me. Should I send off details of my complaint to the Ombudsman I believe your message and my reply will be valuable to them as a summary of some key issues. However, I’ve still not sent anything yet, in part because further freedom of information requests may help to clarify the situation and I am still hoping to be able to meet with David Bishop and Steven McNamara face to face and have copied them in to this reply so that it doubles as a request for a meeting. I’m not hopeful that they will agree to meet with me as I think they most probably view me as a stirrer and trouble-maker rather than the truth (someone who initially just asked a few questions and felt compelled to follow up from there because of lack of answers).

Council green spaces policy to classify land not needed - land and property developer has done it for us!!

The controversy concerning the 'cycle houses' development and the council not following its own policy on green spaces has finally been reported, to a limited extent, by the local newspaper even though local bloggers (here, here, here and here for instance!) including me, have been banging on about it for months now!!!

Developer George Ferguson, Chairman of Architects AFM, is quoted as saying this, which is particularly infuriating as well as missing the point:

"This strip of land is a completely pointless bit of scrub land"

As a land and property developer its no surprise that George Ferguson speaks dismissively, contemptupusly even, about the quality of the land he wants to build over. Council officers advised against selling green land for this development due to its wildlife value and contribution to the green character of the area.

What Mr Ferguson needs to understand is that all land covered by the councils policy, the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, should according to that policy, have an Area Green Space Plan drawn up before it is disposed of or has its use changed in any way. This has not happened in this case. Its not for developers to classify land quality for us as if they know best!

It appears that some senior officers at the council have taken some very speedy and rather ad hoc decisions on selling land that do not accord with the principles, procedures and spirit of council policy at all.

I've been so concerned about this that as far back as Sept I submitted a formal complaint to the council via their system (See here for details and to track the lengthy history of the complaint).

They missed deadline after deadline for giving me a full and formal response and still have not answered all my queries satisfactorily. I've recently had it confirmed in writing by the Council's Corporate Complaints Manager that I have exhausted the complaints procedure and am free to take my complaint to the Local Govt Ombudsman for independent investigation. This has become a very serious issue indeed because if straightforward answers to my complaint existed they would have given them to me easily within the 15 working day deadline - but two months has now passed since I first complained !!

I emailed Mr Ferguson and others asking him to scale back the development in one small area, in order to stop the destruction of a mature hedgerow over 100 metres in length and to conserve the green character of this part of the Bristol to Bath Railway Path - he did not even acknowledge let alone respond to my appeal (recorded on my blog and in a letter published in the Post) even though he initiated some limited contact with other people who want his 'cycle houses' development.

Its no surprise at all to me that this issue has escalated to the point where Ashley Fox, a respected Tory Councillor is asking questions of the Labour run Bristol City Cabinet at its 27 Nov meeting, where I also have questions tabled.

We must establish that developers must not drive council policy or have any undue influence over it. We must establish that officers must follow council policy, which should be clear, coherent, consistent and open, so that people can be held to account. We must establish that council officers do not decide what to do on an ad hoc basis. Unfortuneately things look pretty bad at the council currently so the Ombudsman will have some work to do investigating the situation in the coming weeks and months.

Council policy seems to be delay, delay, delay in complaint handling

Its worth noting that Council Complaints Manager Tim Sheppard said this in an email to me on 6 Nov and that therefore he/the council has again failed to give a detailed response in a reasonable time (I'm well used to it now!):

It is however, important we have the opportunity to fully address the issue of the actions of David Bishop. To this end, I propose to investigate and make a separate response to you. I would hope to complete this exercise by the end of next week. [14 Nov]

This was in direct response to me including this as part of my complaint:

It seems apparent, from documents obtained within the last week or so by The Bristol Blogger using freedom of information legislation, that David Bishop, the most senior planning officer has ignored/overruled other depts and advice from other officers and has made far reaching and speedy decisions on green space disposal that go beyond council policies.

I'll send a reminder (another one!) to the council complaints department on Monday. I await their (eventual) response with some interest especially given this insight into what really determines how development happens from Knowle Lib Dem Councillor and former Cabinet member Councillor Gary Hopkins. Over on Cllr Charlie Bolton's blog he said he is 'not shocked that a developer,of whatever shade of green or none, should do his best to secure the best deal for his development. It happens all the time...' . Tell us more Gary...

Questions to Bristol City Council Cabinet on green space flogging controversy

My complaint to Bristol City Council about them not following their own policy on green spaces (originally posted on here) and all the work done by the Bristol Blogger and by the Green Bristol Blog’s Chris Hutt has resulted in questions being submitted to the next meeting of Bristol’s Cabinet by Councillor Ashley Fox (details here). I will be submitting the questions below to the next Cabinet meeting as I think they fit in well with the excellent ones from Councillor Fox -

Parks and Green Spaces Policy not being followed:

1. Why have the procedures outlined in the Parks and Green Spaces policy not been applied, 10 months on from agreeing it, to all the land it covers ?

2. Area Green Space Plans should preceed any land selling or development - were interim, proper, clear and open arrangements (to allow for the establishment of Area Green Space Plans) made?

3. If no interim arrangements were made did this result in some ad hoc decisions on land sales being made by very small numbers of people?

4. Were any agreements to sell land entered into despite interim arrangements being made?

________________________________________________________________

I’ve posted on some of the (long) history of my complaint here but need to update this with recent communications (see below) for anyone that needs/wants to track developments. My apologies for the lengthy nature of all this but the council have dragged this out and appear to have delayed at all opportunities, right from the start. You’ll note that many of the specific points I raise are simply not addressed and that replies are hardly detailed or backed by references:

Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager, writes: 11 Nov

I write in response to the recent emails we have exchanged. I can confirm that the complaint you raised with me in your email dated 18 Sept 2008 has now exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure and you are free to take the matter up with the Ombudsman.

I must point out the the the issue of the behaviour of David Bishop, that you raised with me in your email of 3 November, is something the Council would like the opportunity to respond to. However, this will not prevent you taking the matter up with the Ombudsman or prevent them making initial enquiries of us.

_____________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 7 Nov

Can you supply me with written confirmation that the council complaints
procedure has been exhausted and that I no longer regard the council as a
full unbiased investigator in this instance. I will then proceed with the
Ombudsman form filling.

____________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 6 Nov

I'm not at all happy with this, though I very much welcome further investigation of David Bishop's actions. The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy does not say that it is there to act as a framework for guidance - it lays down specific procedures to be followed. A Cabinet member has spelt this out clearly in a letter to me. I feel that there are people overruling council policy whenever they see fit.

I'm not convinced that all officers involved in decisions on green spaces and complaints relating to them will act and are acting objectively. I'm extremely concerned about bias and weak answers unsupported by references to laid down council positions so that the public can assess what their council is likely to be doing. Policies need to be consistent and coherent!! At the least if conflict occurs between policies then there should be a clear procedure for dealing with this laid down in writing so that the public can see what's going on.

I therefore seek your support in taking this to the Ombudsman and ask you to give me guidance on exactly how you can/will support me in this urgently.

________________________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager, writes: 6 Nov

I've now had the opportunity to discuss the situation with colleagues and write with my response.

I believe we now have two separate but related issues. The first is your original complaint and the second is contained in the third paragraph of your email below.

On the first issue, I am now satisfied that the response I provided in my email of 22 October does indeed address the issues you raised. The essence of the matter involves the purpose of Council policies. As I see it, they act as a framework to help guide progress, they are not rigid and absolute prescriptions. There will be times when there is a tension between differing policies and tension between desired actions and the aspirations of a policy. It is then for the Council to consider these competing needs and take a balanced view. This is what I believe has taken place and what lies behind the actions taken by David Bishop.

It is however, important we have the opportunity to fully address the issue of the actions of David Bishop. To this end, I propose to investigate and make a separate response to you. I would hope to complete this exercise by the end of next week.

As we have discussed, you are free to contact the Ombudsman if you are unhappy with the progress of this matter.

__________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 3 Nov

Many thanks Tim, that's very clear and helpful. I look forward to the
reply in a few days (though see my comments below, which may impact on
how/whether you respond).

I must say that I do feel that the council has had a reasonable
opportunity to respond already. A lot of time has passed and several
people at all levels of seniority at the council have been involved to
some degree but still I dont have a fully satisfactory set of answers.

I think I have established that what the council is doing with green space
is not in accord with its policy on green space. It seems apparent, from
documents obtained within the last week or so by The Bristol Blogger using
freedom of information legislation, that David Bishop, the most senior
planning officer has ignored/overruled other depts and advice from other
officers and has made far reaching and speedy decisions on green space
disposal that go beyond council policies.

Given what I've said above my confidence that the council will/can address
the issues I have raised with objectivity is pretty low and getting lower
as more information is revealed. There may be several key people on the
council who are both involved in investigating my complaint and advising
you on what you should say to me who simultaneously have emerged as a key
part of my complaint because of the decisions they have taken - thus they
have a strong vested interest. I think ultimately the consequences
could/should seriously affect a highly paid career(s). In order for my
complaint to be investigated in an unbiased way and to be seen to be
investigated in this way it may be that Ombudsman involvment is essential
and indeed that you may prefer this. You may be able to reassure me about
the potential for bias however.

______________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard Council Complaints Manager writes: 3 Nov

I am not yet in a position to provide you with a comprehensive reply but
would hope to have something within the next couple of days.

The Local Government Ombudsman would expect a complainant to have
exhausted the Council's complaints procedure before they investigated the
matter. However, this is not as inflexible as it may sound and if a
complainant can show that the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to
respond or that the complainant has lost confidence in the Council to
investigate the matter in an unbiased way, they may agree to take the
complaint. What often happens in that case is that the Ombudsman will
contact the Council (me in the case of Bristol) and ask if we want a
further opportunity to settle the matter or are we happy to leave it to
the Ombudsman.

If I have had contact with the complainant and I am satisfied that
further investigation by the Council would be unproductive, I will agree
with them that they should now investigate. If however, we are on the
verge of settleing the matter, I will ask them to give us a little more
time.

Hope this answers you question. I shall be in touch as soon as possible
with a response to your complaint.

____________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles, back from holiday, writes: 3 Nov

Can you tell me when I'm likely to get a response to my reply to you Tim?
I guess that having had a week to work on it officers from parks/planning
etc (?) must have reached conclusions?? What's the latest?

Any news on the proposed further consultations? Can you expand on your
point that 'if you believe that there would be little value in continuing to pursue this matter with the Council, then I would support your approach to the Ombudsman'.

I'm of the opinion that I probably will have to go to the Ombudsman but
it may depend on what is said in any reply I get. If I dont get anything
or only get something brief then I'll need to talk to you about the
Ombudsman (can you give me a ring today/tomorrow about this?).

Many thanks for your time and efforts on this issue to date.

___________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 24 Oct

Thanks for the attachment and opinion on complaint stage Tim.

I'm happy for you to take next week for looking at this thoroughly as the
implications could be broad. I'm away on holiday until 31 Oct and wont be
able to respond to anything you send me in any case. If there are urgent
issues I can be reached via [ mobile phone number…].

I've put in an objection to the 'cycle houses' plans which includes
comments that this complaint is unresolved and that thus there should be
an appropriate delay until its sorted out - I hope this is what happens.

___________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager writes: 23 Oct

My apologies for not including the attachment I referred to, which is now
included below.

It is sometimes unhelpful in the resolution of a complaint to dwell on
exactly what stage the complaint is at. Fair Comment is flexible and can
be shaped to to suit the circumstances of each complaint. however, for
clarity, I would judge this to be at stage 2.

I would be grateful if you would allow me the time to discuss the other
matters you have raised with Richard Mond and Peter Wilkinson, before I
respond to you. I would hope to get back to you by early next week.

Developers drive policy on Bristol's green spaces

Developments relating to my complaint to Bristol City Council are keeping me very busy in between work and family at home today! Received this from Councillor Rosalie Walker, Cabinet Member for Culture and Healthy Communities (including parks and green spaces) shortly after sending in my reply to Bristol City Council's reaction to my complaint:

"Rosalie Walker" writes: I happen to agree with your concern re the P and G S Strategy. I am as keen as you are that green space is protected both inside the strategy and otherwise.I shall be making sure that my feelings are heard and that consultation is rigorous..Rosalie

My immediate reply to her was:

Many thanks for the prompt response Rosalie. Will you call for a delay in the planning processes dealing with the 'cycle house' development on/near the cycleway until an Area Green Space Plan is urgently put in place? Will you support modifications to part of the plan to move it away from the path and hedgerow at the eastern end??
__________________________________________________________

I really do hope that she really is wearing her green hat and is fully onside. Will she say yes to my questions? Can she? Who/what is driving events in relation to green spaces, land sales and plans for developments? Seems to me that developers and their friends in parts of the council very much have the upper hand and that as long as these circumstances prevail parks/green spaces, local communities and democracy don't stand much of a chance. This explains why I was told in response to my complaint,

'it was always the case that there would be a small number of exceptions to this rule and that the Council would need to consider disposing of land where, for example, it might facilitate wider regeneration objectives to be achieved'

This is not menioned in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, which I've now double checked. I've fished around trying to find where there might be criteria written down for deciding on exceptions but have yet to find anything. Anyone who can find references and/or quotes to justify and explain this council assertion please contact me.

Bristol City Council policy on green spaces: flog any land whenever we see fit to do so

Finally had a response from the council to my formal complaint that they are not following their own policy on green spaces (copied below, preceeded by my response to it). Bristol City Council's written policy, the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, means little because the council feel they can ignore it and flog land whenever they see fit to do so!

Tim, [Corporate Complaints Manager, Bristol City Council]

Thank you for your email about my complaint. There is description of and apology about but no attempt at an explanation for the delay in dealing with my complaint. There has been no explanation of why the communications I did have with the council were not in accord with council policy on handling complaints either. Perhaps you could address these issues.

Your latest email does not a provide a satisfactory resolution of all the issues I have raised. It lacks explanation throughout. As a result I cannot see how the 'cycle houses' planning application (ref 08/03862/F) can be fully and fairly processed at this stage. My view is that this complaint should be resolved first and I urgently seek your advice on this matter in particular.

I'm grateful for the confirmation that the green space in question is covered by the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, as Richard Mond has previously stated. Area Green Space Plans do much more than you describe though and the strategy describes how they play a crucial role in defining the various land types, values and qualities in an area through the combined efforts of both council and local people via a consultation process. The strategy recognises that establishing the value of green space has social as well as scientific dimensions. Given that many Bristol to Bath Railway Path users and local residents feel strongly about their green space it is particularly important that an Area Green Space Plan is established before any land selling or processing of planning applications.

I very strongly object to the notion that


'it was always the case that there would be a small number of exceptions to this rule and that the Council would need to consider disposing of land where, for example, it might facilitate wider regeneration objectives to be achieved'


Where in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, which has been in place since February of this year, is this notion described? Where in the strategy are the criteria for deciding on exceptions outlined? Can you please provide references and/or quotes to justify and explain this assertion because it is a crucial matter.

You seem to be saying that there is some policy over and above the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and that some Bristol green spaces are both covered by it and its processes but simultaneously can be dealt with outside its provsions! This is inconsistent, incoherent and unfair - how are people supposed to know which decision making processes apply to which green spaces? Is there in fact the openly stated and in fact lauded green spaces policy (which has been in place for ten months now) and another policy that allows the council to make decisions that go against it on an ad hoc basis? The council needs to address this matter urgently so that all green spaces are dealt with according to a clear, consistent, fair and open policy. Decisions on land disposal and planning applications wont be consistently handled until they do and the public could potentially be misled until they do.

I am somewhat confused as to what exactly this paragraph means:


'Due to public concern, council officers have now been asked by Cllr Mark Bradshaw to undertake a consultation with key stakeholders, including the Bristol Parks Forum, over the proposed disposal of this land and details of the consultation will be communicated to you amongst other concerned people, in due course.'

I welcome further consultation of course but would want this to be fully inclusive and broad-based in nature. I await the details you mention with interest of course and call for a delay in any planning processes to enable adequate time to be made available. What issues will this consultation deal with? Would it not make more sense to urgently bring forward the process for establishing an Area Green Space Plan for the relevant land - after all that is council policy and the procedure is already clearly laid out for all to see whereas its not clear what this consultation is!

I'm grateful for what you say about Cllr Walker and welcome any contact Richard Mond and you have had with her. Its well worth noting that in both letters and telephone conversations with her she has never described council policy on green spaces in the way you have. She has lauded the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, saying in fact that it covered concerns I expressed via a petition to the council. It appears however that the strategy is not being uniformly applied to all the green spaces covered by it, though it should, and thus my concerns are not addressed even on Cllr Walkers terms let alone mine.

More than month has passed since my complaint but there is still a lack of clarity surrounding council green spaces policy(ies)!

On the issue of no environmental impact assessment (EIA) being conducted you describe what I already know and offer no explanation as to why it was deemed unnecessary. The attachment you refer to in your email is not in fact attached (!) which is not helpful. A layman's explanation would in any case be much appreciated. I described why I felt an EIA was appropriate (the green space is a significant one - as described by the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy - and the EU Directive was supposed to be interpreted and applied broadly, to favour environmental protection) and request that you spell out why it is not.

You are far from clear in stating what stage of the complaints procedure you feel my complaint is at. Saying 'I dont know that I could agree that we are at stage 3...' is most unhelpful and I cant understand why you dont just give me the benefit of your experience and expertise here! What stage in your view is my complaint at, given the considerable delay, lack of clarity (even now) and the personal efforts I have had to make to force a decent response from the council? My complaint was first submitted on the 18 Sept, was passed around various council officers, was not handled according to established procedures, eventually reached both you and then the Chief Executive of the council and then you missed the 21 Oct deadline you said you would give me a response by (I emailed Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd about this at 9.38am this morning and received your response at 10.55am !). Seems to me that I have made a complaint, then a complaint about how it was handled and then had to make a further complaint on top of that, before receiving a response that lacks explanations all the way through on the last day available to me to submit the online form about planning application 08/03862/F! Its all highly unsatisfactory and is very poor administration which has effectively reduced and made much harder my ability to participate in decisions made about my city.

I await a further response from either yourself and/or other council officers and will certainly keep open the option of approaching the Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Vowles

Tim Sheppard, Bristol City Council Corporate Complaints Manager writes:

Dear Mr Vowles

Let me start by apologising for the long delay in providing a formal response to your complaint, and in particular that I was unable to get you a response last week, as I had hoped.
I note that you have had an exchange of emails with Richard Mond and that he has sought to respond to your enquiries. However, I recognise that these emails did not constitute a formal response. I hope this email remedies that situation.

Taking your numbered item 1 first, we acknowledge that the Bristol Bath Railway Path is recognised as accessible green space within the adopted Parks and Green Space Strategy, and that the strategy sets out a programme to produce 14 Area Green Space Plans to inform decisions over green space property disposals.

However, it was always the case that there would be a small number of exceptions to this rule and that the Council would need to consider disposing of land where, for example, it might facilitate wider regeneration objectives to be achieved. This is the case with the railway path land adjacent to the Chocolate Factory development.

Due to public concern, council officers have now been asked by Cllr Mark Bradshaw to undertake a consultation with key stakeholders, including the Bristol Parks Forum, over the proposed disposal of this land and details of the consultation will be communicated to you amongst other concerned people, in due course.

On the issue of a lack of response from Cllr Walker, I note that Richard Mond has contacted her and as a result of this response, I shall also raise the matter with her. However, I must point out that council staff cannot compel councillors to respond to enquiries from the public.
In item 2 you point out that the area in question has not been subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). However, an EIA is not needed for this development. Instead, planning officers issued the 'screening opinion' dated 30th May 2008 under Regulation 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 999. A copy is attached for your information.

In your email to the Chief Executive today, you suggest that this matter is now at stage three of the complaints procedure and you would wish to go on to the Ombudsman if you remain dissatisfied. I don't know that I could agree that we are at stage three but if you believe that there would be little value in continuing to pursue this matter with the Council, then I would support your approach to the Ombudsman.

Tim Sheppard
Corporate Complaints Manager
922 2233
tim.sheppard@bristol.gov.uk

Complaint about complaint!

Sent the email below to Bristol City Council today, marked for the urgent attention of Jan Ormondroyd, Chief Executive, Bristol City Council. There appears to be disarray in the handling of my complaint and so I've complained about it!

______________________________________________

Please see below details of a complaint I made to the council via the online form available. This was submitted on 18 Sept. I was promised a full and formal response within 15 working days and have not received it. The time period elapsed some time ago and I have followed up on this through both a reminder email, a statement submitted to a full council meeting (14 Oct) and through phoning the complaints dept today and yesterday.

All I have had is a brief indication in a few emails who would be dealing with my points (the last information I have is that Richard Mond would be dealing with it, though it was previously with another person) with some brief discussion on issues. I recently sent a reminder email to Mr Mond asking for the latest on the progress of my complaint but received no response to this. Complaints are very unhappy that the proper procedures have not been followed by those officers dealing with my complaint and I had a conversation early this afternoon with Tim Sheppard from Complaints who is now contacting Richard Mond on my behalf to speed the process up from here. I 've not been contacted this afternoon by Mr Mond.

I'm very concerned about time slipping by however (my complaint has a strong bearing on a planning application that I want to comment on and object to and the time within which I can do this is running out) and thought I would email you too. Mr Mond did not give me information on the stage my complaint had reached, thus this email, which I think means my complaint is at stage 3 (?). I've been advised by my local councillor to contact the local govt ombudsman on the substance of my complaint and the process by which it has (or rather has not) been handled - I'm in the process of looking into doing this now and this message is copied to the local govt ombudsman.

I look forward to your response with interest.

___________________________________________________________

Bristol City Council Complaint

I have two complaints about what appear to be procedural errors on the
part of the council in relation to land on the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path (where the development of the former chocolate factory is now
proposed).

1. I am very concerned that the council's own procedures on green spaces
disposal or change of use has not and is not being applied to the green
corridor that is the Bristol to Path Railway Path.

The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy mentions the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path as an example of a significant and important green space. Yet it
seems that a strip of land which is council owned has either been sold-off
or is the subject of an in-principle agreement to sell before an Area
Green Space Plan covering the area has been drawn up and consulted upon.

This procedure is clearly outlined in the strategy and so I cant
understand why it has not been followed.

I'm also very concerned that a week ago I emailed Cabinet Member Cllr
Rosalie Walker for clarification of the status/designation of the land and
have not even received an acknowledgement, yet alone a prompt reply.

2. I am also very concerned that the plans for development on the strip of
land at Greenbank that I refer to above have not been subject to an
Environmental Impact Assessment as described by an EU Directive, even
though the directive is supposed to be interpreted and applied broadly in
order to make environmental protection effective.

Ensure that procedures outlined in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy are
followed and applied to all green land along the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path.

Draw up an Area Green Space Plan, after public consulation, covering the
Bristol to Bath Railway Path green spaces, before any land is actually
sold and review urgently any in-principle agreement to sell council-owned
land on the path.

Inform me of the status/designation of the land in question, explaining,
if required, the reasons why the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy does not
cover the green spaces along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.

Explain why an email to a cabinet member has not even been acknowledged, a
week after it was sent.

Urgently review whether the EU Environmental Impact Assessment procedure
should be applied to developments on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path, interpreting the directive and its use as was intended by its
authors ie broadly.