Rees: remodeller?

'I stand for change' says the leaflet just received from Marvin Rees. But the prescription is the same old stuff. Its party political, present day 'Labour' Party material. Being photographed next to Dawn Primarolo in another leaflet hardly suggests change either because Dawn has for decades been a key player in government - national and local - that has been a part of bringing our society its current social, economic and environmental problems.

The Rees/Labour prescription is often vague and populist, like that of many of the mayoral candidates (the Greens aside).  In the typical style of Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Parties the prescription has policies that contradict each other eg Marvin Rees promises to 'make Bristol greener' but also promises to build 4000 homes without saying where they would be built or detailing how and favours a large development on green belt land (the proposed BCFC stadium) with its associated large supermarket developments.

When referring to a greener Bristol Marvin Rees talks about the stereotypical issues, like recycling, waste, ‘sustainable energy’. Typically his ‘environmentalism’ is a mere add-on. No joined up thinking. If he really got sustainable development he would successfully integrate his social and economic policies with his environmental ones and not end up having some policies that could make us more sustainable counteracted by many that make us less sustainable.   

Wealthy = wrong????

Its pretty 'rich' that George Ferguson has 'been criticised by some Labour backers on social website Twitter over his personal wealth for allegedly being motivated by money.' (see story and online comments here). Isn't Ed Miliband quite a wealthy person? And others in the Labour Party? And aren't many donors to Labour very wealthy?

Its not inherently wrong to be wealthy!! Its how you've come by/made your wealth/money perhaps...and what you do with it when you've got it. George has used his wealth to good effect it seems to me (see image of the Tobacco Factory http://www.tobaccofactory.com/) - and he could obviously make a lot more money if he did not have the restrictions that inevitably and rightly come with becoming Mayor of Bristol!

George is wealthy. George has been a Liberal supporter in the past. George is not always 100% PC with his language...These are all very weak and feeble 'criticisms' indeed.

City Deal

The £100-million Bristol Metro train network which will bring massive improvements to local railways is to go ahead with the first services running by 2016. It comes as a result of the City Deal agreed between local council and the Government which was announced yesterday...(more here).

Business rates to be kept in Bristol and used to raise more money for investment is very welcome. Plans to improve the local rail network are also welcome. Lets hope what is planned is effective and efficient. I do think there is a democratic deficit in all this thinking though and would like to see much greater and inbuilt opportunities for public participation, creating better openness and accountability - it wont be sufficient to simply lobby our authorities to use this money in the best way.

Details of the 'City Deal' for Bristol, according to The Post, are:

* A new growth incentive and the economic investment fund, which will allow West of England to keep 100 per cent of growth in business rates over 25 years to invest in projects, allowing authorities to deliver an investment programme worth £1 billion over 30 years.

*  Ten years of major funding allocation for the Greater Bristol Metro; flexible delivery for the Bus Rapid Transit Network which will allow savings to be recycled locally; and new powers over rail planning and delivery.

*— A Public Property Board will manage up to £1 billion of city council assets and an estimated 180 land and property assets to unlock more land for economic growth or housing and to lever in additional investment.

* A city growth hub with up to £2.25 million of government funding which will provide additional support to inward investors. This will be based in the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone and will work closely with UK Trade and Investment.

* The business community and local enterprise partnership will have more influence in skills provision in the city region, in particular the £114 million Skills Funding Agency funding for Further Education colleges for post-16 provision, to help capture employer demand.

Sustainability summit sucks

UN talks on sustainable development are encountering disputes, delays and diplomatic wrangling, days before world leaders arrive to sign a new agreement.

The talks, in Rio de Janeiro, are aimed at putting the world economy on a more sustainable path, helping people out of poverty while protecting nature.

Yet developing countries have walked out over money, and the presence of Palestinians has brought complications.

Campaigners say there is little hope of momentous changes being agreed here...(full story)

Greenery = healthy

More evidence that green spaces are good for you (see here). More access to green spaces means: less liklihood of developing asthma or allergies; lower levels of stress; greater likelihood of a more active lifestyle; greater opportunities to mentally and physically engage with the natural world. Promoting good health was always one of the key reasons why Bristol should be protecting and increasing its green spaces not flogging them - and protecting its green belt from inappropriate developments like the proposed South Bristol Ring Road/Link and the Bristol City stadium (picture shows Ashton Vale green belt)  .

"Urbanisation is a relatively recent phenomenon, and for most of our time we have been interacting in an area that resembles what we now call the natural environment," he said.

"Urbanisation can be seen as a lost opportunity for many people to interact with the natural environment and its biodiversity, including the microbial communities."

While it was not possible to reverse the global trend of urbanisation, he said that there were a number of options.

"Apart from reserving natural areas outside of urban areas, I think it is important to develop city planning that includes green spaces, green belts and green infrastructure," Dr Hanski suggested

Verdant Vale

Here are some sites which demonstrate well the value of the greenery around Bristol. Please take a look - and support campaigns to protect green spaces from inappropriate development. http://www.saveashtonvale.co.uk/

http://www.ashtonvalewildlife.co.uk/

http://www.ashtonvaleheritage.co.uk/

http://sacredspring.wordpress.com/

Democracy or ochlocracy?

Those who want a town green in Ashton Vale and not a new Bristol City football stadium have again been called NIMBYs (see comments here). Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way, including those in Ashton Vale, usually don’t hold such views and often have a well developed case with a range of reasons.

For example: if the stadium is built green belt land, which is finite in supply, will be lost; carbon emissions will rise; natural flood drainage space will go; land with food production potential will go; wildlife habitats will be smaller in area; green space important to human health and wellbeing will be cut. Our current system has warm green words but little or no green action - which is why planning permission for the Bristol City stadium was given.

A key feature of the UK democracy is the rule of law. The UK is not a straightforward ochlocracy, where there is dictatorship of the majority or rule of the mob. Protection of the law for individuals, minorities and society as a whole has some value here. The law around town greens is one small part of this.  

On another note: it was always a big mistake to assuming that building this stadium will have a net positive effect on jobs and investment. To my knowledge no-one has done the research sums to see if total benefits exceed total costs, taking into account all factors, including those I've mentioned above. Mostly what we’ve heard about the proposed stadium is simplistic benefits - my point is ok but what about the complexities and the costs?? This means trying to account for the impacts both on current generations and the generations of people to come - once green land is built over its nigh on impossible to get it back again.

The planning process very often has no objective evidence whatsoever that total benefits outweigh total costs - and a decision taken on the basis of little or no evidence is irrational. Could it not be argued that the stadium proposal is an inappropriate development based on outmoded, old-fashioned, discredited economic thinking and that therefore pursuing it would be unwise? Bristol is supposed to have 'green capital' ambitions after all. Wouldn't giving the land town green status mean that it would be maintain our ability to: fight climate change; increase wildlife; manage flooding; keep people healthy...If you built a stadium the opposite might happen and therefore shouldn't someone estimate the costs/benefits of all this in order for a rational decision to be made?

The law should help prevent locals from being bullied into a situation they don’t want. The law on town greens does empower people to apply for green spaces to be protected. A real and proper democracy rightly has legal processes to protect a community and its space and the process is being gone through.

Planning policy test

Another excellent blog post from Stockwood Pete. Take a look - and follow the link Pete gives to tell the inspector what you think. Pete begins First, the progressive loss of chunks of the Green Belt in Ashton Vale, abandoned by the authorities who should be protecting it. Now the battle moves east, into BaNES territory between Stockwood and Whitchurch Village...full story here.
Stockwood Pete: Border Wars

CPRE Bristol

A new CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) group is being set up in Bristol. This is good news. CPRE is a grassroots organisation, led by volunteers, but it has a powerful national voice – planners and politicians listen to them. I hope that this group will become a strong voice in Bristol to campaign for a greener city surrounded by a thriving countryside, using CPRE’s resources and planning expertise to set out a positive vision for change.

As part of this move CPRE are holding a public meeting at 7.30pm on Tuesday 3^rd April at the Horfield Quaker Meeting House (300 Gloucester Road, Bristol BS7 8PD). All are welcome – entry is via the main entrance to the left of the building.

The new National Planning Policy Framework was published yesterday. It looks as though CPRE’s relentless lobbying and pressure on the Government has paid off to some extent, with additional safeguards for the environment now present, but it still removes a huge body of regulations that guided planning. Meanwhile, the Localism Act gives new powers to communities to plan development in their area.

CPRE  see both a threat and an opportunity – if the government is not going to control planning, then we should step in and reclaim control of our own neighbourhoods, and support others to do the same.

Its hoped that the Bristol group will take a special interest in Localism and local food – CPRE want to explore how communities can use neighbourhood planning to develop local food infrastructure and build links with local farming communities. But also want to keep an eye on the bigger picture, a vision of Bristol as a clean, green city circled by farmland, woods and water.

If you think you might like to join the new group or if you are interested in these issues and you want to hear more, please do go along on Tuesday. This is an open public meeting, so please pass this message on to others who might be interested.

Contact Joe Evans, Director, CPRE Avonside

07854 741130 for further information.

NIMBY?

People far too often resort to unjustified labelling in debate. Accusations of being a NIMBY (not in my back yard) are common in discussions for and against development for instance. Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way usually dont hold such views and often have a developed case with a range of reasons so, whatever the rights and wrongs of the instance, the label is unfairly applied.

Here's one example, involving  plans to redevelop a Network Rail site by building nine three story homes at Bellevue Terrace, Totterdown, Bristol. Just down the road from me. One commenter on the story thinks objecting to this development is '...the purest example of NIMBYism I've seen in weeks..' even though one resident, backed by her local councillor, describes how the space is green and good for wildlife. Suzanne Ferris said: "The former allotment site was a verdant space bright with nature in a heavily built-up area. The urbanisation of this wildlife pocket will remove forever part of the green corridor from the railway line to Arnos Vale Cemetery.”

You can have a look for yourself at the place here (and in the photos above). Its hardly the Amazon (!) but if we are serious about issues such as: the value of green spaces to our relaxation and health; obtaining and maintaining healthy populations of wildlife eg garden birds like sparrows and starlings; the value of green spaces as a temporary 'store and release' mechanism for water when it rains heavily; green spaces as carbon absorbing...then at some point we surely have to stop concreting over every bit of local, small-scale greenery?      

Opposing development that would change a space from pollution absorbing and biodiversity providing to pollution producing and biodiversity cutting is perfectly reasonable. Its not NIMBYism because all that would say is 'not here' in a narrow, selfish and short-sighted way and people in this area clearly have more reasons than that! If you are going to use the tactic of labelling people you need to give justification for doing so.

Crystal ball forecasting

60,000 new jobs from the new transport plans in and around Bristol?? Story here. This will sound like a gross exaggeration to many people. On what basis have they made this claim exactly? Crystal ball gazing? This is an argument technique many use to try to justify schemes, such as new roads, that many local people have concerns about. Chief executive of Bristol Airport and transport lead for the Local Enterprise Partnership Robert Sinclair say they believe this is the figure but of course they have an interest in talking up developments they favour - and the only people backing them up in the report are business and political figures who have the same interest, so they add no weight to the claim at all. So, all we are left with is a jobs figure a few say they believe in and no substance.

Eco-Eddy??

Cllr Richard Eddy says he sympathises with '...the desire to protect our precious countryside from major development ' (here **). Why then does he favour constructing the South Bristol Link Road through it, stressing that he is a 'long-standing supporter of getting it finished' (see here)? Obviously protecting the countryside is not that high on his agenda - and mostly features in his world when seeking public political advantage with greenspeak!

Or is this more of Bristol Tory Cllr Eddy's special kind of 'logic'...the kind that allows him to say that the link road will 'ease congestion'(see here), despite all the weight of research evidence and experience for decades that shows building roads encourages car use which quickly fills them up to the point of congestion.

________________________________________________

**(Great letter on countryside protection from James Burden and Des Baker on the same page by the way - go to the link they give for more http://www.cpre.org.uk/ )

Effective participation in planning: public information and workshop

How we can get involved in Planning

Date: 27th September 2011
Time: 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Venue: Coniston Community Centre, The Parade, Coniston Road, Patchway, South Gloucestershire BS34 5LP

The Environmental Law Foundation invites you to a free public information event and workshop.

Our upcoming event in Patchway aims to educate and inform attendees about effective participation in the planning system. This will be a great opportunity to find out how you can be involved in the decision-making process.

Presentations will be given on the South Gloucestershire Local Development Framework, the planning policy that will shape the way the area develops over the next 15 years and on how the planning process works. Potential changes in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Bill will also be considered. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

If you would like to attend please RSVP

Please feel free to forward this e-mail to any of your colleagues who may be interested.
If you would be able to advertise this event for us by displaying a poster please let us know.

For more information about the event or to book a place, please contact scp@elflaw.org or tel 020 7404 1031.

This event is brought to you by the Sustainable Communities Project funded by
the Department for Communities & Local Government through the Empowerment Fund.

Seven billion of us

Human population is currently 6.989 billion. It will reach 7 billion next month. You can see the statistics in real time here http://www.worldometers.info/ .

United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon on Thursday singled out sustainable development as the top issue facing the planet with the world's seven billionth person expected to be born next month.
Key to this was climate change, and he said time was running out with the population set to explode this century.
"Next month, the seven billionth citizen of our world will be born," the UN secretary general said during a speech at Sydney University.
"For that child, and for all of us, we must keep working to fight poverty, create decent jobs, and provide a dignified life while preserving the planet that sustains us.
"That is why the sustainable development agenda is the agenda for the 21st century.
"Above all, that means connecting the dots between challenges such as climate change and water scarcity, energy shortages, global health issues, food insecurity and the empowerment of the world's women."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sustainable-development-worlds-top-issue-un-chief-2351721.html

Climate change means a new economic model of development

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said ..."Climate change is not about tomorrow. It is lapping at our feet - quite literally in Kiribati and elsewhere."
..."The science has made it plainly clear that climate change is happening now and, unfortunately, much, much faster than you may think," he said.

"Having visited Kiribati and the Solomon Islands has strengthened my conviction that climate change is a distinct threat to humanity, it is even a threat to international peace and stability."

Ban said the rising oceans were sending a signal that something was "seriously wrong with our current model of economic development".

"We will not succeed in reducing emissions without sustainable energy solutions," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/pacific-shows-climate-change-a-reality-un-chief-2350506.html

Evidence and explanations on climate change are available from many highly reputable sources. Listed here are a selection from: the Met Office; the United Nations; the Royal Society; the UK Government's Dept of Energy and Climate Change; and NASA.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/gateway

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/explaining/explaining.aspx

http://climate.nasa.gov/ (click image above to see a larger version).

Proper planning prevents poor performance

Proper, prior, preparation and planning prevents poor performance. Pity the coalition government intends to take us even further away from a proper planning system then - they talk of sustainable development but yet again we have a government that empowers development without sustainability. See this excellent piece by George Monbiot:

This wrecking ball is Osborne's version of sustainable development
Economic growth is not the purpose of a planning system. It should meet human needs while the environment is protected

Impervious to experience, strangers to reason: the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, and the chancellor, George Osborne, have learned nothing from the economic crisis. They claim that laxer town planning "is key to our economic recovery". But the European countries hit hardest by the economic crisis – Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland – have weak planning controls and urban sprawl. The nations that have proved most resilient have tougher laws and compact settlements.

Strong planning is one of many factors, but it is symptomatic of a political culture that puts the national interest above the self-interest of the rich and the long view above the quick buck. Pickles and Osborne are seeking to rip up England's planning system for the same reasons that they want to drop the proposed new banking rules: corporate power, cronyism and plutocracy, the forces that got us into this mess.

Weak planning exacerbates economic problems because capital is diverted from productive uses into speculative ventures; cities decline as they hollow out; and badly sited businesses, disaggregated settlements and long travel times drag down economic efficiency...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/05/george-osborne-motorway-sustainable-development

Environment Agency - Viridor Waste Management Ltd

Comments on the application for a permit for waste incineration due in soon...

Environment Agency - Viridor Waste Management Ltd

Name of applicant: Viridor Waste Management Ltd. Application number: EA/EPR/GP3834HY/A001 Type of regulated facility: Disposal of waste by Incineration. Address of regulated facility: Severn Road Resource Recovery Centre, Severn Road, Bristol, Avon BS11 0YU

The Environment Agency has received an application for an environmental permit under the Regulations from Viridor Waste Management Ltd.

The Environment Agency must decide whether to grant or refuse the application. If it grants the application, it must decide what conditions should be included in the permit.

Your chance to comment - Any comments should be made in writing by 09 February 2010

New beginnings?

“Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.” said Seneca, the stoic Roman philosopher, in the mid-1st century AD.

In this new year of a new decade can we begin the green society and bring to an end an age we can’t in any case maintain for much longer? This would mean putting the concept of sustainable development into action in place of just signing up to the concept, speaking warm words about it but carrying on essentially with business as usual!

Its long been put about that sustainable development is a slippery concept, hard to define fully and properly, not well understood. But is it really? I think many people have a decent general grasp that it’s about achieving a balance, giving as well as taking and ensuring a decent future for generations to come ie not more and more jam, for some, today but an ongoing availability and decent supply of jam, fairly shared.

The features of sustainable development are good sense and not rocket science. It’s clearly not a good idea to be wasteful, yet one bag in every three bags of food bought in the UK ends up being thrown out, many buildings rapidly leak heat and we still don’t make products to last. Efficiency must replace waste.

It’s irresponsible to rapidly squander resources, especially those whose supplies are limited or those that require careful, sensitive management if they are to remain available. Yet we remain hooked on high use of oil, coal and natural gas, build over the limited supply of green spaces and take from forests, soils and seas faster than resources are naturally replaced. Renewability must replace squandering.

Sustainable development means assessing progress through the health and wellbeing of people and their environment. Yet we continue to pollute on a scale that causes human sickness and environmental imbalance and we retain increasing the flow of money as the number one political and socio-economic aim despite coalition government warm words and research into assessing wellbeing. We must live within environmental limits and set new social and economic goals.

I assume no-one wants to see growing dependence and poor community development. Yet we see power centralised, local character and variety eroding, goods and services imported and many jobs exported and we encourage other regions and countries to do likewise, so they suffer dependence and sagging spirit too. Strong local communities need to be built.

Waste, resource squandering, pollution, money for a few before health and wellbeing, weakening community, means people and environments in this generation and those to come, the world over, are not getting their dues. Fairness is inseparable from sustainable development – in fact all the features of sustainable development are interrelated so solving problems and taking opportunities requires joined up thinking.

Enacting and practicing the required combination of behavioural and technological changes on the required scale, at all levels of societies, across the globe, in the face of entrenched vested interests, takes leadership we are just not getting however.

Planet Bristol: Peter Madden: green city, green stadium...

Keep up Peter Madden, keep up Forum for the Future - I've been putting this idea to Bristol City FC since the beginning of the consultation process on stadium designs! And I've given them the same examples. If I was involved in talks between Bristol City and the Town Green supporters in Ashton Vale a first class stadium built to the very highest sustainable, green design standards would be something I would want to see on offer. I'd also like to see some guarantees about keeping the surrounding area green and on no further developments in this area. There are always going to be issues about why any green land at all should be taken up - and also the poor transport links in the location proposed BUT as I've said before the offer of a top notch green stadium design and surroundings would be some compensation and would certainly have its attractions for me. Having said all this I'm not someone who lives in Ashton Vale.

Planet Bristol: Peter Madden

So, what of this could a new stadium incorporate? Open green space – if not for grazing livestock, then at least for walking dogs, running and playing, or free events.

Could the stadium make a positive environmental contribution? Could it be carbon neutral, through generating its own clean energy? Could it enhance biodiversity, through areas protected for wildlife and a 'green roof' with plants growing on it? Could traffic problems be lessened by making tickets cheaper if people walk or use the park and ride?

There are educational possibilities, too. If it was a state-of-the-art environmental stadium, facilities could be used to engage City supporters and other Bristolians – as well as visiting fans – on green issues, further multiplying the positive impacts.

Other clubs are doing this. Ipswich Town went carbon neutral. And lowly Dartford FC built the UK's first sustainable stadium from renewable timber with a grass roof and sunk two metres below ground level to reduce noise and light pollution.

So, why shouldn't Bristol have the greenest major football stadium in the country, a beautiful building that shows what can be done, is useful to the local community as well as the fans, which provides the benefits of a village green and has a zero environmental footprint?

Illogical and incoherent Cllr Rogers...

Cllr Dr Jon Rogers [pictured] says, ‘We are determined to see the quality, quantity and accessibility of our parks and open spaces improve all across the city in the next 20 years’ (‘Land sell-off is right’, Post, Letters Dec 27). But hang on this man has, along with all Lib Dem and other councillors except the Greens, said it’s the right thing to do to plan to sell many acres of Bristol’s parks and green spaces over the next 20 years! That’s a decrease not the ‘quantity...improved’ that he claims he wants to see. As for improving accessibility to green spaces, well it’s self-evident that you make it more difficult to achieve this if you plan to sell some of them off and allow building over them. It’s worrying in the extreme to see such a lack of logic and coherence from Cllr Rogers. It was always illogical, inconsistent and incoherent to plan to sell-off chunks of our parks and green spaces whilst saying you are committed to health, wildlife, climate change and economic policies that require protecting and increasing green spaces.

Cllr Rogers contact details on the Bristol City Council website are:
email - jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk , or telephone (0117) 914 2558, if you want to get in touch to set him straight.