Misleading mulling

We have an erroneous way of thinking about land and using figures relating to it. This erroneous thinking is used to 'justify' unsustainable building over green spaces, the green belt, parks and playing fields, allotments, farmland...In Bristol, despite the fact that our eco footprint is several times the land area available, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories on the council all orginally backed a policy of flogging off our green spaces. This was despite widespread public opposition across the whole city. The Lib Dem council adminstration are still incentivising flogging local green spaces now and several Mayoral candidates have plans that will cut city green spaces and green belt land. We need a Mayor who will listen to public opinion, genuinely involve people in decision making and not bow down to any party political line.

On the Daily Politics a while back Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (who you'd think should know better) attempted to justify the liberalisation of planning laws by saying that only 10% of land in England is developed. A New Statesman leader said this back in March this year:  

‘Only 10 per cent of England (and 6 per cent of Britain) is developed... The UK is 60 million acres in size, of which 41 million are designated "agricultural" land, 15 million are "natural wast­age" (forests, rivers, mountains and so on) and owned by institutions such as the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence, and four million are the "urban plot", the densely congested land on which most of the 62 million people of these islands live...’ http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2012/04/land-government-million

In terms of whether to build on green land or not crude land area is not really the way to consider this issue. Look at these figures: average biologically productive area per person globally was approx 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita in 2006. Average ecological footprint in the UK is 5.45 global hectares per capita (gha) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). This means that not only have we used up all the available biologically productive land in the UK we are actually drawing greatly on large amounts of land from abroad as well as allowing carbon levels to build up in the atmosphere because there is insufficient productive land and water to absorb it fast enough. Our 5.45 gha/person ecological footprint is three times greater than the average productive land per person available worldwide.

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/

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.

Hype and humbug

'Work has begun to restore College Green to its pre-Occupy Bristol glory...' says the Post. Now I like my green spaces and have a history of being more than prepared to argue for the benefits they bring, but glory? The glory of the grass on College Green? Massive exaggeration. Over the top bull.

Using the word glory would indicate a highly praiseworthy asset, worthy of adoration because of its majestic beauty and splendour. This is College Green, a formerly pleasant grassy area with a few trees and views of interesting buildings - not the Amazon Rainforest, the Serengeti National Park or the Himalayan mountain system!!

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

Bristol's empty homes

No mention in this report 'Plans for 10,000 new homes in Bristol back on agenda' of any efforts to bring the 7000 empty homes in Bristol into good use. Surely making optimum use of houses already built should come before consideration of new house building, especially on green land?

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/ )

Love Parks Week: 23-31 July

Love Parks Week is an annual campaign, organised by parks charity GreenSpace. Founded in 2006, the campaign has grown steadily and is now established as a major event that is celebrated in parks across the country. Each year hundreds of events take place enabling thousands of people to get out and enjoy their parks and help put forward the case for reinvestment.

http://www.loveparksweek.org.uk/About.html

NB: I was reminded the other day that the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change said in one report that a 10% increase in green space was needed to help protect us from climate change. I hope therefore that not only does Bristol City Council permanently abandon plans to sell off parks and green spaces but that in the process of reviewing policy it plans, with private and voluntary sector involvement, to create an overall increase in total city green space of all kinds, whether publicly or privately owned, whether classed as a park, allotment or other type of green space.

Public now to be consulted on council handling of town green applications

Pressure from a range of green campaigners has helped bring about public consultation on how the council handles town green applications. An excellent contribution to local democracy by those campaigners.

PLANS to take some town green applications out of the hands of independent inspectors have been put on hold.
The city council's public rights of way and greens committee yesterday agreed to ask the public before deciding on a rule change that could have seen some of the bids to protect open spaces from development decided entirely by a council sub-committee...

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Campaigners-victory-invillagegreenbattle/article-3463037-detail/article.html

COUNCILLORS may ditch the services of an independent inspector when deciding on town green applications.

In place of using independent legally-trained inspectors to advise on whether a town/village green application, which many Bristolians are using to try to protect their local green space, should be refused or accepted (often involving an oral hearing into contentious evidence), Bristol City Council, who controversially want to flog quite a bit of Bristol's green space, are proposing instead that the decision is based entirely on officer advice, or, in contentious cases, a hearing to be heard by a four person sub-committee of the Public Rights of Way and Green Committee. Fix of fair? I say its a fix - and it cant be fair that the council are both police officer, judge and jury!! Officers and Councillors are not independent - its impossible to separate them from the policies of the council. Decent coverage of this matter by the Evening Post.

...the Green Party believes the council wants to make the changes to "wriggle out" of creating more town greens.

In a statement, the Greens say:

"This proposal to change the procedure may seem obscure but has important implications for protecting Bristol's open spaces.

"We believe the council has about 17 new application for town green status waiting on its books for determination, and if it is intended to use the new procedure, then it is clear from the outset that this is all about saving money and not improving its fairness.

"This proposal is a false economy since the money saved by not employing an independent inspector is likely to be used up very quickly if any applicant makes a challenge to the decision in the High Court."

The Greens believe the new procedure will be open to challenge because:

■ There will be bias because the council itself owns much of the land under application so it is an interested party in the decision;

■ Councillors with their party political pressures will now be making the decision rather than an independent person;

■ The council legal advisers and officers advising on the decisions are directly employed by the council and so will be less likely to decide against its wishes.

Charlie Bolton, Green candidate for Southville, said:

"It's very important for the council's procedures to be fair and any changes must have full consultation."

Gus Hoyt, standing for the Greens in Ashley, said:

"We want decisions on town greens to be taken by legally experienced people and not along party political lines behind closed doors."

The report before councillors says: "In its capacity of registration authority, the city council has to consider objectively and impartially all applications for registration of new greens on their merits, taking account of any objections and of any other relevant considerations.

"Registration as a town or village green is dependent purely upon past use, and not upon future plans."

COUNCILLORS may ditch the services of an independent inspector when deciding on town green applications.

Anger at plans to change town green applications,Bristol24-7

This is called fixing the system to get the outcome you want, instead of a thorough, rational, evidence-based approach!! ...Instead of using independent legally-trained inspectors to advise on whether a TVG [town/village green] application should be refused or accepted (often involving an oral hearing into contentious evidence), they are proposing instead that the decision is based entirely on officer advice, or, in contentious cases, a hearing to be heard by a four person sub-committee of the PRWG [Public Rights of Way and Green Committee].... Following the row over the sell-off of the city green spaces, the possibility looms of councillors bound by party loyalty to agree to the plan to sell these green spaces being in charge of deciding whether local objections to those plans are allowed.... Anger at plans to change town green applications Bristol24-7

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

Petition : The Big Save Our Parks Petition

Please click on the title above or the link after the petition wording to sign up. I'm happy for Neighbourhood Partnerships to take decisions on green spaces provided local people are fully informed and involved in them at all times.

“We, the undersigned, call on Bristol City Council to reconsider the proposed land sales as part of the Parks & Area Green Spaces Strategy. We consider the consultation process undertaken by the Cabinet to be flawed and by signing this petition, we want the Cabinet Councillors and officers to hear our concerns. Neighbourhood Partnerships should decide on any green space disposals in their area - making sure local people are involved in the decision making, unlike the decisions taken so far by Cabinet. We support continued investment in green spaces but not at the price of selling off the green lungs of our City.We understand that, under new rules, petitions with 3,500 or more signatures will be debated at Full Council. The 20-year green space strategy is so important to Bristol and will affect communities for many years to come, so we believe it is right for all Councillors and the public to have their say at a meeting of the Council."

Background Information
Under recently adopted rules governing petitions, the Authority is obliged to bring a matter to Full Council where an issue attracts 3,500 signatures from people who live, work or study in the city.Once this trigger point is reached, petition organisers can advise Council Officers that they wish to take up this opportunity for debate at the next available meeting.We hope that by getting enough signatures from across the city that we can call for a debate at the March Council meeting and SAVE OUR PARKS.

Petition : The Big Save Our Parks Petition

Council's shaky evidence for green sell-off revealed | News

Copy of Bristol Green Party press release on green spaces issues. Well done to all Greens, Stockwood's Pete Goodwin and Southville's Cllr Tess Green [pictured] in particular, for their ongoing campaigning against green spaces flogging and exposing poor decision making on it.

Council's shaky evidence for green sell-off revealed News

Key Green Space documents have been released - months after consultation ended!

10 weeks after Bristol City Council closed its consultation on controversial plans to sell off so-called 'low-value' green spaces, documents showing how they were chosen have been revealed. The decision to sell was confirmed last week in the face of opposition from many individuals and groups and from Green, Labour and Conservative councillors.

The documents come in a delayed response to a Freedom of Information request from Stockwood resident Pete Goodwin, and have been placed on line on the "What Do They Know?" website .

Southville's Green Party councillor Tess Green commented:
"A quick look at some of the sites shows just how weak some of the recommendations were; there are too many assumptions made, evidence is disregarded, and public opinion seems to be something to be overcome, not to be weighed up as part of the decision."

"What we're left with is an over-hasty decision bulldozed through on the flimsiest of evidence, that will lose much valued green space without any great benefit to the remaining parks. If only the other parties had listened to the Greens before they agreed this disastrous strategy to pay for park improvements. People who value these spaces will now have to defend them using the planning process, or other legal moves."

Her fellow Green Mr Goodwin, who had put up a case against selling the Stockwood sites, added
"With no way of knowing why particular sites were judged as low value, it was very difficult to challenge the plans. That's why I lodged the Freedom of Information request. The information should have been made public much earlier, certainly in time for the decisions in council. The legal deadline was November 19, and the documents themselves date from summer of 2009, but it's only been released now. There can't be any excuse for that delay"

"It appears that a few Parks officers were set impossible targets, then had to cope with the massive public reaction to their proposals while still following a political mandate. The whole exercise has been a travesty."

ENDS

Contact:
Pete Goodwin, 01275 543280
Cllr Tess Green, 0117 377 2070

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

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.

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.