City Candidates

We need a Mayor who meets tests of competence, credibility and coherence. Labour's Marvin Rees does not currently meet these tests: he's not sufficiently experienced or qualified; and keeps putting out firm committments that he clearly has not got proper coherent plans or costings for - this story about the Comonwealth Games being a case in point. There are plenty of other examples. He's been pulled away from being a more open and candid candidate by the tribal nature of Bristol's party politics and if he becomes Mayor his term will be clouded by it. It's likely to be Rees (Lab) vs Ferguson (Bristol 1st) in the second round of counting and Ferguson is far and away the most competent, credible, coherent, experienced and qualified person.

Party politics

The national spotlight fell on Bristol's Labour mayoral candidate as he took to the stage in Manchester....(more here). But Marvin Rees's case lacks substance. He's either not able to or did not think of making the economic case for a living wage in this article for instance, to add to the moral/ethical one. It seems to me that he talks about the need for a plan for Bristol but then all he comes up with is warm words and attempted populist generalities. I want to see joined up thinking from him.

Taking 'pot shots' at his rivals too often could backfire for him. Labour in Bristol is already a very tribal sort of outfit, too high on pure party politics. Some of his rivals will attract votes by appealing for people not to back pure party politics so maybe he'd be better off sticking more to making a positive, policy-based case.

Marvin's muddlement

Labour's mayoral candidate Marvin Rees says, "I want Bristol be a city of aspiration with a vision for the position it wants to hold in the world and a plan for how to get there."(here) but he then gives few specifcs let alone a plan for the city. Committing to: an arena; football stadiums; a living wage; fight for money for and powers over transport; general support for the voluntary sector and zero food waste is bits and pieces populism not a coherent plan to enact a vision. The article is mostly Marvin’s muddlement.....

George's generalities

Independent mayoral candidate George Ferguson has today laid out his seven-point vision of a safer, caring and healthy Bristol...Getting Bristol moving and working are first on the candidate’s list, followed by “a healthy and caring City”; “a democratic Bristol”; “making Bristol great”; “vibrant Bristol” and “a safer Bristol”...his “magnificent seven”...(see here).

George Ferguson has been very clear he does not want a Bristol that is: immobile; unemployed; unhealthy; uncaring; undemocratic; not great; lifeless; and unsafe. He's not committed himself to anything in his seven points that anyone would oppose!

That he needs to put flesh on these very, very bare bones is an understatement. He has strongly and consistently opposed petty party politics and seems open to involving people of all parties and none - and these are amongst his key strengths - but he's not really committed to anything very specific apart from building an arena, opposing bus rapid transit, revoking Sunday parking charges (to which I am opposed) and applying for world heritage status for the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Its not a specific plan for Bristol is it.

Businessman Mayor ?

A BRISTOL businessman is the latest candidate to put himself forward in the race to become the city's first elected mayor. Andy Thorne, managing director of Thorne Security, the long-established locksmith and security firm...(full story)

Businessman Mr Thorne talks about waste, taxpayers money, effciency and how Bristol is not developing because planning gets in the way. This is clearly a right of centre agenda, though what he says is very light indeed on indicating any clear policies. He does not talk about education, transport, social services, housing, environmental quality etc as priorities, which perhaps tells a story.
_________________________________________________________________________

Not sure what Mr Thorne would make of it but I've just sent in this suggestion for adding to the Manifesto for Bristol....Surely the manifesto needs to say something about sustainability? How about including this, which attempts a reasonably complete and operational definition of sustainability, in the vision: Develop a city that: respects environmental limits; builds strong, resilient local communities; meets city needs now and in the future; has a focus on both local and global fairness and equality; strives for ever greater resource efficiency; replaces finite resource use with well managed renewable resources; uses health, wellbeing and quality of life as the indicator of progress; works through an evidence-based, reasoned, systems-thinking approach.

Stop BRT2

Passing on details of this site and campaign. I'm preparing some emails to send to the relevant cabinet members and councillors asking questions and opposing the scheme.

We want BRT2 stopped because

It will not achieve its primary goal of addressing Bristol's transport problems and needs.
It will not achieve its goal because it is a flawed plan, badly designed, too expensive, and will have adverse effects on the city, the environment, and local people.

STOP BRT2 | . . . there are better ways

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.

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.

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

Greens call for Stadium rethink as Sainsburys' prospects fade. | News

An Ashton Gate Sainsburys will hit other local traders far harder than the grocery giant has admitted. The independent report commissioned by the council from experts GVA challenges Sainsbury claims that its superstore - the third proposed for the Ashton Gate site [1] - can sit comfortably with existing retail businesses in South Bristol, especially those in North Street and East Street. It predicts that turnover in those shops would be cut by an average of 7%...

Greens call for Stadium rethink as Sainsburys' prospects fade. News

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

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

Supermarkets relentless growth

Excellent letter in todays Post from Gil Osman, copied below.

ACCORDING to recent BBC research, the big four supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons) are expanding at an alarming rate.

In the last two years, planning authorities have granted permission for at least 480 new supermarket stores in England. It is argued that this will give more choice to local shoppers – but will it? Unfortunately, many councils are persuaded to give planning permission, because of the financial benefit to themselves. Often an agreement is made, whereby the store has to build a community resource, or provide funds for such a venture, in order to gain planning permission to build a store. Thus the council does not have to pay for such facilities. In this age of recession councils will be even more tempted.

Supermarkets can attract many shoppers with the lure of lower prices (and even more so in a recession). Local traders cannot compete with such huge organisations, which buy in vast bulk at cheap prices. Therefore it leads to forced closure, which, in turn, leads to less choice and variety in an area. The independent High Street shop has been a feature of villages, towns and cities for generations and helps to form the character of an area. Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers, in a derogatory way, but, surely, the small trader is a tribute to British enterprise and individuality.

The closure of any small shop leaves our High Streets depleted and, eventually, leads to a loss of identity. 12,000 independent shops went out of business last year.

In their search for ever more cheaper products, the Big Four seem to have scant regard for many concerns.

The farmer who cannot afford to accept the wholesale price offered by the supermarket goes out of business. Question marks hang over the sources of some of the clothing offered so cheaply by the Big Four

And what of quality? Cheapness and quantity triumph here. Mass-produced food, using vast quantities of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is often tasteless when compared to organic produce, or that produced by the local allotment-holder. The effects of imbibing the residues of these chemicals have yet to be seen. And standardisation has reduced variety (take apples and potatoes, for example).

And what of animal welfare? The generality of people have demonstrated their abhorrence of intensive farming methods with their boycott of the battery-produced egg (at least Sainsbury's has banned these).

Yet, I do not doubt that the Big Four will buy milk from the huge factory dairy being proposed in Leicestershire – if it gets planning permission. Like battery chickens, these cows will spend their whole lives inside huge sheds, never placing their feet on a green field. The entrepreneur behind this enterprise has the effrontery to state on television that cows don't belong in fields anymore! It's like a Victorian factory-owner stating: 'Workers (i.e. men, women and children) don't belong in villages anymore!' And, of course, the small dairy farmer will not be able to compete and will go out of business.

Tesco made £3.4 billion profit last year. It cannot possibly make such a profit on its cheaper ranges, which suggests its customers are paying over the odds on other items. But, once in a supermarket, most people will buy everything there. After all, it's so convenient!!!

Gil Osman
Shirehampton
Bristol

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.

BBC News - How Helsinki airport deals with snow and ice

Interesting perspective on one aspect of dealing with snowy weather from Helsinki - basically they expect a lot of snow and very low temperatures; they are more prepared, with more staff and equipment types and numbers; our snow is wetter and ice problems are more likely; Helsinki airport does not have to handle as many flights as Heathrow...If this kind of weather is likely to occur in the UK more frequently then we have to be more prepared and perhaps change our attitude to travel intensive lifestyles.

...It looks as though there will be another snowy winter, like last year's, says Anika Kala, a spokesperson for the airport. But she says she's relaxed because the airport is "well prepared".

The preparation consists of good equipment, extra winter staff, and a choice of three runways.

While one runway is being cleared of snow or ice, the other two are open for business.

Snow storage
In exceptional circumstances, two runways may be closed. It takes a rare combination of heavy snow and high wind to close all three - as happened, briefly, seven years ago.

What about the equipment?

"We have 250 vehicles of different kinds," says Ms Kala.

"We have sweepers, snow ploughs, vehicles that blow snow from the runways, and friction testers that check the surface is fit for use."

The snow is removed to a special storage area within the airport perimeter. When that fills up, it is taken to other facilities outside.

Last winter 7,000 truckloads were carted off the runways, apron and taxi-ing areas.

Temperatures in Helsinki can drop to -25C - but Ms Kala explains that a good hard frost is much easier to deal with than a temperature of zero or -1C.

"When it's zero degrees, it's moist and there will be ice," she says....

She acknowledges that there is a big difference between Helsinki, which has a total of 600 landings and take-offs per day on its three runways, and Heathrow which has twice as many - on two runways - and five times as many passengers to deal with.

Running a big airport like Heathrow - which is privately owned by BAA - would be a bigger operation than running state-owned Helsinki airport.

But the principles for dealing with snow and ice, Ms Kala suggests, are probably the same.

BBC News - How Helsinki airport deals with snow and ice