Car crap

More than 15,000 motorists a year are caught jumping red lights in Bristol, it has been revealed.

The Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership says a total of 15,500 drivers and motorcyclists were caught on camera going through red traffic lights last year...(more here).

No surprise here. In fact the figure is very likely to be much higher than 15,500 a year - this is only those drivers that have been seen and successfully photographed. Anyone who drives around Bristol a bit, as I do, knows that you dont have to be out on the road for long on any one day before you see all sorts of driving offences and breaches of the Highway Code: overtaking on the inside, weaving from lane to lane, through red lights, driving very close behind you, sudden and sharp braking, sudden acceleration, through zebra crossings when people are waiting to cross or are still on the crossing, generally not allowing space and time to pedestrians and bikes, irresponsible parking eg on double yellow lines and on corners, general speeding -including from one set of red lights to another...Many of these people must have more money than sense because they are increasing their chances of a very costly - and more serious - accident and wasting away their fuel with grossly inefficient driving - some of these may be the first to moan about fuel prices too!   

Lib Dem fix for Bristol???

Can we fix it? Yes we can! So say both Bob the Builder and US President Barack Obama – and now that they have at last won overall control of Bristol City Council Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have a clear opportunity to fix Bristol. Their manifesto, called ‘Six to Fix’ gives what are in some cases pretty specific benchmarks against which we will all be able to assess their progress, though these most often relate to small scale change in the city not tackling a bigger or general problem and timescales for changes are, with one exception, absent.

To give them credit, Bristol’s Liberal Democrats have performed extremely well in order to get into this position. They know how to fight elections very well indeed. They took four seats from Labour in the recent local elections in addition to successfully defending all eleven of the seats they previously held, including a threat to their Ashley seat from the Green Party. They were helped by the very poor Labour performance – they lost eight out of the ten seats they defended (four to Tories, four to the Lib Dems) and only narrowly held on to the two seats they won. Thus ended years of a ‘hung’ council where no party had overall control, which featured see-saw politics and two parties always ganging up on the other through unholy alliance – this is a very good opportunity to give Bristol some firm direction and leadership.

There are some tough problems to solve. The Lib Dems have said they want to ‘Cut congestion and get better transport for all’ (including backing suburban rail; more money for road safety, pedestrians and cyclists; introducing a cashless ‘Oyster Card’ for Bristol buses). Under the transport heading issues like residents parking and air quality wont go away. The key benchmark of progress here is congestion.

Lib Dem policy two is ‘A clean and green city’ (which includes more money for street cleaning, getting tough on flytipping; a ‘parkie’ in every major park and more play areas for children; fighting the green belt grab and preserving our green spaces). It will be very interesting indeed to see the extent to which the Lib Dems oppose building on Bristol’s green belt, particularly since Bristol City Football Club propose to build a new stadium on green land in Ashton Vale, where many houses are also proposed and at least part of which is green belt. All party leaders except the Greens have given public and enthusiastic support to the proposed new City stadium in principle and they are backing a bid to bring World Cup football to Bristol, which a new stadium would be necessary for. Amount of green belt and other green space built on is a key indicator here. I’d also add that the total carbon emissions of the city are a key indicator because everyone recognises that low carbon emissions are a key feature of being green – and the connection with cutting congestion is obvious.

‘Boost Bristol’s Bobbies’ says policy three (including a fair share of police; campaign against ID cards; new crime reduction schemes on repeat offenders and violent partners). Police and Community Support Officer numbers are easily counted and tracked but this does not necessarily mean more peaceful, orderly, lower crime neighbourhoods, so the benchmark is not so straightforward. Real, effective leadership would give us less crime and more peace and order.

*
The Lib Dems get very specific about policy 4, which promises ‘Three new libraries, a new school [North Bristol] and a new pool [East Bristol]’. This policy includes a promise to ‘fix Labours school places mess’. This year saw chaos for parents and pupils trying to find the school place they need and want for their child and so this pledge to ensure that 2010 sees no repeat of the previous fiasco. The local press has described this as a poisoned chalice!! We will all be able to see whether the various facilities are built and whether school places – but there is no promise on an overall improvement in the quality of education and it looks like the Lib Dems will implement most if not all of the plans to create bigger primary schools which wont be popular in many places and is seen by some as going against the quality of the educational experience. Real, effective leadership would improve the quality of education, not that this is straightforward to assess!

The pledges in policy five ‘Beat Gordon Brown’s recession in Bristol’ (including keeping the council tax as low as possible and campaigning for it to be scrapped; extra help on debt for small businesses and individuals; investment in training and apprenticeships) are more nebulous and designed to pick up votes during a time of recession. We all know that the council cannot make Bristol a recession-free zone and everybody would subscribe to the other policies under this heading the way they are worded!

Policy six ‘50% recycling by 2010 and no incinerator’ (which includes switching from a large, dirty incinerator to clean and cheap new technology; free corn starch brown bin liner bags; reversing the recycling rate drop under Labour) really should be under the ‘clean and green city’ heading. Mass incineration has already been abandoned, though putting alternative approaches into practice within a decent budget is doable but not straightforward. ‘Free’ corn starch bags will need to show that they can more than make up for the carbon cost of producing and consuming them and for their financial cost to the council but its uncertain that all the required data to make the assessments was sought by the council beforehand. Improving Labour’s recycling record wont be difficult because their work on this was poor – achieving a 50% [household waste] recycling rate by 2010 would be great (and a target with a timescale makes a change!). We still need to push on a lot from there if we are to have a low waste city though and someone (central govt??) needs to get a grip on total waste, most of which is not generated in households of course.

Tesco's revised plans for a car park on The Friendship pub garden

Copy of an email sent by me to Bristol City Council.

For the attention of Ron Moss, case officer now dealing with application 08/04903/F:

I'm writing to express my continued opposition to Tesco plans to build a car park over the pub garden of The Friendship Inn in Knowle. The revised plans recently submitted by Tesco are entirely inappropriate for this part of Knowle as they would make the roads less safe and local quality of life worse.

In April all councillors on the planning committee, with the exception of the chair, expressed big concerns about Tesco's plans, having gone to the site to assess things directly - and several of them expressed fundamental concerns, not just concerns about the design.

Both local councillors oppose the plans. A petition with thousands of names on it opposes the plans. Tens of locals have written to express road safety concerns. Local green campaigners have expressed concerns about further traffic and pollution, loss of trees and green space. Real Ale campaigners have told the council they want to see the a local pub survive on this spot. Bristol Civic Society has applied for the pub to have listed building status. The local shopping centre and small businesses in the area are opposed to the plans. Each distinct group agrees with the concerns expressed by the other groups!

What concerns me about the letter the council sent informing me of revised plans is this sentence,

'We may not contact you again until a decision is made, unless the application is to be considered by the Development Control Committee, or is withdrawn.'

This makes it sound like it is not definite that the planning committee will look at the revised plans and take representations from those concerned (or supportive) of what is proposed. There are major concerns about these plans from a wide spectrum of people and they certainly need to go to before the planning committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-petition for 20mph default speed on Bristol's residential roads is now live - please sign!!

From the 20's Plenty For Bristol Campaign:

The E-Petition to Bristol City Council "Reduce the speed limit to 20mph
where people live and work" is now live at the link below. Please
add your names and publicise it widely !

Petition link(s): http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/view/20splenty

The petitioner asks Bristol City Council to adopt 20mph as the default
speed limit for residential and urban roads.

A 20 MPH BRISTOL: WHY?

Most of us want to live in a quiet, pleasant street. A safe street in
which children can play out alone; a friendly street in which you can
meet your neighbours.

No one wants to live in a hostile street that you cannot walk across
thanks to a fast-moving traffic; a noisy street that is an occasional
race track.

We call for Bristol to bring traffic speeds down to 20 miles per hour
across the city, as part of a wider vision for creating the kind of
streets in which we really want to live.

LIVING STREETS

Communities grow where the streets belong to people, not just to
vehicles. City streets can and should be lively, vibrant places which
everyone can enjoy. Streets should be places in which you can hear
yourself speak above the constant noise from vehicles; in which you can
safely walk or cycle with your children.

Our streets should not be grim thoroughfares serving only fast-moving
vehicles. Our streets should include everyone and allow a range of uses.
Our streets should be a truly shared space in which shoppers and
residents, pedestrians and cyclists, young and old, do not take a second
place to people in cars.

Reducing vehicle speeds is the single most important factor in creating
living streets. There is strong and growing evidence to support a
maximum speed limit of 20 mph in our towns and cities. The government
supports the introduction of 20 mph, and the Conservatives now support
20 mph 'in all urban areas'.

We believe that the benefits of 20 mph should be felt throughout
Bristol, in the streets where we live, shop and stroll.

DRIVER PSYCHOLOGY

At 20 mph, drivers make eye contact with and engage with the people in
the street they are passing through. This contact really matters: people
in the street know they've been seen. It also makes drivers less
inclined to bully their way along 'their' road, and more inclined to
share the space.

At speeds over 30 mph, drivers begin to become disassociated from the
area they are passing through - treating it principally as a traffic
thoroughfare for getting quickly from A to B, rather than a space for
people to enjoy.

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD?

The 2003-04 British Crime Survey asked the public what they perceive to
be the worst 'anti-social behaviour' problems where they live. By far
the biggest problems related to the effects of motor traffic - 43%
reported fast traffic as a 'fairly big' or 'very big' problem, and 31%
felt the same about cars parked inconveniently or illegally.

SOME FACTS ABOUT ROAD TRAFFIC SPEEDS:

Perhaps the most surprising fact about reducing speeds from 30 mph to 20
mph is that vehicles get across cities quicker the slower they go.
According to transport planners, in a city where the limits are 20 mph
not 30 mph, there is less need for traffic signals and the queuing that
traffic lights cause. Slow-moving cars require fewer controls and allow
a more efficient city. There's little sense in speeding from one queue
to the next as we do at the moment. Slower speeds make it easy for motor
vehicles to merge with ease, for cycles to co-exist with motor vehicles,
and for pedestrians to cross roads.

DID YOUR KNOW?

. Hit by a car at 40 mph, a pedestrian has an 85 per cent chance of
being killed while at 20 mph the risk falls to 5 per cent.
(Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety)

. When traffic is slowed down to 20 mph, there is a 70 per cent drop in
accidents to child pedestrians. (Transport Research Laboratory)

. Children from disadvantaged families are five times more likely to be
killed on the roads than the better off. (Department for Transport)

. Children's deaths and injuries could be reduced by 67 per cent if 20
mph were the speed limit on residential roads. (Health Development
Agency)

. The proportion of children walking to primary school in Britain has
fallen from 61 per cent in 1993 to 53 per cent in 2003, with an increase
from 30 per cent to 39 per cent in the numbers driven to school over the
same period. (National Travel Survey)

FIND OUT MORE at the websites for 20's Plenty for Bristol and 20's
Plenty for Us:

http://www.20splentyforbristol.org.uk and
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk

Steve Kinsella
20's Plenty for Bristol
tel 01934 838624 mobile 07810 285175

Tesco submit revised plans to build car park over Friendship Inn garden

Tesco just dont give up when they want it all their own way. I'm told that they have submitted revised plans for building a car park over the Friendship Inn pub garden. This means that the planning committee will look again at the issue, possibly as early as 3 June. They were stopped from getting their way in January and again in April but here we go again...

There are some uncertainties here at present. We have elections in June which means the make-up of the planning committee handling this may change (will they really be meeting on 3 June, as currently scheduled, with elections on 4 June??). I've not seen the revised plans and have not received a letter from the council yet detailing the planning committee meeting that will consider them.

Not surprised about a revised plan being submitted by Tesco. Its what the planning committee meeting on 1 April ended up deciding they would enable, at literally the last minute. Labour Cllr Sean Beynon, currently the planning committee Chair, was very keen on the original plan, supported by unelected officers (!) even though every other councillor thought it was very poor. My feeling is that he and officers manipulated the committee meeting of 1 Apr into deferring the decision subject to Tesco revising the design rather than refusing permission (nothing to stop Tesco submitting a revsied plan even if they were refused planning permission first time though).

Several councillors trashed the car park design (going against officer opinion, who advised very badly) and expressed the view that this was entirely the wrong place for a car park after their site visit on 1 Apr. I will be reminding the committee of this and outlining all the reasons why: road safety; noise; air pollution and local health; climate change and congestion
issues...

20’s Plenty For Us: Cutting speeds with no speed bumps

Large groups of us used to kick a ball around or race our bikes around the block in 1960’s and 70’s Knowle. Kids playing in the street is a much rarer sight now, not least because our roads are much busier. The current default speed limit of 30mph in areas where people live was set in 1934 when there were 1.5 million motor vehicles. Now there are a massive 33 million!!

Road traffic in the UK is the single biggest cause of premature deaths for boys and the second biggest cause for girls age 5-15. Every year in Bristol 500 people are killed or seriously injured on the roads, the burden falling hardest on the poorest, with 24 of every 100 child pedestrian casualties being in the most deprived neighbourhoods compared to 1 in 100 in the least deprived. At 20mph a pedestrian knocked over stands a 90% chance of surviving. At 40mph they stand a 90% chance of dying. 20mph in residential areas is clearly fast enough, and the new "20's Plenty For Us" initiative in the area is aiming to make this a reality.

Compare our residential street speed limit of 30mph with the speed limit in Northern European towns. Our limit is 60% higher than the 18.5 mph (30 kph) limits that they have for streets where people live. No wonder perhaps that 92% of pedestrian deaths are on urban roads in the UK and at 21% we have a higher proportion of pedestrian deaths on the roads than any of our European neighbours.

In Hilden, Germany, the setting of their 18.5 mph (30 kph) limit in the early 90's was the foundation of them encouraging cycling and walking. In fact now 23% of in-town trips are made by children and adults using bikes instead of cars.

Something has to change to bring us into the 21st century. Adults lead more sedentary lives in part because they spend more time in their cars. Children lead less active lives in part because we worry about the dangers posed by road traffic. The growth of physically inactive lifestyles in industrialised countries has led to what many are calling a major public health crisis. Preventable illnesses associated with inactivity and obesity include stroke, heart attack, certain cancers, diabetes, and depression.

Around 40% of people in the UK report being bothered by noise from traffic, nearly double the figure from the 1970’s. Children living near busy roads suffer significantly higher rates of asthma and West of England Partnership figures show that over 100,000 Bristolians live in areas where air quality is considered to be potentially damaging to health.

Cars travelling too fast in residential areas have helped to create social degradation. Neighbours across the road from each other don't talk to each as often as they used when I was kicking a ball about with mates, because a gulf is created by cars speeding past. As far back as 1969 Prof David Appleyard found that community was eroded on San Francisco streets with busier traffic.

A study by Kevin Leyden in 2003 found that people ‘living in walkable, mixed use neighbourhoods were more likely to know their neighbours, participate politically, trust others and be socially engaged, compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs’. Research on Bristol’s streets by Josh Hart at UWE showed that motor vehicle traffic is responsible for a considerable deterioration in residential community, measured by average number of social contacts, extent of perceived ‘home territory’, and reported street-based social activity. Several studies show that people whose homes had windows facing busy streets were more often depressed.

20's Plenty For Us was formed in order to work for the implementation of 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads in the UK, in place of 30mph. The balance is shifting towards roads and streets as public spaces for people rather than just motors – safer, cleaner, healthier and more civil. Quality of life would be better, with less noise, lower pollution, greater child mobility, walking, cycling and talking encouraged, better general wellbeing.

The Bristol 20’s Plenty group was recently launched to help build improved quality of life in local communities. 40 neighbourhood champions are already in place, including myself in Knowle. The target is 100 champions so if you want to be involved either as a champion yourself or as part of a team then phone us or send an email (champions@20splentyforbristol.org.uk.) or check out the national and local websites for up to date news, reports, articles, action packs, support and resources (http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/ http://www.20splentyforbristol.org.uk/).

20mph is an idea whose time has come, with growing numbers of cities doing it, including Portsmouth, Oxford, Norwich, Leicester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Islington has just decided to become the first London Borough to implement an authority-wide 20mph limit where people live and Hackney look set to follow. Transport for London is making funds available for all London Boroughs to set a 20mph default. Bristol will be piloting 20mph in some residential streets in the south and east of the city soon and so getting the council to go the whole way is deliverable – which is why 20’s Plenty are working in communities, urging people to talk to their councillors!

Research has shown that the vast majority of the public, over 80% in polls, would like 20 mph on residential roads. After all its where people live!! The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety found that 70% of drivers want it too. Recent changes in Dept of Transport guidelines have relaxed the recommendations and in many residential areas 20 mph limits may be set without any physical measures at all – which means the cost of the change is small.

Portsmouth City Council has now created 1200 streets with 20 mph – and they did it with only 6 traffic orders, in just nine months without any speed bumps at a cost of £475,000, the cost of about two sets of traffic lights. Speeds have already reduced by an average of 3mph and the whole community has a collective commitment to sharing the roads better. The cost of 20mph in Bristol is likely to be approx £1.5 million as we are bigger than Portsmouth but this is a tiny amount considering that if a person is unfortunate enough to be hit by a car at 30mph they are likely to die whereas at 20mph they are likely to live! Further information:

email - champions@20splentyforbristol.org.uk.

Contact: Steve Kinsella 01934 838624 The Old Forge Kingston Bridge, Clevedon, BS21 6TX

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/

http://www.20splentyforbristol.org.uk/

Planning committee meets tomorrow to consider Tesco/Friendship plans after site visit

Statement on planning application 08/04903/F – Tesco/The Friendship Inn - for 1 April Development Control (South and East) Committee, which I hope to present in person:

Having visited the Friendship Inn site...I hope you will agree with me that the proposed car park does not provide safe and convenient access. I hope you will agree with me that giving planning permission for additional car parking in this area is entirely inappropriate on sustainability and quality of life grounds.

I remind you of the weight of local opinion, given that nearly 1500 people signed the paper petition, nearly 100 signed the e-petition and over 100 people packed out a public meeting called to discuss the matter.

I ask you to remember who is making this application, why they have made this application and how they have made this application. Its not really about a car park for a pub is it!! The approach they have taken has been remote and unapproachable, not locally involved and neighbourly.

The guidance sheet on having your say on planning applications states that the ‘…City Council has to take into account national and local policies…’. In a previous statement to you I raised the new Climate Change Act as an example of a relevant national policy that should be at the front of your considerations. I also raised the wide range of local policies aimed at making Bristol a green city and green capital.

The effect of building a new car park over a pub garden following a planning application from a major supermarket chain with plans to set up a new store in the pub, at great cost to local small businesses, will raise not lower carbon emissions and dent the strength of local community and quality of life. It will move the city away from not towards its green city and green capital aspirations. Therefore there are clear policy grounds for refusing planning permission.

Cast your vote on this planning application to favour: road safety; local democracy; a participatory approach to development; strong local communities; small local businesses; improving environmental quality; improving quality of life.

Get your objection to the Tesco plan to build a car park over The Friendship pub garden in Knowle submitted now!

I sent the following objection to the Tesco plan to build a car park over The Friendship pub garden (see photo) on Redcatch/Axbridge Rd in Knowle today. I urge others to object similarly (you can do so online here or by writing to the case officer Jo Edwards, Bristol City Council, The Council House, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR). Neighbour consultation letters were sent out on 16 Dec and planning consultation ends on 6 Jan 2009. Its a busy period with Christmas and New Year so get your objections and comments on the plans in as soon as possible and before 6 Jan!! You could also write to Tesco on this issue via Juliette Bishop, Corporate Affairs Manager, Tesco Stores Ltd, Ground Floor, Unit 5, Greenways Business Park, Bellinger Close, Chippenham, Wilts, SN15 1BN, or e,mail juliette.bishop@uk.tesco.com

As a Knowle resident I am very strongly opposed to the Tesco plan to build a car park on the pub garden. I don’t want to experience: loss of amenity; a less attractive area; a less green area; more accident risk; more traffic congestion; poorer air quality; more noise pollution; health impacts; bringing a Tesco Express in The Friendship a step closer. I’m happy to join with many other locals who feel as I do and ask you to refuse planning permission or at the very least delay to allow discussions between all interested parties on what sort of shopping facilities are necessary and desirable for Knowle, consistent with the thinking behind Neighbourhood Partnerships.

Building a car park over the pub garden will have a detrimental visual impact and loss of amenity for all neighbouring residents, those regularly in the area and of course local wildlife. The pub garden is a large, pleasant green space with plenty of trees and shrubs and a lot of potential. Better use can be made of this space than a car park, which cannot be built to attract customers on foot at a time when the city has the aim of becoming a green capital of course!

The proposed car park will also impact negatively on road safety on an already increasingly busy road. Cars would be turning in and out of the propose car park onto Redcatch Rd/Axbridge Rd where they currently don’t, adding to accident risk. Cars turning into and out from the car park would inevitably cause some additional traffic congestion to build up, worsening air quality and increasing noise pollution locally and adding further to climate change. This all impacts on our health, wellbeing and quality of life.

I call on you to bear in mind that this planning application has obviously been made by Tesco because of their publicly stated intention to establish a Tesco Express in The Friendship based on existing permissions. Disquiet about this is significant, amongst both local people and the many and varied existing shops locally, with two mutually supportive petitions opposing Tesco’s intended move signed by many. There are very strong concerns about Tesco: further impacting the local area beyond car park effects, with large, very inappropriate delivery lorries; increasingly dominating the local economy; monopolising trade; causing loyal and longstanding local businesses to become unsustainable as time passes; cutting shopping choice, cutting competition, increasing prices as time passes; increasing dereliction as shops close.

There are very strong concerns that when considering such planning applications no-one at the council is considering what kind of neighbourhoods and community locals need and want – this is more about keeping and improving Knowle’s variety of shopping provision than opposition to Tesco plans per se. I hope therefore that good sense among those making planning decisions prevails and that broad considerations are accounted for along with precise factors.

Tesco plan to build on The Friendship pub garden in Knowle

Due to existing permissions Tesco dont need planning consent to set up a shop in The Friendship. Any campaign opposing them setting up in The Friendship is broader than their current planning application (see here and here) and is about the balance of shop provision in Knowle. I've been contacted by several people with an interest in the current shops in Knowle and will be meeting them in the next few days to talk things through.


Tesco dont have to apply to set up a store but have applied for planning permission to build a 12 car plus 1 disabled space car park on the pub garden (see photos), with access gained by removing part of the wall on Axbridge Rd/Redcatch Rd. The council can only judge this application, as the planning officer dealing with this case has told me, on its merit and demerits -and the Tesco application makes no mention of their plans to convert the pub into a shop!


Building a car park over the pub garden will have a visual impact, meaning loss of amenity for neighbouring residents, those regularly in the area and of course local wildlife. The pub garden is a large, pleasant green space with plenty of trees and shrubs and a lot of potential, as the photos show. It will also impact on road safety on an already increasingly busy road, as cars would be turning in and out where they currently dont. If/when the shop sets up very large delivery vehicles will impact the area (though this fact cant apparently be taken into account by the council as the current planning application can and will only be looked at as if the pub was applying!!).


I urge local people to write to the council, via case officer Jo Edwards, opposing this application quoting ref number 08/04903/F. Two notices will shortly be put up in the local area and people have 21 days to respond once the notices are on display. You can also object or comment online here.


The Bristol Evening Post covered the setting up of an e-petition today and the ensuing online debate/commenting was reasonably lively, including a few rather vociferous 'anti-vowles' comments saying I was out of touch with what locals want!! Strange then, if what online commenters said is true (!), that when I again went to the area today talking to people, everyone I spoke to felt the same as me - and the paper petition opposing a Tesco already has hundreds of local signatures and the newly launched online one already has 30!

Walking in Bristol

My contribution to the current Bristol City Council consultation on walking policies for the city, inspired considerably by various Green manifesto's and policies which have long argued for walking strategies:

Walking should be given the highest priority in transport planning: it increases health and well-being, which no other mode of transport other than cycling does; it has the least environmental impact; it is available to use by the greatest number of the population, particularly children; it benefits the social environment in which it occurs, increasing contact between people; it enhances the vitality of our communities.

Three quarters of journeys made are still under 5 miles, and half under two miles - walking should, along with cycling, account for most short distance journeys made if we get conditions right and we need this to be so if we are to build a sustainable society.

Walking should not be in general decline given that it’s a very effective transport, health and environmental policy but even though its still a common mode of transport just look at the stats: the number of walking trips fell by 20% between 1993 and 2003; between 1986 and 2001 total distance walked per person per year fell from 244 miles to 189 miles; households with a car walk less than those in households without a car - 163 miles per year compared to 265 miles (men who are the main driver of a company car walk least of all - 131 miles per year on average); car ownership has increased from 30% of households in 1961 to 70% in 1998; the decline in walking is largely accounted for by trips that have transferred to the car.(DfT 2003, National Statistics National Travel Survey and Social Trends).

How do we reverse this decline and then increase the amount of walking? Well, walking facilities should be well maintained and cleaned and priority should be given to this, in funding and enforcement, including fines against those allowing dogs to foul the footway. All opportunities should be taken to maximise convenience, safety, security and comfort. Planning for walking should aim to provide both networks of routes and to ensure other areas are pedestrian-orientated. Priority should be given to providing a minimum standard of provision for walkers that would ensure that all networks are complete and usable.

Design for walking should always seek to provide for all needs, including: those with sensory disabilities, the elderly, children, those pushing or carrying heavy loads and larger groups of people. Some people are not able to walk and so improved access for the disabled by all transport types should also be a priority.

Crossings of roads should always be designed with walkers as priority one and follow consultations with pedestrians. All formal crossings should be designed to respond more quickly to demand from walkers than at present and give them more time to cross. Zebra crossings should be present at more frequent intervals in key places. Any barriers stopping informal crossing of roads should be identified and progressively removed.

The Highway Code allows for priority to walkers crossing at side road junctions and access roads. This should be effected in road design, education and enforcement.

Signing of walking routes should be given priority, with clear signs to those places that people actually wish to travel to, e.g. shops and public facilities, including public transport stops. The placing of maps at more regular intervals that give information that walkers need, such as surface barriers, road crossings and bus stops, is important.

Shared use of walking space with cyclists can be a source of nuisance and conflict to walkers. All efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts through increased safe provision for both walkers and cyclists. Where proposals are made for shared use, all other measures should first be studied to ensure that there are no other ways of making walking and cycling safe. Loss of road space from other vehicles to accommodate cyclists is preferable to loss of footway space for walkers.

Despite overall decline, walking is still a popular leisure pursuit, with the development of various paths/trails. Such activity can imply a dependence on a car to access these places. All publicity for these should show how these can be accessed by sustainable modes of transport, including public transport.

Developing a car-free city centre is a great idea. Walkers improve the attractiveness and commercial success of central areas, and pedestrian only zones mean a reduction in pollution, noise and car accidents.

Greater priority should be given to maintaining and signing public rights of way throughout all areas. New routes should be developed wherever there is a sufficient demand.

For information on walking in Bristol and useful links:

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/transport-and-streets/walking/

Loving the car

Interesting to see the online critical responses to letter writer Philip Gannaway. He is concerned about what he calls ‘anti-car rhetoric’ (Soapbox: ‘Learning to love the motor car’, Post 5 Dec).

He would acknowledge I hope that there are many positive reasons for seeking a society with low car use, not least our health, safety, security, stability and quality of life.

The Council and Government should invest heavily in sustainable transport methods as a matter of urgency.

He would acknowledge, if he believes in reason and the real world (terms he is keen to use in his letter), that the best available science says that we must urgently make very large cuts in carbon emissions from cars. The damage done to our climate would, with other measures, then be lower, enhancing the security and stability of life on into the future. Bristol’s carbon emissions are six times the sustainable level, a large proportion of this due to car use.

With car use lowered road safety would be increased. Thousands are currently killed and tens of thousands injured every year.

Fewer cars on the roads means cleaner air, which means lower lung damage and much improved health, especially for children. Tens of thousands die prematurely each year due to toxic air pollution.

Towns and cities more focussed on walking, cycling and public transport would be more tranquil and less stressful places to live. The quality of our lives could thus be enhanced.

We devote so much time, money and land to the car too – why not free up a lot of this and put it to good use in other ways?

Knowle does not need a Tesco Express!!

Tesco should not be allowed to convert The Friendship on Redcatch Rd, Knowle into a Tesco Express (report from local paper here). I will object to these plans and support any protest/petition. They seem to have a policy of flooding the market with their outlets.

Tesco's Bristol dominance is growing, skewing the local economy. It is monopolising the market, which is increasingly bad for competition and thus prices. It is forcing longstanding and loyal local shopkeepers out of business.

We need a balance of types of shops in Knowle. Tesco already has stores nearby and there is also a choice of supermarkets and smaller shops in the area.

Another Tesco outlet seems absurd. Any new store and plans '...to improve the existing car park arrangements on the site to offer 12 customer parking spaces...', could increase local traffic and worsen road safety.

Another issue is what would happen to the area that is currently a pleasant, reasonably large garden with trees and shrubs at the back of the pub. Many people will want to retain a local pub and garden. If pub retention is not possible there must be better uses than yet another Tesco!

I've contacted the council for details but none are available yet as the application is very recent.

Transport concerns in Knowle and elsewhere in Bristol

Questions to the Bristol City Council Cabinet meeting of 27 November submitted today – for Cllr Mark Bradshaw, Member for Sustainable Development (which encompasses transport and planning I believe). They relate both to Knowle and to wider issues.

Speeding concerns in Knowle

Residents in the Wootton Park, Callington Rd and Airport Rd area of Knowle have raised concerns with me about frequent speeding, road safety issues, and high levels of both air and noise pollution. This part of Knowle is included in an Air Quality Management Area and is a noise pollution hotspot according to the council’s excellent work on noise mapping. Cutting speed limits will cut the frequency and severity of road accidents and cut air and noise pollution.

1. Will the council commit to gathering further information on speeding, road safety, air and noise pollution in and around these three roads, including gathering information on accidents and near accidents from local residents?

2. As part of any review of speeds on A roads what consideration will the council give to

a)reducing the 40mph speed limit on Callington Rd and Airport Rd to 30mph
b)reducing the 30mph speed limit on Wootton Park to 20mph
c)cutting speed limits in general across the city wherever it is appropriate eg on M32 (or parts of it), in order to improve air quality, cut carbon emissions, cut noise and improve road safety

South Bristol Link: Road Traffic Impacts.

1. Given that the only reference in the consultation documents to altered traffic levels created by a 'road' option between Hengrove and Long Ashton, is that it "may increase traffic on King Georges Road", has any traffic modelling been done that might offer a bit more certainty to the West of England planners, and might give consultees a more realistic picture of what they’re invited to comment on?

2. If one of the road options is chosen, thus creating a de facto South Bristol Ring Road, what is its likely impact on

a) traffic levels along Airport Road/ Callington Rd/Wootton Park
b) total vehicle miles (compared with 'do nothing', or the public transport option)
c) air quality in the vicinity of Callington Rd, Wootton Park, Airport Rd and the South Bristol Sports Centre

Whitchurch to City Centre Cycleway

Can you confirm to what extent (if any) the Cycling City budget will be used to fund property acquisition along the line of the proposed Callington Road Link (the disused railway cutting between Tesco Brislington and Arnos Vale) as part of the proposed Whitchurch to Centre cycle route ?

I will report any responses received on this blog.

Road safety issues: Callington Rd/Wootton Park, Knowle

'A new road would attract more through traffic along Callington Road and Airport Road. When that gets too choked up (bad enough already isn't it?*) it'll be back to the Phase 3 plan...' says Stockwood Pete (Green campaigner Peter Goodwin) in an excellent post about the South Bristol Ring Road on his new blog.

*I've recently been approached by Knowle residents just off Callington Rd for help in campaigning for lowering the existing speed limits (the existing 40mph to 30mph and existing 30 mph to 20 mph near homes) and having speed/safety cameras installed. I'm fully supporting them and have initially helped them to get some supporting information and useful contacts.

Worries about accidents/safety, air pollution and noise are high amongst residents of Wootton Park in particular. My information is that at present they have got little or no support that satisfies them from the police and local Lib Dem Councillors Hopkins and Davies. I'm due to post another and more detailed blog entry about this after I've spoken to locals again for the latest but for the moment thought I'd log my involvement. There is some demand for a petition and media campaign....

Residents parking schemes: clear net benefits

I've been contributing to the local online debate about the Bristol residents parking scheme - arguing in favour. Its been pretty lively on both the Bristol Blogger's and on Councillor Charlie Bolton's site, though I'm not so sure that the range of people taking part has gone that far beyond the usual suspects. Circumstances within Bristol eg the poor state of public transport and the nature of the scheme itself are not ideal, but my view is that there are still clear net benefits for neighbourhoods (see the council information leaflet here).

I'm interested to see that Knowle Councillor Gary Hopkins has spoken out against residents parking on the Bristol Blogger site, despite the environmental and safety gains which result. There are many factors in favour of residents parking, not least putting off commuters who currently are encouraged by the availability of parking to drive into the city, causing a wide range of problems: congestion; air pollution; stress; road safety issues; climate change; police/ambulance/fire service access problems; disability access issues, and more. All of which will have a bigger impact on the poorer and more vulnerable people than on the rich.

Any feedback on what I've said on this issue is most welcome of course.

Irrational, emotive vitriol against money for cycling

I remember being accused of basing my views on emotion not reason, science and fact when I first began green campaigning 25 years ago. I always thought the opposite was true. Its now more evident than ever that the emotional reaction is actually from those denying the problems we face and resisting change for the better. Just take a look at this extraordinary and extremely unreasonable letter in todays local paper about Bristol winning money for investing in cycling. I've reproduced it here in full (with further reaction to it from me below it) because I think it makes the case for cycling very well indeed. After all, irrational, emotive vitriol is not going to solve our transport problems is it - though that is what Jamie Caddick's letter is full of:

As if any further proof were needed that the Government and local council have well and truly lost the plot, the announcement that those evil-doing two-wheeled terrorists of the modern world - cyclists - are to get a big fat government grant finally seals the deal ("£11.4 million to create first Cycling City", Post, June 19.In a world where it's commonplace and de rigueur to shower the unworthy and pitiful with handouts, benefits, rewards and incentives in a vain and futile attempt to appease and silence the minorities, this barmy cycling scheme is a step too far.And it's one that will further create division, resentment and anger among those of us whose lives are already blighted by this wannabe- superior, duplicitous, irritating, dangerous, sanctimonious and arrogant crowd.£22 million is a lot of cash - cash that could be pumped into schools (already struggling for funds and under the threat of closure), hospitals (already struggling for funds and under the threat of closure), local post offices, community schemes and elderly care homes (already struggling for ... see the pattern here?).And yet a gaggle of self-serving, do-gooder politicians have the temerity, conceitedness and ignorance to pile cash on one of the greatest scourges of contemporary Britain like it's going out of fashion.What's becoming more and more clear is that the more bothersome, annoying and unsavoury you are (individual or group), the greater your rights and the more important and unquestionable your demand to fleece the taxpayer.So, we'll get more cycle lanes (read as more road works and disruption), more initiatives and more cycle training to get us out of our cars and on to our bikes.The council is even planning "Bikeability" schemes in schools - which sounds more like indoctrination to me, soiling children's innocent brains to cultivate its own cycling clone army.I can see the training itinerary now: day one - Lycra and helmet awareness; day two - rudeness and inconsiderateness made a fine art.(And how it could ever be considered a good idea to encourage these mealy-mouthed morons is another topic altogether.)The whole scheme is a farce - a naive, over-simplistic, ludicrously out of touch and inconceivably unrealistic gimmick.We'll have councillors waxing lyrical about how fantastic it all is and how it's another step towards becoming more eco-friendly, sustainable and green and how their long-dreamt, misty-eyed fantasy of every Bristolian donning fluorescent Lycra, wearing silly helmets, ringing stupid bells and knocking innocent pedestrians off their feet may now become a reality.And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.Let me remind you, it's still illegal to cycle on pavements, run red lights, ride the wrong way down a one way street, whizz through pedestrian crossings (when pedestrians are actually crossing them) and hop from road to pavement with reckless abandon and the attention span of an amoeba.And yet they're not treated as criminals - rather, they're elevated as warriors fighting against an irresponsible and polluted world, two-wheeled titans of a healthy and eco-conscious crusade and martyrs of an ethical and planet- saving battle that will one day have us all reading The Guardian and recycling our potato peelings.Rubbish. They're law-breaking lunatics masking their own inconsiderate egos under the pretence of doing something right-on and commendable.And I only need witness the number of people hit, nearly hit, inconvenienced and harassed by these cycling psychopaths on my daily walk to work to know this as fact.That's no inconvenient truth.It won't ease congestion, it won't reduce pollution, it won't make the city a safer place to live ("cyclists" and "safety" being something of a mind-bending contradiction) and it certainly won't boost Bristol's profile on the global stage as a tough, robust and competitive city.We'll be seen as a bunch of wimps on two wheels and be laughed off the stage to the holler of boos and hisses.So cyclists will carry on being annoying ("don't tar us all with the same brush ???", "I'm not damaging the ozone layer ???", "I'm having lentils and tofu for tea ???"), councillors on the board of Fatuous and Phoney Statistics in the Cuckoo-land of Sustainable Stupidity will carry on being deluded and pedestrians and motorists will carry on hating their guts.I feel the disapproving public's full wrath has yet to hit its critical meltdown.In the meantime - and from a pedestrian's point of view - let me remind you there's nothing attractive (especially after a full English breakfast) about seeing an elephantine derriere zooming past you at 8.30 on a Monday morning.And that's more than enough to put me off ever becoming a cyclist.


Your letter ('Not all Bristolians want to become a cycling city', Bristol Evening Post Soapbox, 24 June) is very far from a genuine argument Jamie Caddick, to say the least. There is extraordinary accusation, name-calling, stereotyping, vitriol, cynicism, insult, exaggeration and ignorance aplenty. I wonder if your letter is more likely to be persuade people that actually the money for cycling is pretty reasonable such is your ranting onslaught. Its surely hard to argue that investment in non-motorised transport is wasted in these times of soaring petrol/diesel prices, severely congested roads, massive parking problems and obesity-related ill-health? Dont the most vulnerable in our society, the very young, those with health problems and the elderly, suffer most from the air pollution caused by cars and lorries? OK, contrary to council claims this investment wont be a magic bullet that solves all our transport problems - they too are exaggerating about what this money can achieve (see here for further comments) and have yet to do the hard work of using the money in the most appropriate ways in practice. However, it is a step in the right direction and I think most people prepared to look at transport issues and budgeting in the round agree.

Bigger is not better if we want a quality education for our children.

Wrote to the local paper today (text below) re-emphasising a point I've previously made about the plans to have fewer and thus bigger primary schools in Bristol. I certainly would not plan primary education in this way.

We need 'human-scale' approaches to life, especially in education and thus I'm very concerned about these plans for fewer, bigger primary schools ('Schools to close in shake-up', Bristol Evening Post, 23 May 2008). In bigger schools there is a danger of pupil-adult relationships, vital to learning, suffering in a more impersonal, less individualised environment. And what about the role played by schools in local community life? And what of the environmental impacts and the road safety aspects of having to travel further? It seems to me that there are very dubious motives behind wanting to have fewer, bigger schools - saving money at the expense of better quality education for children

Bigger schools? Isn't a more human scale better both for children, the community and the environment?

Greens have long fought for 'human-scale' approaches to life, not least in education and thus my concern when I read the details of the so-called 'shake-up' of Bristol's primary schools ('Primary schools closure plan', Bristol Evening Post, 15 Feb 2008). Closures, mergers and cuts are likely to be proposed, especially since Councillor Derek Pickup, cabinet councillor for children has said,

"There is a case for a smaller number of schools, each serving larger numbers of children...'

This is a very worrying statement. There is a danger of pupil-adult relationships, vital to learning, suffering in a more impersonal environment. And what about the role played by schools in local community life? And what of the environmental impacts and the road safety aspects of having to travel further to more remote schools, if they are set up? I suspect there are very dubious motives behind wanting to build fewer, bigger schools. Credit to Bristol's first Green Councillor, Southville's Charlie Bolton for questioning the need for and value of bigger schools.

The former head teacher of two large secondary schools, including Cotham, James Wetz, now a researcher and visiting fellow at the University of Bristol's Graduate School of Education, is carrying out a feasibility study on the concept of 'Urban Village Schools'. He was recently quoted in the Evening Post ('School system is failing our children', Feb 11 2008) as saying this of secondary schools,

"If big schools are such a good idea, why are private schools comparatively small in size and why don't they expand - it's because they realise that smaller schools are better."

The same argument certainly applies to primary schools, possibly more so. I dont agree that often with Tory pronouncements on education but on this occasion I think the Conservative Parliamentry Candidate for Bristol North West, Charlotte Leslie, is spot on in her letter 'Super-sized schools are failing our children..' (Bristol Evening Post, Feedback, 15 Feb 2008). Its worth quoting some of it. She says,

'The Government talks a lot about personalised learning. But at the same time, its intent on building supr-size schools which dwarf the individual. And worryingly Bristol City Council wants to make primary schools larger. If we really are to personalise learning we must make schools small enough to be manageable.'

Could not have put it better myself!

Why am I against nuclear power??

So, Gordon Brown's Labour Government have given the final go ahead for more nuclear power. Apparently '... Britain must build new nuclear plants to help meet its climate change goals and to avoid overdependence on imported energy amid dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.' (Guardian). Both these main points are easily contradicted, making the government's decision a very bad one.

For a start the uranium oxide from which nuclear fuel for power stations is made comes from abroad. 'In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.' (wikipedia) which means we would be dependent on imports from other countries for our nuclear fuel - so much for reducing energy imports.

As for more nuclear power to help fight climate change, in short its very slow and ineffective, with the Government's own advisors at the Sustainable Development Commission producing figures to show that even 10 new reactors would cut the UK's carbon emissions by only about 4% some time after 2025. This low figure makes great deal of sense because it takes quite some time to approve, build and get nuclear stations into full operation. In the meantime there is a high carbon cost in construction and also in the whole nuclear fuel cycle (in particular mining the ore, transporting it thousands of miles across the world and then manufacturing the fuel...). Plus of course the nuclear electricity generated cant directly replace most of the fossil fuel used eg in gas central heating systems and petrol/diesel from oil used in cars. So much for fighting climate change. And there are many more arguments against nuclear power and for much better energy options.

It is several times cheaper to save energy through efficiency and conservation than it is to generate it by any means. This is also the most rapid and effective way to cut carbon emissions, fight climate change, and reduce our dependence on imported fuels. Even though the Government claims to be green (who doesn't make this claim these days!) they are still thinking in terms of generating more and more energy - yet a sustainable society requires the establishment of a low energy culture. Government needs to be determined to help shape this future but currently is still stuck in the past.

There has always been a lot of talk from Gordon Brown about an enterprise economy, built by entrepreneurs. But is nuclear technology the kind that can be tinkered with, adapted and developed by small and medium-sized businesses and individuals? Self-evidently its not. Yet energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy technologies are amenable and are rapidly developing - the future is clearly with these and we should be ensuring billions are invested in them.

Nuclear power does not fit well with the basic engineering criterion of economy of means, that is doing tasks with the minimum of energy supplied in the most effective way. In short, why go to the trouble of splitting the atom to boil a kettle of water?? In any case for how long will the source of the atoms split in the nuclear fuel be economically available? Goldsmith et al, in their 1990 book 5000 Days to Save the Planet say ' As more uranium ore is mined and the quality of the ore falls, so the energy cost goes up. A mass nuclear power program would exhaust high quality ores so quickly that, within a generation, the uranium being mined would provide no more energy for each tonne of rock than would mined coal.'.

Everyone acknowledges the very high capital costs of nuclear power (and nobody yet knows for sure what decommissioning costs will finally be). Several billion is needed to build each station. This is a very large drain on resources that we should be investing in renewable energy generation methods, which as the only sustainable option we must develop at some point anyway. There's no time like the present to do this.

We dont assess our technological options properly. Nuclear does not come out well if technical capabilities and limitations, total cost-effectiveness, socio-economic effects such as efficiency of job creation and the ability to keep safe and accurate records of nuclear waste disposal for thousands of yrs, and environmental impacts are all fairly considered. Yet this would not be where assessment of the technology should end, since we should progressively widen the domain of issues to be considered, introducing more factors and interactions - like the ripple effect of throwing a stone into a still lake. Nuclear certainly does not fit in with building a sustainable society (though all the big political parties claim to be green these days) because no-one disputes that it leaves ongoing problems for future generations (and of course the uranium fuel is finite and depletable - it will run down in supply and run out at some point).

Plutonium, with a natural occurence on the planet of virtually zero, is lethal (highly toxic as well as radioactive). An evenly distributed 500 kg could kill the Earth's human population approx 90 times (at one microgram per person). Yet when I visited Sellafield, the site of the UK's first nuclear station and where nuclear waste is reprocessed, some yrs ago, the tour guide said that approx 500kg of plutonium had been emitted to the Irish Sea over the sites lifetime. There are huge nuclear waste handling, storage and disposal problems and there is no scientific consensus on the best way to do it, for existing waste let alone the extra produced from more nuclear stations. In a report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment on radioactive waste Sir Hugh Rossi said 'With waste that can be active for thousands of yrs, guaranteeing that the institutions would be stable beyond periods which have so far proved to be whole lifetimes of civilisations would be impossible.'

There are also a whole range of safety and security issues for nuclear stations: learning lessons from major accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Windscale; attempting to predict and 'eliminate' (!) human error in the design, construction, operation and decommissioning; establishing 'safe' (!) levels of radioactivity; 'safely' transporting nuclear waste by road and rail (eg as happens frequently through Bristol) for 'safe' disposal for thousands of yrs; planning what it is best to do in the event of a serious incident/accident; whether we can effectively prevent terrorist attacks eg by flying planes into stations, driving cars/lorries loaded to be bombs etc... .

Then there are the major ethical issues involved in reprocessing some nuclear waste and providing material for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction....