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

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


Dear Mr Vowles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashton Vale wildlife habitat vandalism update: questions to council Cabinet

As I've described previously I've been to Ashton Vale with a few green friends (see here and here), including Tess Green, and seen the environmental vandalism first hand. Tess has now submitted some excellent and authoritative questions (below) to the next meeting of the council's Cabinet. Its going to be a very interesting meeting with lots of tough, probing questions put!!

I should like to submit the following questions to Cllr. Rosalie Walker at the meeting of the Cabinet on 27th November 2008.

DESTRUCTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AT ASHTON VALE

The City Council will be aware of the destruction of mature hedgerow and damage to adjacent land, which took place on the mornings of 5th and 6th September 2008 at the west end of Ashton Drive and along Colliters Brook, to the distress of local people.

No permission for the destruction of hedgerow was sought by the owners of the land and as a result the City Council was denied the opportunity to survey the site beforehand or to offer advice on the legal protection afforded to wildlife there.

Local people were not consulted, breaching the Guidelines in Planning Policy Statement 9. If they had been consulted they would have been able to provide information about the wildlife species to be found in the area, which included foxes, deer, many varieties of water and hedgerow birds, amphibians, badgers and signs of otters and water voles as well as, of course,hedgerow, wetland and meadow plants.

Many species are of course protected under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Habitats Directive, Conservation (Natural habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 and other regulations.

Otters, badgers, water voles and crested newts have specific protective legislation.
The City Council has a duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity and this is recognised in the Biodiversity Action Plan, which particularly mentions protection for water voles and otters.

What steps are being taken by the City Council to

a) prosecute those responsible for these breaches of the law and acts of environmental vandalism and

b) prevent further similar acts by irresponsible developers of land, which may be inhabited by important wildlife species?

Will the City Council offer assistance to the local people of Ashton Vale who want restoration of as much of the habitat as possible?

TESS GREEN, SOUTHVILLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Population: a vital part of the sustainability picture

Excellent post over on Jonathon Porritt's blog about population, originally done for Greenpeace Business but refused because they felt it was too controversial. Below is a brief extract from it. Its well worth a read. The figures, analysis and argument are striking and compelling.

The governments of many of the poorest countries in the world are crying out for financial support for family planning, but are not getting it. The lives of countless millions of women are devastated by their inability to manage their own fertility, and hundreds of thousands die every year because of illegal abortions or complications from unwanted pregnancies. But their voices go largely unheard. On top of all that, every single one of the environmental problems we face today is exacerbated by population growth, and the already massive challenge of achieving an 80% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 is rendered completely fantastical by the prospective arrival of another 2.5 billion people over the next 40 years.

Being food secure, energy secure, and water secure...is very much harder the higher human population is and the faster it grows. Sex and relationships education the world over has never been more important.

Great campaigning work for primary schools in Knowle and Knowle West

'Stupid', 'ignorant' and 'inflammatory' remarks have indeed been made by some online commenters on this story about the great efforts of people in Knowle/Knowle West to stop the merger of Ilminster Avenue and Connaught Primary Schools. I strongly support locals, like Mil Lusk, who have done a great job of gathering hundreds of signatures on a petition against merger. There is a great deal of valuable community-strengthening work being done by many in Knowle West - why do people have to label and stereotype as these commenters have??

I commented online a few times as below, to support views expressed by Kerry and Melanie especially:
______________________________________________________
*I agree strongly with Kerry and Melanie. There are very strong educational reasons for stopping the creation of large primary schools - smaller schools can offer better quality -ask the private sector!! I think the Primary Schools Review that has decided on this merger has more to do with money and building houses on the old sites and their green spaces than the quality of education.
________________________________________________
**Brian, Claude and all those only interested in labelling and stereotyping. You seem to have forgotten the hundreds of people who signed the petition to save the schools and all the determined campaign organisers. All these people are concerned about their childrens education and the progress of their community. Its all too easy to snype and be cynical.

To Martin I would say that smaller schools are just what is needed in the Knowle and Knowle West communities, as in many others. Individuals dont get dwarfed in smaller schools and personalised learning is better fostered. Relationships between teachers, parents, guardians, and pupils, as well as the wider community tend to work better, as its easier for everyone to get to know each other well and develop productive links.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions to Bristol City Council Cabinet on green space flogging controversy

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

Parks and Green Spaces Policy not being followed:

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

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

Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager, writes: 11 Nov

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

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

_____________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 7 Nov

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

____________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 6 Nov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 3 Nov

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard Council Complaints Manager writes: 3 Nov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 24 Oct

Thanks for the attachment and opinion on complaint stage Tim.

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

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

___________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager writes: 23 Oct

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

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

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

Bristol the greenest city? Or Norwich? Neither?

This news, 'Bristol is Britain's greenest city', is indeed 'ludicrous', as one commenter on the Bristol Evening Post website put it. Poor public transport, plans to build houses and roads over many green spaces, poor air quality in several places, plans to mass incinerate waste, promotion of mass consumption of imported goods via the new Cabot Circus, a large and growing ecological footprint...hardly a green city is it!! Bristol is not a sustainable city by any fair measure, though may be less unsustainable than some others - that, at best, is what we are talking about!! What are the people who shortlist Bristol to be a European Green Capital and judge Bristol as Britain's greenest city on? Whatever it is it distorts their grip on reality big time!! (More on Forum for the Future's thinking on green cities here).

My view is that there are several other UK cities that are, relative to Bristol, less unsustainable (** Norwich for example...??) though I would not describe any of these as green. The problem with all these sort of exercises is that:

a) the headlines may give people the impression that enough is being done to sort problems out when in fact they are at best just tinkering at the edges, and

b) its very sensitive to the list of criteria used to make the judgements - change those a bit and you change the outcome and get a list of cities in a different order ** !! Conclusion: its not a very objective exercise, certainly when conducted in this manner.

I was very interested to see that a green blogger in Cardiff has independently reached exactly the same conclusions about this issue.

** 16 April 2008 - For the second year running Norwich has been voted the Greenest city in the UK.

According to an annual survey by locallife.co.uk [as opposed to Forum for the Future], Norwich has more green businesses, organisations and representatives per capita than anywhere else. The research has found that Norwich has one recycling centre, Green councillor, farm shop, environmental consultant, insulation installer, organic food shop, double glazing business, asbestos removal service and conservation group for every 1,736 local people. (reported here)

Useful green links...

Some very useful links here: http://www.ecojam.org/ (added to my 'find out more about' list). I've just been looking over the green jobs section and there's also a green directory, free stuff trading section, and interactive section with blogs, news...

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....

Support sport and healthy exercise on Knowle's green spaces!

I urge all readers of this blog to support sport and healthy exercise in local green spaces and sign the 'Save Newquay Rd Playing Fields' e-petition I've helped to organise (background to the issue here). Its supporters and promoters include Anita Pearce from the management committee of Eagle House Community Association, former Bristol City footballer Colston Gwyther who is running training sessions on the playing fields, and the kids, as represented by 10 yr old Kevin Pearce, in this part of Knowle and elsewhere who want to football train, get fit and enjoy green spaces. The petition reads:

We, the undersigned, petition Bristol City Council to abandon any plans to sell off the playing fields on Newquay Rd behind Ilminster School, taking them out of the education remit and Primary School Review process completely, recognizing that they are a valued, fully accessible public open space well used over many years, particularly for football and considering it as fully covered by the council’s Parks and Green Spaces Strategy.

I see that the appearance of the petition has already drawn this brief position statement from the council:

At present (6/11/08) there is no decision on the future of the Newquay Road playing field or the final impact of the primary review on the location of the new primary school to be created from the amalgamation of Illminster Avenue and Connaught. Any future plans will be subject to pre and statutory planning consultation.

Good to get noticed! I'm sure that many locals will strongly express their opinions about what should happen to these fields eg by signing the petition and I hope the council is listening.

European Green Capital Award: Bristol's shortlisting

Apparently 'Bristol has been chosen as the only city in the UK to be short-listed for the European Green Capital award.

The city has been pre-selected alongside seven other European cities from 35 initial applications.

The seven other cities are: Amsterdam in Holland, Copenhagen in Denmark, the German cities of Freiburg, Hamburg and Munster, Oslo in Norway and Stockholm in Sweden.' (more details here).

I really want to be positive about my city but the first step in a rational process of improvement is recognising the current state of affairs. A realistic assessment of how Green Bristol is reveals that it is miles away from deserving the title 'European Green Capital'. I cant agree with the city being on this shortlist. (more here)

It has very heavy traffic congestion and a very poor public transport system and has no plans which demonstrate they can bring about an absolute reduction in traffic. Air quality is thus unhealthy and contribution to climate change very high. (more here)

The much lauded Parks and Green Spaces strategy is not being followed by the council as they are selling off land on an ad hoc basis without Area Green Space Plans in place. This strategy in any case endorses the sell off of many acres of parks and green spaces, undermining policies on healthy activity outdoors, climate change and biodiversity, and making rainwater management and flood prevention harder.(more here)

Instead of focussing in on waste reduction, recycling and composting Bristol's current Labour Cabinet defends plans for the mass incineration of waste, an option with very poor economic and environmental credentials.(more here)

Many thousands of houses are supposed to be built within and around the city, vastly raising its already very high ecological footprint. (more here)

As for the pattern of regeneration, well that given us Cabot Circus which hardly promotes local production for local needs as its all about the mass consumption of goods imported from all over the globe at great social and environmental cost. (more here)

An audience with Tony Benn, political signpost not weathercock

Went to see Tony Benn speaking at the Bristol Colston Hall last night with my partner and daughter. The audience amounted to several hundred people. It was thoroughly enjoyable for each of us. He was open, honest and a great story teller. His relaxed humour was entertaining and ideas as thought-provoking and relevant as ever. He gave a 30 min or so presentation - covering big moral and political issues like war and peace, movements for justice and environment, the pace of technological change, how issues of human and social relationships were the same as ever... and then took questions from the audience on a very wide range of subjects for over 90 minutes.

They dont seem to make politicians like him - a political signpost as opposed to a weathercock - these days. I've always found him an inspiration and as I've said before he is part responsible for initiating my involvement in politics via CND. I dont agree with all his policy stances but find I have a lot of common ground with many of the basic principles he espouses and I love his radical, freethinking and clear approach.

We wont get fooled again?

It looks good for Obama in the US Presidential election and for the Democrats in general. I've followed the Obama/McCain campaigns with keen interest. I really hope Obama wins though I'm not in agreement with him on some big issues. He does at least offer hope of something new and different and will keep the dangerous and deluded Sarah Palin away from serious power, for the present at least. Obama talks the talk so lets hope he also walks the walk once in power.

Never mind the council policy it's the council officers you know that counts!!

I've only been away from Bristol for a week and just look at what has been revealed about the unethical practices occurring within Bristol City Council within respect to land selling! It seems that if you want to buy land you just need to have the right senior officer contacts and never mind official council policies!! Excellent investigation by the Bristol Blogger once again (also see the Green Bristol Blog and Bristol Greengage).

Now I'm back I'll be following up on my ongoing complaint to the council. This latest news certainly adds spice to the situation!

Joined up thinking needed for joined up transport modes at Temple Meads

The new Stockwood Pete blog strongly argues the case for 'a proper transport hub for Temple Meads' whilst making powerful points about lack of openness and local democracy with respect to the associated land. Its not just green land development that is driven by developers it seems! Good stuff - Pete is sure to be an influential blogger! Local paper report on the issue here.

Developers drive policy on Bristol's green spaces

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

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

My immediate reply to her was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim, [Corporate Complaints Manager, Bristol City Council]

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

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

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

I very strongly object to the notion that


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Glenn Vowles

Tim Sheppard, Bristol City Council Corporate Complaints Manager writes:

Dear Mr Vowles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection to 'cycle house' plans

Submitted this objection to the so-called 'cycle house' plans on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway Path (or Land At Former Elizabeth Shaw Factory, Easton as the city council website puts it) today. I'm opposed to the development as it is currently planned and feel that to be given the go-ahead modifications should be required:

As a user of the Bristol to Bath Railway Path I am very concerned about several aspects of the proposed development, primarily in the eastern portion, and fear that developing land very close to and onto the path sets a precedent for future development. I am also concerned about the processes gone through by the council and am currently still going through the official complaints procedure (my complaint that the council is not following its own policy on Parks and Green Spaces is unresolved, has gone through several stages and has reached the Head of Corporate Complaints and council Chief Executive). I describe my concerns below and call for the planning authority to delay any planning permission until all the proper processes have been completed and that then any plans submitted are scaled back in places and changed to avoid the impacts I describe.

Council policy on green spaces states that through consultation Area Green Plans will be established to deal with land quality assessment, change of land use or disposal of land. There is not yet a plan to cover the land concerned, though the process of shaping such plans has already been started in parts of the city. It would be following the councils own policy to delay and agree an Area Green Space Plan before granting any planning permission or selling any land in this highly valued location.

No Environmental Impact Assessment of the plans has been conducted. The EU Directive relating to this is supposed to be interpreted and applied broadly and I believe an EIA (and thus a delay) is required given that the council describes the linear park along Bristol to Bath Railway Path as a significant green space in its Parks and Green Spaces Strategy. It would thus be following the councils own policy to conduct an EIA

The Bristol to Bath Railway Path currently offers significant, high quality services to its users, who are very large in number and are varied in type. The service to eg leisure, recreation and transport it offers is particularly valuable because of the beauty, tranquility and wildlife value of the area. The great pleasure, enrichment and education people gain from the path will be significantly reduced in places if current plans are not scaled back and changed, in particular: where embankment slope and mature hedgerow will be entirely lost. Plans should thus be scaled back and modified to avoid large amenity loss and reduction in ecological value.

The proposed construction of a 7 floor twin-tower block, a 4 floor block of flats and 14 houses in place of the hedgerow immediately alongside the verge of the Railway Path very significantly changes the green and pleasant landscape and character of the location, making it noisier, harder on the eye and most unlike many other parts of the path/linear park. These features of the development should be moved further away from the Railway Path.

The mature hedgerow referred to above is very biodiverse and any proposed compensation for loss of habitat and wildlife is very likely to result in net biodiversity loss for some considerable time. The row of Hawthorn trees, a key feature, are of high heritage as well as wildlife value (especially to insect and bird life). Badgers and slow worms have been seen in this area and both are protected species whose welfare needs to be assured. Scaling back and changing the plans would avoid damaging wildlife.

Finally I am concerned that any development right onto the Bristol to Bath Railway Path is likely to increase the accident rate as cyclists, skateboarders and others approach what would become a more populated spot with consequent dangerous multiple junctions. Scaling back and modifying the plans would reduce this likelihood.

No plans to build houses over football pitches on the Downs so why here in Knowle??

Bristol City Council really do have their eyes on flogging off green spaces in Knowle/Filwood - first Filwood Park was sold with most locals not informed and now the playing fields off Newquay Rd could go if they are sold as part of the Ilminster School site due the the primary school review (which I've banged on about as a very bad idea since the first public mention I saw of it in Feb this yr).

Its vital for kids health, wellbeing and development that they get plenty of fresh air and exercise yet the fields off Newquay Rd in Knowle may be sold off for housing development (details reported here, headline pictured left). The football that's been organised there by former Bristol City footballer Colston Gwyther for large numbers of kids is fantastic - it deserves wholehearted support from the council in place of the threat to the fields they are playing on. I dont see any plans to build over football pitches on the Downs so why here in Knowle??

Filwood's Councillor Chris Jackson does not seem to be up to speed on green spaces issues. In today's local paper he says this in the story about green spaces and the setting up of a local housing company,

"There's no question of selling off all the council-owned green space for housing. So far as I know, what has already been sold off is the full extent of what might happen."

Just sounds vague and not clued -up to me. Has he not seen the figures for all the thousands of houses that are to be built within Bristol's boundaries? Has he not heard that the council has already sold green spaces for housing in other parts of Bristol and that it has agreed the principle of selling off 2.4% (90 acres) of publicly owned green space (see details of green spaces petition I submitted to the council here)??

Local people will have to stay vigilant and involved if they want to protect their parks, green spaces and sports fields because they most certainly are potential building land! Its great to see that locals are ahead of the game and have put in statements and a paper petition with 200 signatures to the full council meeting of 14 Oct opposing the sale of Newquay Rd fields (there were also many statements about Filwood Park).

Anita Pearce from Eagle House Community Association said,

I represent the management committee of Eagle House Community Association.
The Council report and the Cabinet report recommend the amalgamation of
Ilminster School and Connaught School with both existing schools to be
demolished and one new school built. The report states that a new school will
cost £6m and asked the government for £4m. The Council is expecting to sell
the Ilminster School site for at least £2M. The report states that the size of the
school site is 26,344 sq metres.

This figure is wrong as it includes the land that is used by the community and
accessed from Newquay Road.

It is fully accessible at all times and includes a children’s play area. It has
already become established as public open space and therefore comes under
the Parks and Open Spaces strategy. It should not be included in your report as
a school site.

We ask you to remove this open space from the report and exclude it from the
calculations of the school site. We estimate that the open space is nearly a
hectare in size and so your figures should be reduced to 16,344 sq metres.
The community have been commended for its work with the local children by
organising junior football matches and training. These activities have had a
positive impact on reducing anti social behaviour and one of our local Councillors has recommended that more funds are made available to continue this work here and elsewhere.

Children and young people need activities to occupy them out of school and this
open space is invaluable. Please amend your report today before it goes to the
Government and agree that this land will be correctly allocated as open space for the future.

Ten yr old footballer Kevin Pearce read this out loud to the full council, gaining a round of applause,

Dear Council,

I am writing on behalf of all the children who use Newquay Rd Playing Field.
We do not want the council to sell it.

We use it every day to play football and other games.
We have started football training and have over 100 children under 12 registered.

We have had fun days to fundraise for our equipment new goal posts and nets
and bought new kits to play in. South West Roofing donated waterproof jackets
to us and Wates Living Space donated £300 and helped us prepare the pitch for
the match.

We have had a friendly tournament against Brislington and played the Salvation Army team on Saturday (we won both times!) We are on the front cover of the Knowledge newsletter.

We have had a couple of clean-up days and everyone came to help us cut all the
brambles and stinging nettles and then had a BBQ for everyone.

There is nothing else around here for us to do. We are not old enough to go in
the Youth Club so we play in the field.

We don’t want to hang around the streets getting into trouble and drugs like
some of the bigger kids.

So PLEASE let us keep our playing field.

Thank-you.

Ps Can you improve the play equipment in Newquay Rd Park please.

Former Bristol City footballer and local resident Colston Gwyther, pictured left in the local paper football training with Knowle kids said,

I live near the School and I am shocked to hear that you intend to knock down
Ilminster School and sell the land for housing and also at the same time sell
off our open space on Newquay Road. Children have been using this open
space for years and we have many junior teams playing football on the space.
Residents consider this to be public open space. The community have been
involved in the maintenance of this area and we have fundraised to get goal
posts fitted for junior football and we have had Neighbourhood Renewal
money to cut back the hedges and make the place more accessible for
people. The open space is fully accessible at all times.

We object to the sale of the Newquay Road Open space because we have
very little usable green space and a lot of children in the area. Instead of
selling our open space for housing you should invest more in the open space
so that the play equipment is better and make it more like a park.
This community have never considered the land off Newquay Road to be part
of the School . PLEASE KEEP OFF OUR OPEN SPACE.

Wildlife reserve for Aston Vale!! Sign the petition!

Many thanks to Trisha and Co for updating myself and other greens about what happened in Ashton Vale (see post below) without the proper permissions and what some of the campaign ideas are. The positive aspect was seeing the great photographic, video and written records of the area that have been put together and how the community has come together with a real spirit and great ideas well worth supporting (you can sign the e-petition calling for a wildlife reserve for Ashton Vale here and locals are in the process of setting up a campaign website here). It was really very depressing to see the damaged land up close though. The ripping up of hundreds of metres of hedgerow here was an act of wanton vandalism and I hope that Bristol City Council prosecutes those responsible (though I'm not holding my breath!). The establishment of a nature reserve in the area would help to make up for the damage caused as well as providing a small green barrier between existing homes and what is likely to be an area where a lot of development will happen. Will the landowner, Bristol City Chairman Steve Lansdown, help to establish a protected habitat for wildlife like robins given that his '...club's nickname is "The Robins", and a robin featured on the club's badge from 1976 to 1994' (wiki). Is this too much to ask for?

Ashton Vale visit

Going to visit the site of this wanton vandalism of green space in Ashton Vale, South Bristol this weekend with a few green friends, to talk to residents. Great damage already done of course, but lets see what the latest information is and if we can help in some way.



Story in the Bristol Evening Post here.