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...

The Breast Cancer site: click on 'donating a mammogram' for free

Passing this message on from Jean.

A favour to ask, it only takes a minute....

Please tell ten friends to tell ten today! The Breast Cancer site is having trouble getting enough people to click on their site daily to meet their quota of donating at least one free mammogram a day to an underprivileged woman. It takes less than a minute to go to their site and click on 'donating a mammogram' for free (pink window in the middle).

This doesn't cost you a thing. Their corporate sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits to donate mammogram in exchange for advertising..

Here's the web site! Pass it along to people you know.

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

AGAIN, PLEASE TELL 10 FRIENDS TO TELL 10

Tony Juniper and Sir Jonathon Porritt call on people to vote Green

Former Director of Friends of the Earth Tony Juniper and Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission Sir Jonathon Porritt call for people to vote Green in Euro and local elections this June. Very influential support indeed.

Sustainable Communities Act suggestion scheme: various proposals submitted

I've been going back over my blog and listing the various changes I've proposed or implied. Originally I intended to go through the entire site (over 500 posts to date), list all suggestions and submit them to Bristol City Council via their Sustainable Communities Act online form.

I found that after going through about 60 posts I'd already listed 21 suggestions, that it was taking a very long time and that the list could become very long!! I settled on submitting the first 21 (below) today. I have not had time to discuss the suggestions with friends/colleagues much and have had very little time to test them against the list of criteria they have to conform to.

When I went to the council briefing on use of the Sustainable Communities Act in March I found that many hurdles had been placed in the way of suggestions: 1. very little time was available for communities to organise and to formulate them (deadline 1 May !!) 2. guidance on the nature of suggestions was very limited 3.suggestions submitted have to jump through officer, local panel, local councillor committee, local Cabinet and Local Government Association hoops before they even get to the Secretary of State who has the final decision on implementation.

All of which makes you wonder how much genuinely local stuff will be left!! Local and central government do not respect the spirit and intention of the Act ie to empower local communities. Any guesses as to how far through the process my suggestions will go??

* A default speed limit of 20mph on all UK residential roads to be introduced in place of the current 30mph.

* Monthly, local and central government supported and advertised 'lights out' campaign to limit wasteful lighting and encourage energy saving.

*Carbon budgets to be allocated to all individuals/households/businesses and trading in carbon allocations facilitated.

*House building targets to be set by local authorities in conjunction with local communities as a replacement for imposition by regional/central government.

*Submission of 'before and after' biodiversity and eco-footprint data to be a compulsory part of all planning applications - the data to be a statutory consideration for planning committees.

*A code of conduct for all elected representatives at all levels (along with their key public officials), based on the Nolan reports 7 principles for standards in public life to be a part of the constitution of all local and central government bodies.

*Government to assess all technologies according to at least its: technical capabilities and limitations; environmental impacts now and into the future; cost-effectiveness now and into the future; employment impacts now and into the future; before supporting in any way.

*All major population centres to have integrated transport authoritiies, with a majority from the general public on the committees running them.

*Local, regional and national government to review all communications according to Plain English standards.

*The status of general public contributions to planning committee proceedings to be raised to equal that of council officers eg in terms of time allocated and facilities available for presentation and committee proceedings to facilitate two-way interaction between officers, councillors and the general public via a question and answer session(s).

*Government to publish a general welfare or wellbeing index, calculated by factoring in the external costs and benefits of achieving economic growth, alongside GDP figures (councils or another suitable agency to publish equivalent local figures).

*Potential loss of local community facilities to be assessed via the quantified total costs and benefits of any change, that is the social and environmental costs and benefits as well as economic.

*Developments permitted on any greenfield site to be required to fully compensate for the total ecological footprint caused.

*Transport policy and practice locally and nationally to be reviewed to ensure that walking and cycling are prioritised above and before motorised transport in principle and in practice.

*Empty houses and other properties that could be used to house people to be promptly brought into good use before building on green (or even brown) land.

*Government to allow immigration that equals emigration, achieving a net zero increase.

*Planning committees to be given a broader range of statutory considerations to apply to planning applications to decrease the likelihood that granting or refusing planning permission goes against the rational problem solving process.

*All public consultations conducted by all levels of government to be tested against a set of ‘fairness, openness and balance’ criteria before embarked upon.

*Transport costs to be directly related to the total costs of travel by factoring in external costs and benefits, fuel/tickets/fares to be adjusted accordingly.

*Those currently required to annually publish financial accounts to be required to publish social and environmental accounts alongside.

*Councils to annually publish their total ecological footprint, established via a standardised method.

Corn starch bag introduction: poor environmental decision making

Councillor Gary Hopkins introduction of corn starch plastic bags free to all households that want them is a waste of £100,000 per year of our council taxes and is poor environmental decision making. I sympathise with many of the sentiments expressed by letter writers Bernard Seward, Ambrose Porter and Malcolm Leslie (Feedback: Corn Starch Bags, Post, April 28).

It makes little economic sense to have the council bearing the cost of introducing a manufactured bio-plastic bag into a recycling system where the vast majority of Bristol's public are already managing perfectly well wrapping their food waste in a free, otherwise waste, product. They use newspaper, other waste paper or empty cereal packets etc.

Its makes little environmental sense either, as the bags increase the total environmental impact of the recycling system itself. Even if the bags in isolation are carbon neutral, the farming of the corn to get the starch and the manufacturing and transport of the bags certainly are not. Additionally, land used to grow corn for the bags is land that could be growing food for people! Land may even be cleared to grow the corn, at a cost to wildlife.

Its worrying that environmental decisions like this aren't approached rationally ie by gathering full information and assessing it before deciding. Greens have persistently requested that data on total bag environmental impact should be gathered before their possible introduction. No attempt was made at getting even broad estimates. Poor and incorrect responses were given to questions. One council official claimed, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that because the bags were made from biomass (material from living origins) they were carbon neutral -mahogany doors are made from biomass but no-one would suggest that its carbon neutral to cut down and process rainforest trees to get them!!

The idea of the bags is to get more people recycling food scraps, cutting council waste costs and cutting environmental impacts. However, since the total environmental impact of bag introduction has not been established we will not be able to calculate whether any environmental gains made from increased recycling fully compensate for the environmental cost of making the bags. Even if they did its a very inefficient and expensive way to cut impacts - £100,000 per year more for energy saving, getting people out of cars and onto bikes or getting people to grow some of their own food, can easily be shown as far better options. Less chance of 'green' publicity and kudos for Cllr Hopkins with these options perhaps?? Or is this all much more about saving money alone??

How not to use modern technology in political campaigning

Are you more likely to vote Lib Dem or Labour after seeing their performance in the clips below? Scary stuff.

Government is missing key climate, energy and transport targets

Gordon Brown's actions do not match his words of promise. The UK Govt will fail to meet its climate change target because of continued reliance on coal and gas power stations, according to Cambridge Econometrics. It will also miss by a 'wide margin' its target for developing renewable energy, according to the UK Energy and Environment Report. The UK Energy Research Centre finds that the UK lags behind other countries in terms of sustainable travel like walking, cycling, car sharing. These things are hardly unconnected are they!!

Further information/background: here

Stop climate change, switch to green power: animation

The Budget: this Green is underwhelmed

Greens have been calling for significant investment in the green economy, action on poverty and inequality, a real attempt to sort out the debt ridden money system, a switch to eco-taxation...and are distinctly underwhelmed by the budget - it's a massive missed opportunity. Alistair Darling failed to produce a budget that will address entwined economic and environmental problems thus missing out on massive job creation in emerging industries (see Green New Deal). Failing to invest properly in: energy efficiency; solar energy; wind and biomass energy; upgrading the electricity grid; in rail and bus travel; and in new skills training will cost us dear economically, socially, and environmentally.

A year ago borrowing this year was supposed to be £38 billion but by the autumn it was £118 billion, and today £175 billion is needed. The Chancellor persists with the same economic goals as before. The unprecedented borrowing figures illustrate well the folly of building public finances that rely on growth. We need to replace growth at any cost as the primary goal with stability, security and sustainability (more).

Previous posts illustrate how we already seriously lag behind other countries in the "greenness" of our green stimulus plan (if indeed it merits this description at all). We need a stimulus orders of magnitude higher than we have or we will never meet tough emissions targets or maximise job creation potential. The Government proposes £1bn on climate change including £435m for energy efficiency, £525m on offshore wind - far too little and needs to build up to be 10 to 15 times as much.

The Government trumpetted its budgeting of carbon emissions. Greens produced a carbon budget two years ago! 10% annual cuts are what the evidence says we need, not 1-2%. Money for carbon capture and storage demonstration projects is putting money into an untried technology which if it can prove itself is likely to arrive too late. Good sense tells us we need things that are tried and tested now, like insulation, wind, solar (more here). Government incentives to get more oil from the North Sea announced in the budget are bizarre when we want to cut carbon!!

The Government's own sustainability advisors, the Sustainable Development Commission, proposed a £30bn investment package very similar to the Green Party's Budget proposals (see yesterday's post for details of various recent Sustainable Development Commission reports). They calculated that this would create 800,000 jobs.

The budget outlined a £2000 subsidy for a new car if a car over ten years old is scrapped. This doesn’t actually help the environment or job creation that much, given the carbon cost of manufacturing the car. Ideally we'd build cars to last longer - designing them to be refitted and improved over time would reduce the associated energy and significantly increase the amount of labour involved, by comparison with new manufacture. The budget proposal will create relatively few jobs and a far cheaper and more effective way to cut carbon and help everyone is to invest properly in rail and bus travel and in promoting car clubs (more on transport here).

The budegt often simply did not go far enough. It included £1.7Bn extra help for jobseekers, but only £250m for training. Help with finding a job is no good if there are no jobs to find. Training though is a productive activity for anyone, especially unemployed people when jobs are short. £500m was allocated on new homes - not enough. Only £100m on council houses.

Darling announced a cut in public sector pensions. Average public sector pension is only £3000, reflecting poor pay. Greens want to see better pensions for all, and the foundation is a better state pension which should be set at £165 a week in the party's view.

Higher rate tax relief on pensions removed for those above £150,000 is a welcome development as it matches current Green policy. Introducing a 50% tax rate for incomes above £150,000 is also welcome but I'd only consider this a start - we really need to go much further, bring in genuine eco-taxation, introduce further tax bands on the super-wealthy and take low earners out of tax altogether.

Sustainability and tomorrows Budget

Three excellent posts on the blog of Sustainable Development Commission Chairman Jonathon Porritt. All relate closely to tomorrow's budget and I recommend looking over each of them:

Government and the low carbon economy

Sustainability on the political agenda

Prosperity without growth

Save Our Green Spaces and Green Belt, Bristol

Read about this excellent film in yesterday's local paper, found it and watched it. The save the green belt message is expressed very movingly and powerfully in it. Please watch it. Tell your friends, family and colleagues to watch it. Do as the film asks and contact your MP, Councillor, Council and Government asking them to make designating land as green belt actually mean it is protected and conserved for generations to come - this land use planning concept is supposed to be used to retain areas of largely undeveloped, wild, or agricultural land surrounding or neighbouring urban areas.
More information: http://www.saveourgreenspaces.org/

The stated objectives of green belt policy are to:

*Protect natural or semi natural environments
*Improve air quality within urban areas
*Ensure that urban dwellers have access to countryside, with consequent educational and recreational opportunities, and

*Protect the unique character of rural communities which might otherwise be absorbed by expanding suburbs.

The green belt has many benefits for people:

*Walking, camping, and biking areas close to the cities and towns
*Habitat for wild plants, animals and wildlife
*Cleaner air and water
*Better land use of areas within the bordering cities. (wikipedia)

Vowles backs Eddy's call for pool closures to be reassessed

Its welcome news that Jubilee Swimming Pool will remain open (along with Bishopsworth Pool) for a bit longer than originally anticipated (‘Delight at pools remaining open’, Post, April 15). I’m altogether opposed to Jubilee’s planned closure and regret that this reprieve, due to delays to work on the new Hengrove Park pool, is being looked on as merely temporary. I agree with Councillor Richard Eddy’s when he said ‘With this extra time I think their fate should be reassessed.’

Closing Jubilee and other pools may put people off going for swim, a very healthy physical activity, just when we are supposed to be trying harder to encourage it. It may be those who find it most awkward to travel further that are most put off, such as the elderly or families with young children.

Replacing a short, no cost, sustainable walk to the local pool with an unsustainable and more expensive car trip is not good in these times of all times. Swimmers in Knowle would have to travel further to swim after the closure, adding to air pollution and climate change.

I believe all local councillors should work harder to stand up for locally available facilities and feel very let down that Jubilee has apparently been given up on by some. I want the council to work hard to get a more rounded, balanced, less purely financial, greener and more democratic decision made on Jubilee Pool and other local pools. Other local community services and facilities should be similarly looked upon.

I would like to see them reverse the closure decision and go back to the idea of reviewing the situation once the new leisure centre at Hengrove Park opens. I don’t agree with a decision taken on purely financial grounds. Any review should not only be a financial audit but should also be a social and environmental audit, examining the total impact of closure and of alternatives to it. This should be combined with completely open discussions on what it would take to keep Jubilee Pool open with all its users and other interested parties locally. I feel people who really believed in fighting for local facilities would be strongly arguing for this within Bristol's Cabinet.

Zero Carbon Future

Nice accurate, brief and concise video on how to build a zero carbon future, cutting imported energy, becoming much less wasteful, investing in renewable energy massively, from the Centre for Alternative Technology.

Zero Carbon Britain from Zero Carbon Britain on Vimeo.

Going for a good walk...

Get Walking Day ’09, which aims to enable people to see the physical, mental, environmental and social benefits of walking is now being promoted by the Ramblers, Britain’s walking charity. They are inviting everyone in the south west and elsewhere to a free walking festival over the Bank Holiday weekend of 30 May and 1 June. A whole series of short walks (less than 5 miles) has been organised in many towns, cities and country areas, many of which have associated refreshments and special events. Further details from:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/campaigns/GWD.

Consider the massive benefits of walking. It can be done at no cost or might even save you money spent on petrol or bus fares, brilliant given the economic downturn. It can easily be fitted into a daily routine and in periods of leisure and is available to the vast majority of us with no need for particularly special equipment or instruction.

It helps keep body and mind fit and healthy: exercising the heart and lungs; reducing body fat by efficiently burning calories; helping to improve bone density; increasing muscle tone; boosting metabolism; easing anxiety and stress; raising energy levels; improving sleep. It can help prevent illness if done regularly: reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer, osteoporosis and arthritis.

Its environmentally beneficial, helping us use our cars less, reducing carbon emissions which contribute to climate change – and given that half of all journeys are two miles or less it can often, with a bit of planning, be practical.

It increases contact between people and enhances the vitality of our communities and so is socially beneficial. Get your friends and family to join in - it can be a lot of fun!

For more information call the Ramblers press office 0207 339 8531/32 or 07801 749 385 (out of hours), press@ramblers.org.uk, http://www.ramblers.org.uk/

A Green Knight for Europe - elect Ricky Knight as an MEP for the South West Region

Below is a guest post written by Councillor Ricky Knight, the Greens lead candidate in the forthcoming European elections (June 4), who I am very happy to actively support:

I love this world. It’s so fragile and yet we don’t look after it as we should. I’m doing everything in my power to stop it from being destroyed bit by bit by apathy and indifference – and selfish greed. Fancy joining me?

I know that as first-time voters or as people who have never bothered to vote, cos ‘they’re all the same, waste of time, nothing changes’, it is difficult to find something to believe in, especially politically. But I know too that there are enough of you out there, like me, who do believe in the possibility and power of change.

Can you believe in a Green Knight for Europe? No, not the third in a comic film trilogy – it’s me, on my bike, all charged up and ready to represent you, for a change. I’m fed up with pretending there’s nothing we can do to change the world around us. We can do it.

I tried to become an MP – but the ‘First Past the Post’ system for Westminster makes it very hard. But Europe is different. I actually have a good chance of being elected – with your help. Your vote will not be wasted. Europe is where we can make this change happen together.

That’s why I am running to become the South West’s first Green Member of European Parliament. Bit of a mouthful, sorry - hence spreading the word this way, through the ether. Just imagine – you tell 10 friends, they each tell 10 friends and so on and by June 4th, 2009, all of your votes might actually count towards something you believe in.

You can contact Ricky here: sweetHQ@gpsw.org.uk or rickyknight@northdevongreens.org.uk or tel 0117 3763742 or write to or call in at the campaign office 72/73 Old Market St, Bristol, BS2 0EJ. You can join his new Facebook Group of supporters here.

South Bristol Car Share website now live

The South Bristol Car Share website has gone live. Many of us are car sharing with friends and family all the time. It makes good sense. This website make it easier to car share by bringing drivers who can offer lifts together with passengers who need them, with costs split in two. The benefits - lower travel costs, less congestion, cleaner air, improved access - are high and its well worth cosidering this option.

Traffic has grown massively and is forecast to grow still further. Cars pour out climate changing emissions and cause congestion that costs us dear - and every day there are millions of empty seats in our cars. Friends of the Earth put these figures on the benefits of car sharing:

*If average car occupancy was to increase by half - with 2.37 persons per car rather than 1.58 - it would lead to a one-third fall in traffic.

*If there was an increase of 10% - with 1.74 persons per car on average - this would reduce traffic on our roads by 9%.

*Over half of drivers would share a car to work if there was someone suitable to travel with.

*A 10% car occupancy rise would reduce congestion by as much as a doubling rail usage.

If you want to discuss travel/transport issues, including cycling, walking, car sharing, public transport, the benefits and drawbacks of car use...there is a workshop on 29 April, 6.30pm at Knowle West Media Centre.

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.

Seeing Green: never more relevant than now!!

'The dilemma is simply stated: for every year we delay making a move in the right direction, the consequences become proportionately more serious. Developed and Third World countries alike must seek to map out a different course for themselves, renouncing the maximisation of production and consumption based on non-renewable resources, moving towards a sustainable society based on renewables and the elimination of waste. The challenge is to meet the inner demands of basic human needs without violating the outer limits of the planet's wealth. The old system is bankrupt, and it is only the wisdom of ecology that will show us how to create a new economic order.'

So said Jonathon Porritt in his book Seeing Green (page 143) 25 yrs ago. This work informed and inspired me then and it still does now (I've obviously been looking through it again!). The truth of his words are surely clearer than ever, with the current economic system bankrupt and ecological principles still a long way from being practiced coherently and routinely. Great to see all the immensely valuable work Jonathon has done though, not least as Chair of the Government's Sustainable Development Commission. He recently endorsed the Green Party's European election candidates in the region (lead by Cllr Ricky Knight), speaking at the launch in Bristol.

See Jonathon Porritt's blog here.

Bristol City Council: where's the beef??

Its very odd that the public and other organisations, the Soil Association aside, have not been asked by the council for their views on their plans to run their own cattle farm on Stoke Park (front page story 'Pull the udder one', Post, March 26). Why the distinct lack of information and wider discussion?There are serious questions as to whether a council should be farming at all, with all the core responsibilities they already have for education, transport, housing and so on.

Even more odd to go for beef farming because its hardly a green option and apart from that it could be dogged by all sorts of problems especially in the event of disease outbreak. If the council was to run a farm far better for it to be at arms length, for it to be a mixed one, perhaps with fruit orchards (great for birds and bees), perhaps with areas set aside for schools to conduct environmental education, perhaps with areas set aside for Bristol's people to grow their own food at very low cost....like another city farm. This makes more sense to me than beef farming and the methane emissions that come with it.

The Posts comment on this issue echoes my MP Kerry McCarthy and correctly makes the point that this particular farm would be pretty small and so the impact of this enterprise on its own is not great. However, there is nowhere near enough emphasis on the greenhouse gas methane as one major cause of climate change and the council should be encouraging low meat diets. I'm not a veggie or a vegan but its certainly more environmentally friendly to eat less meat whilst at the same time being cheaper, healthier and more ethical.

Put People First March and Earth Hour events tomorrow

Passing on this message from Do Something About It:

Put People First March: Tomorrow

The Put People First march will take place in London tomorrow, Saturday 28 March. This is our chance to tell the G20 that there can be no return to business as usual, that they must act now to lay the foundations for a fairer and environmentally sustainable future. DoSomethingAboutIt.org.uk is one of over a hundred organisations supporting the event: we need your help to make the protest impossible to ignore. The rally will assemble along Victoria Embankment from 11am, before setting off at noon. For more information, check out the official Put People First website.

Lift a Finger, Flick a Switch, Save the Planet

The Put People First rally is not the only event that's taking place tomorrow. If you can't make it to the march, you can still participate in a protest of global significance - and you don't even need to leave the house. To campaign against climate change, all you need to do is turn off your lights between 8.30 and 9.30pm. The organisers of Earth Hour aim to collect millions of 'votes' from around the world, which they will then present to politicians at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen later this year . Wherever you are in the country, wherever you are in the world (if you're outside the UK, just flip the switch at 8.30pm local time wherever you happen to be), this is a great opportunity to show politicians that you're taking global warming seriously - so they better do so too.

Spread the Word

The more people we can get involved in Earth Hour and the Put People First march, the more effective they will be. Please take a moment to spread the word by forwarding this email on to your friends and family!

'Cycle House' Plans Statement - Taking full account of all community views

Copy of email sent to Bristol City Council:

Please ensure that the planning committee meeting of 1 April dealing with the 'cycle house' plans (08/03862/F) has the statement below submitted to it (I'd be grateful for an email confirming submission). I hope to be there to present the statement in person.

Statement - Taking full account of all community views:

The Bristol to Bath Railway Path consultation has finally been published. It cost £12,000 according to an FoI request. It dealt with all issues relating to this proposed development, not just the land sale/lease issue (as you can see from the its conclusions - see bullet points below). In any case the development cannot proceed as it is without land sale/lease and so the matters are intimately entwined and inseparable.

We were lead to believe by Cllr Rosalie Walker, then Executive Member responsible for green spaces, that this consultation was the next best thing to an Area Green Space Plan (which the council could not get itself together to do in time to inform this committees decision). What was the pointof the consultation if you are not going to fully account for it??

The Executive Summary and the Conclusion of the report state what bloggers and campaigners have been saying all along!! Developers, who say their work on this is rooted in the philosophy of community participation, and this committee, should to see to it that the 'cycle house' plans are modified to match what local people want.

These bullet points are directly from the consultation report:

* That green, open space should be preserved.

* That the wildlife corridor, in particular the hedgerow, should be protected.

* That the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site should take place within the existing boundary and that the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stay in the public domain.

* That the individual accesses to the cycle houses are flawed with concerns about safety risks; changing character of path; de facto private gardens; impact on existing natural environment; security risks.

* The importance of Bristol as a ‘Cycling City’ and the need to protect cycle routes.

* Concern that land sale would set a precedent.

In conclusion, although there is general support for the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site the majority of those participating in the consultation felt that the development should be contained within the original footprint of the factory site and the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stay in the public domain. The majority of individuals and organisations felt that plot 1 should not be sold although there were some suggestions for a compromise solution with partial development. A greater majority felt that plot 2 should not be leased particularly for individual access points – many respondents felt that these were unnecessary to the development. There was, however, some agreement to provide an access across plot 2 to the square, café and other facilities.

Do the facts show that a low meat diet is more ethical...?

Got involved in the online debate on the 'Bristol MP calls for cow flatulence debate' story in today's paper. My contribution drew quite a bit of response, including the one below from Grahame P. Thought it was worth posting on it here to invite responses on the ethics issue. To me it seems absurd to say that ethics is not part of this, and perhaps all, debates and wrong to say that you cant have a reasonable debate with someone who says that his moral position is backed by the facts - but what do readers think??

My post was addressed in reply to Glenn Vowles who said "....the facts show its healthier, more ethical and more ecological to freely choose to eat a lower meat diet..." Whilst I'd agree with his very first assertion, the argument that it's somehow more 'ethical' to eat less meat rankles because how can the facts show eating less meat is more ethical? Ethicality is a moral assertion, individually subjective, and therefore the 'facts' can't show anything of the sort!

(Grahame P, Central Bristol).

My reply:

Dont agree Grahame. The more people eat a low meat diet then - the more animals can be farmed in a non-intensive, healthier and higher animal welfare way; the fewer animals need to be farmed, leaving less forest cleared, which helps save species and save our climate; the more likely each person is to stay within a sustainable carbon budget, leaving nature less harmed for future generations. Isn't the result of all this that a low meat diet is more ethical??

Stop the Pope speaking out against condoms: petition

Received the message below today from Jean. I've signed the petition and hope many others will too.

Did you see the Pope's anti-condom speech in Africa? He said condoms could risk increasing the spread of AIDS! This goes against all the research and is a massive set back to years of prevention and education projects on a continent with 22 million men, women and children living with HIV/AIDS. I have just signed this petition which will be delivered to the Vatican asking the Pope to stop speaking out against condoms. A massive global outcry could influence any further statements he makes...just click on the link to add your name to this urgent petition; together, our voices could save lives:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/pope_benedict_petition/98.php?cl_taf_sign=dc63c4204bb886e4d4f31f3ac41b53b4

Thank you!

Further information:

The official position of the UN and the World Health Organization on condoms and AIDS prevention: http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/Resources/FeatureStories/archive/2009/20090319_preventionposition.asp
The Pope's statement opposing condoms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7951839.stm

European governments criticise Pope Benedict for his statement http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7950671.stm

Condoms 'aggravate' AIDS scourge, Pope says: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=1399781

CNN Report on the Pope’s anti-condom position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhxqvVmgEbg&feature=related

Vatican backtracking on condom statement: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5934912.ece

Growth of the Catholic Church in Africa, see:
http://www.zenit.org/article−18894?l=english
and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29777984/

South African Bishop supporting condom use:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29777984/

UNAIDS Report on the AIDS epidemic: http://www.unaids.org/en/CountryResponses/Regions/default.asp

Green energy/waste plans in and around Bristol

Big money for green energy and waste management?

Things are moving in the renewable energy and recycling field, including locally with projects worth a possible £2bn in and around the Avonmouth area of Bristol. These would apparently be paid for by commercial investors and could, if the local, regional and particularly the national energy and waste strategies and mix of technologies is right, contribute towards making Bristol much greener – as well as creating many jobs. At this stage though the £2 billion investment figure is somewhat speculative, though may turn out to be a reasonable estimate from those in the know!

The Bristol's Environmental Technology and Services Sector project (BETS) established about three years ago to really get environmental technologies and services going in Bristol and the surrounding area are of course intimately involved in all this. After all BETS are all about: encouraging and facilitating networking and cooperation projects within the sector for business innovation and growth, including provision of better market intelligence; knowledge transfer; access to finance; training and marketing support, and appropriate sites and premises; harnessing the strengths and achievements of the sector for the wider marketing and promotion of Bristol for investment and regeneration; raising the public profile and promoting products, services and benefits on a local, national and international scale.

BETS are saying that nine different projects are proposed in and around Avonmouth, including 'green' power stations and recycling/waste operations. Full details of all these are not yet publicly available – its likely that debate will surround just how green some projects actually are. This is where energy and waste strategies, and technology assessment are crucial and will be in the spotlight.

We do know that Bristol City Council wants to build two wind turbines and Wessex Water four wind turbines. The Port of Bristol already has three wind turbines and may want two or three more. There are at least three proposals around for biomass power stations burning such fuels as woodchip, along with some interesting ideas for combined heat and power (where ‘waste’ heat is circulated and put to some use). The viability of this at Avonmouth needs looking into - can the heat be efficiently used there?? How?? Then there are a number of possible ‘energy from waste’ proposals, from pyrolysis/gasification or ‘waste cooking’ plants to conventional mass incineration with energy recovery (electricity generation). Mass burning and other heat treatment of waste is very controversial. The nature and origins of any biomass fuels used should is also a crucial green consideration (http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/index.php).

There are claims that Bristol is leading the green development agenda and could position itself as the so-called ‘green-collar capital’. There will be ongoing debate about how the scale of green investment matches the scale of the economic, climate and energy security problems though, with some calling for very large ‘green new deal’ plans to create an entirely different kind of economy and society out of the entwined economic and environmental chaos we now have.

In many ways the Avonmouth area is a good one for many of these energy and waste projects due to the accessibility to the port and to materials. Whether there are sufficient businesses and homes in the area to make best use of the Bristol City Council proposed grid to harness the heat generated from the various ‘green’ projects is an uncertainty. There may be far better locations for such good ideas and we need to think things through to ensure the overall strategy and technology mix give the best total net benefits. A lot of heat can be generated from several projects, should they come to fruition in difficult economic times. The potential is there to tackle two birds with one stone by generating genuinely clean, renewable energy and managing wastes efficiently within a low waste strategy, and generating loads of jobs in the process.

Condescending, undemocratic rubbish from Livingstone

I've strongly argued the case for congestion charging in Bristol but Ken Livingstone, who also favours the charge of course, has been talking trash on the issue in the city. Speaking in Bristol recently former London Mayor Ken Livingstone said that, '...it would be pointless to have a referendum on congestion charging in Bristol.' He went on to justify his view using these phrases: referendum would be pointless; you couldn't get a yes vote; we need to just do it; you cant boil down the complexities; competing priorities have to be managed; we need to avoid just arguing about it; I could do exactly as I wanted to do (yes he is quoted as saying this!). See the report here.

All this is insulting, condescending and undemocratic rubbish. The statement that got to me most however was this one, 'The whole role of the political class is that they are privy to knowledge and they can think long term in a way the general public doesn't.' What a hugely arrogant and ignorant thing to say. Knowledge and long term thinking are exactly what we dont usually get from many politicians. They are often out of touch with the real world, often limited by their party line or by their ideology or their ambitions, and thinking mostly about the next election rather than solving problems for the long term. Has he not heard about the entwined environmental and economic deep water we are now in?? Ken, you're having a laugh.

For a good green glow...

This very smart UK technology helps to promote and extend the use of green infrastructure! TraxEyes glow in the dark marker studs can ensure a safe route along pathways, cyclepaths, canal towpaths, mooring points and jetties, bridleways, camping and caravan sites and parks in conditions that would otherwise be low or no light – and they do it in an extremely effective, economical and environmentally-friendly way! Its no wonder that Bristol City Council, British Waterways and English Heritage are experimenting with them.

The studs glow because of photoluminescence – they absorb light energy in daylight and then emit light at night. Amazingly they emit good light for twelve hours of darkness after a mere eight minutes of exposure to daylight! One stud costs just £3.89! A box of twenty studs, enough to cover 50 metres of cyclepath, costs just £77.80. If electrical lighting was used for the same distance, the cost of hardware installation alone would be much greater – add in maintenance and energy use and costs exceed the total cost of using TraxEye studs each and every month!

Councils like Bristol spend a significant portion of their budget on electricity for lighting. Bills run to millions! It costs from £36 to £90 a year to run just one street light as opposed to zero running cost of the studs. Bristol City Council has opted to try out the studs in St Werburghs as part of its Cycling City work.

Inside them is a resin disc embedded with light emitting crystals, encased in a clear plastic shell for protection against the elements. A small steel pin penetrates the disc and this is used to anchor the stud. The head of the pin is encased in tough plastic which keeps the stud safe during the straightforward installation and marks its location. Checking for vandalism and the occasional wipe over to remove debris is all the maintenance needed.

The studs are far greener than street lighting or reflectors, including perhaps solar powered ones, in several senses. They are non-toxic, non-radioactive and contain no harmful chemicals. They emit a soft green light not radioactivity!!

Its a major advantage that they consume no electricity during their working life and thus consume no fuel and produce no polluting emissions! They don’t require expensive and polluting batteries either and don’t have to be wired up as they are self-contained. The studs work in total darkness, unlike reflectors, and are longer-life than solar lighting – five years is guaranteed and fourteen years or more of useful life is expected. http://www.traxeyes.co.uk/

Nuclear power: too slow to help solve climate change

The Post yesterday reported that, 'Farmland immediately north of Oldbury nuclear power station in South Gloucestershire has been identified as the most likely location for a possible new atomic energy plant. But people who visited a three-day exhibition staged by energy company Eon were told construction of the UK's next generation of nuclear sites – if given the go-ahead – was unlikely to start for another four years...'

I've previously posted my views on nuclear power and so would here focus in on the issue of time. The story above says that construction of new nuclear power stations is unlikely to start for four years. This is a considerable delay - we need to be building our energy security and cutting our carbon emissions now and so there are many technologies more appropriate than nuclear!! Sustainable Development Commission evidence, not disputed by the Government, shows that building ten new nuclear reactors can cut carbon emissions by a measly 4% and only after 2025! Doubling existing UK nuclear capacity produces an 8% cut by 2035. This is very little and very late in the day!!

The Sustainable Development Commission go on to indicate five major disadvantages of nuclear power, disadvantages they say outweigh the benefits:

1. Long-term waste - no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste.

2. Cost - the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there's a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab.

3. Inflexibility - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever.

4. Undermining energy efficiency - a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that's required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency.

5. International security - if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology (under the terms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.

Labour's recycling record in Bristol

Councillor Judith Price raises the issue of Labour's recycling record in her letter 'Clarification about recycling in Bristol' (Open Lines, Post, March 17). Sadly she seems far more interested in having a go at political opponents like Councillor Hopkins through insult and mockery than in the actual facts of Labours record on recycling. She did not mention for instance that in Labour's last period running the city there was no improvement in the overall recycling rate at all!! She did not mention that Labour planned to mass incinerate waste, something that would inhibit recycling and encourage high waste production as well as giving out huge amounts of climate changing carbon emissions. She did not mention that Labour did this whilst seeking to bask in the green glow of Bristol as a potential 'green capital' of Europe. Its little wonder with such people and parties on the council that genuine green progress in the city is largely superficial.

Bristol to Bath Railway Path consultation findings published: over to you Cllr Hopkins and Cllr Rogers et al...

The Bristol to Bath Railway Path consultation has finally been published (this web page here has a link to the Public Consultation Statement pdf file). The Executive Summary and the Conclusion of the report state (below in bold italics) what bloggers and campaigners have been saying all along!! New Cabinet members, especially Cllr Hopkins and Cllr Rogers, who have responsibility for green spaces and for transport and sustainability, now have a responsibility to see to it that Squarepeg's 'cycle house' plans are modified to match what local people want. The hedgerow should not be torn up and the path not encroached on....

* That green, open space should be preserved.

* That the wildlife corridor, in particular the hedgerow, should be protected.

* That the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site should take place within the existing boundary and that the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stayin the public domain.

* That the individual accesses to the cycle houses are flawed with concerns about safety risks; changing character of path; de facto private gardens; impact on existingnatural environment; security risks.

* The importance of Bristol as a ‘Cycling City’ and the need to protect cycle routes.

* Concern that land sale would set a precedent.

In conclusion, although there is general support for the regeneration of the former Elizabeth Shaw factory site the majority of those participating in the consultation felt that the developmentshould be contained within the original footprint of the factory site and the Bristol and Bath Railway Path should stay in the public domain.The majority of individuals and organisations felt that plot 1 should not be sold although therewere some suggestions for a compromise solution with partial development. A greater majorityfelt that plot 2 should not be leased particularly for individual access points – many respondentsfelt that these were unnecessary to the development. There was, however, some agreement toprovide an access across plot 2 to the square, café and other facilities

Update 19 March, Bristol Evening Post coverage of the issue here.

Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls: Home Office online survey

Just completed an online survey about violence against women after being prompted by a message from a friend (below). Please consider completing the survey yourself and looking at the results so far - they are very, very striking.

....if you feel strongly about his (as I do) ..'Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls' is an online survey from the Home Office which asks you to comment on:

• general questions about you and your views

• the sexualisation of young girls

• education

• personal safety (women only)

• impressions and attitudes

This survey should take about five minutes, and it is anonymous.

Visit www.homeoffice.gov.uk/keepwomensafe/survey/ to take part.

Further information:
http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/

Petition: suspend the Regional Spatial Strategy

Passing on a message I received today from Steve. I hope many more people will sign the petition before the 3 April deadline.

I came across your website recently. I would like to bring this petition to your attention. It was drafted by a Worcestershire politician, but as far as I can see, it is applicable to all areas.

I got it from a website representing myarea: http://www.habsh.co.uk/

The response is pitiable in my eyes. I’m staggered that it has not been more widely distributed. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SuspendRSS/

I would be obliged if you could circulate it.

'Green' consultants fly off to plant some trees!!

This story in todays local paper ('Bristol Airport security detects toothpaste but not live bullets', Post, 13 March) raises the very serious issue of airport security, which must be got right of course. However, the fact that 'Four staff at green consultancy Carbon Managers were setting off for a tree-planting trip in Scotland from Bristol Airport...' is also most noteworthy to say the least! What are carbon managers doing flying like this?

These people should surely recognise that there is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. Its hardly taking all practical steps to reduce carbon emissions if they are flying off to Scotland is it! But that is what the best advice says should be done before considering carbon offsetting, which is what these 'four staff' would probably say they have done with their emissions from the flight.

Even at the offsetting stage one has to be very careful indeed about the scheme chosen because there are some very dodgy ones out there - you just can't 'magic away' our climate problems by handing over some dosh to a consultancy. If the solution was that easy the problem would have been solved years ago!!

Earth Hour 2009

Received a request to pass on the message below about Earth Hour 2009 - I hope many people will support this event!

Big changes start with small gestures; turn off to show you care about climate change

On 8.30 pm on 28 March an extraordinary global event called Earth Hour will take place and we would like to enlist your help to ensure that Bristol is a part of it.

Up to a billion people around the globe will switch off their lights for one hour to send a powerful message to our politicians and decision makers. Earth Hour 2009 is really set to ‘switch off the globe’. Already 377 cities and 74 countries are committed, including Bristol. Earth Hour 2009 is setting the platform for an unprecedented global mandate for action on climate change. This is especially important now because 2009 is a critical year for action on climate change, with the world’s leaders due to meet at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December to sign a new deal to supersede the Kyoto Protocol.

The initiative, which began in Sydney in 2007 as a one-city environmental campaign, has evolved into a grassroots action that has really captured the attention worldwide. In 2008, 371 cities across 35 countries turned their lights out in a united call for action on climate change.

The list of cities confirming their participation includes 37 national capitals and many of the great cities of the world, including London, Beijing, Rome, Moscow, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong, Dubai, Singapore, Athens, Buenos Aires, Toronto, Sydney, Mexico City, Istanbul, Copenhagen, Manila, Las Vegas, Brussels, Cape Town and Helsinki. We want to add Bristol to this list!

Along with the great metropolises of the world, Earth Hour 2009 will also see the lights go out on some of the most recognised landmarks on the planet, including Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Table Mountain in Cape Town, Merlion in Singapore, Sydney Opera House, CN Tower in Toronto, Millennium Stadium in Cardiff and the world’s tallest constructed building, Taipei 101. We hope that the Clifton Suspension Bridge will be in this list of iconic structures.Earth Hour by its very nature is the essence of grassroots action. This is the opportunity for individuals from all corners of the globe to unite in a single voice and demand action on climate change. Bristol needs to play its part in this global clamour for change; please help us to make a difference.

You can help by letting all of your members and contacts know that this is happening and encouraging them to participate, by turning off any lighting not required for safety reasons on the 28th at 8:30pm. We would be very grateful if you could feedback to us the response you receive and the likely numbers who have agreed to participate.

More information is available at http://www.earthhour.org/

Many thanks

Alistair Sawday, Chair, The Bristol Green Capital Momentum Group
green.capital@bristol.gov.uk

20's Plenty For Us

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.

The Bristol group was recently launched. 34 neighbourhood champions are 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 email Knowle@20splentyforus.org.uk or champions@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. Bristol will begin a 20mph pilot scheme in two areas soon.

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!! 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.

Further information from:

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