Climate tipping point...

Many thanks to Graham Davey for passing on the link to this excellent animation. The website a page with the full script of the film plus supporting references.

Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo.
It turns out that the way we have been calculating the future impacts of climate change up to now has been missing a really important piece of the picture. It seems we are now dangerously close to the tipping point in the world's climate system; this is the point of no return, after which truly catastrophic changes become inevitable

Wake Up, Freak Out - then Get a Grip from Leo Murray on Vimeo.

Caroline Lucas...to become the Green MP for Brighton Pavillion

News from the Greens: Caroline Lucas officially launched her bid last night to become the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, at a special event held at Brighton's
Fabrica Gallery.

Dr Lucas, who is also leader of the Green Party and a Green MEP, used
a speech at the event - hosted by BBC Radio 4's Marcus Brigstocke - to
unveil core Green Party campaigning themes around the economy and
public services.

In a stinging attack on the Government, the speech highlighted
Labour's poor handling of the current economic crisis and its
systematic failure to regulate the activities of banks and other
financial institutions.

Highlighting issues of concern both at a national level and specific
to Brighton and Hove, Dr Lucas also used the speech to reinforce the
Green Party's commitment to building a fairer society and to tackling
a spiralling inequality that sees as many as one in five UK children
living in poverty.

Caroline Lucas said: "In recent years the Green Party has gone from
strength to strength, securing unprecedented victories in both the
European Elections and local by-elections, and now we intend to secure
the first Green seat in Westminster for Brighton Pavilion.

She added: "Greens are about delivering a dynamic economy, and one
that benefits people waiting tables at restaurants in Preston Street,
or those working in Brighton and Hove's unique digital media sector -
not just a handful of people in the Square Mile.

"Greens are also about defending the Royal Sussex hospital as a local,
free-at-the-point-of-delivery public service - so that everyone can
access decent healthcare, and so that we aren't paying extortionate
fees to private shareholders."

She continued: "With the economy and public services in crisis, and
traditional Westminster politics perpetually mired in sleaze, only the
Green Party offers the people of Brighton and Hove - and beyond - a
future built around honest politics and common sense policies."

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/10-09-2009-Lucas-campaign-launch-for-Brighton-Pavilion.html

Free Eco Team training event, 26 Sept, Bristol

Received the email below today and am passing on the message to those who follow this blog, as promised:

Dear Sir or Madam

Global Action Plan is an environmental charity that delivers tangible environmental, social and financial improvements by working practically and creatively with hundreds of thousands of people from all sections of society. In homes, the workplace, schools and the wider community we help to make the small changes that have a big impact on the things that matter.

Global Action Plan's EcoTeams programme helps households to reduce their impact on the environment and to save money. EcoTeams are groups of 6-8 people who meet once a month for approximately 5 months. At each meeting, EcoTeam participants decide together on the environmental actions that they are able and willing to do at home, and share experiences of the actions they have already taken.

Currently we are running a major national project with the goal to reach a minimum of 20,000 households over the next 2 years. In order to achieve that goal we will be running a free training event in Bristol on the 26th of September 2009.

Please find attached further details concerning this. [*See below]

We would be very happy if you could help spreading the information throughout the community and promoting signing up for the event. Would it be possible for us to post an entry in your Blog?
Kind Regards
Nicole Linke

___________________________________________________________________

*Invitation to become an EcoTeam leader

Come and join the 20,000 households across England taking part in EcoTeams.

We are offering you the opportunity to attend one of our free events and receive training to become an EcoTeam leader. You will learn how to set up your own EcoTeam, how to tackle your environmental footprint and just why it is so important.

EcoTeams are groups of people – neighbours, friends, colleagues – who work together to make positive changes; from minimising the energy they use to cutting down on the stuff they throw away.

With the support of a trained team leader, team members agree their own goals and how to achieve them. At the end of the exercise, they can measure how their actions have benefitted both the environment and their pockets.

A household taking part typically:

· reduces CO2 emissions by 16.6%
· reduces heating energy consumption by 21%
· reduces rubbish by 20%
· reduces water use by 15%
· reduces energy & water bills by £170 a year

We are currently running training events in:

London 5th September 2009

Bristol 26th September 2009

Leeds 7th November 2009

Further venues and dates to be added soon.

Register for an event or join online anywhere in the UK at http://www.ecoteams.org.uk/

Significant stats (3): International Aid $120bn/yr; Revenue lost to developing countries $160bn/yr

That's $40 billion arrears to poor countries due to international tax dodging! Extreme poverty could be tackled with this money!! Join me in the Outlandish Revenue Service and do something about this. Send a letter to Chancellor Alistair Darling with some 'final demands' in it.

Imposed goals or goals that emerge from the community?

I'm off to the Knowle West Futures Conference at The Park in Daventry Rd tomorrow representing the perspective of the Sustainable Knowle group I coordinate (I also have a strong personal interest as I'm from this area and because I'm now lecturing in environmental decision making in addition to my usual environmental science/technology/studies lecturing work). My key hope is that what happens in Knowle West emerges from the work of the community and not due to a set of goals that come from outside, though the signs are not good on this. There is a good deal about the regeneration of Knowle West isues on the council website (here and here especially). The conference organisers say,

'We would like to invite you to take an active part in shaping the future of Knowle West. The Knowle West Futures conference is the first in aseries of events where we from Urban Initiatives, working on behalf of Bristol City Council, need your ideas, knowledge and feedback to make the best possible plan for Knowle West.'

*

It will be a busy day as there is a lot on the agenda and many interrelated issues will arise, including issues of green space use that were not discussed at the local Area Green Space Plan meetings and issues of decision making processes...(Knowle and Windmill Hill wards were discussed at several meetings but we were told by council officers that consideration of Filwood ward would have to wait - so Filwood's green spaces are not being dealt with by the same process as the other two Neighbourhood Partnership wards).

Climate change...after all is only weather (?)

The appropriately named Bob Bull, thinks climate change is just 'hype' (‘Don’t believe all that climate change hype’, Post, September 2). But something that has been repeatedly subject to rigorous scientific investigation in ever more sophisticated ways, scrutinised and debated by all manner of people over decades, surely has to be much, much more than the promotion, advertisement and exaggerated claims that Bob says it is! I guess this is the same Bob Bull that is Bristol spokeman of the Association of British Drivers and that his interest is unduly colouring his ‘interpretation’ of the facts – he refers to ‘political zealots’ taking over but through his own words shows that there are such zealots on all sides of the climate debate!

It could be that Bob does not bother with science and the facts at all. How else could he come up with the phrase ‘…climate change, which after all is only weather.’ ? If he bothered to look it up he’d find that weather is the state of our atmosphere short term whereas climate is a long term view of weather patterns. This is a distinction that is crucially important to understanding climate change. The fact that Bob does not understand this fully explains why he feels able to give the statement ‘temperatures have not risen since 2002’ as good evidence against global warming. If what he said was true it would not be relevant because it’s the long term pattern that we should be concerned with. In any case both the NASA and Met Office websites agree that the ten warmest years since modern records began have all occurred since 1997!!

Not only is Bob wrong in thinking that climate and weather are the same, he is also obviously wrong to say its ‘only weather’ and ‘weather is weather’. The weather and how it changes is crucial to: water supplies, including flooding and droughts; crop yields, including food and timber supplies & food availability to raise animals; health and disease, including aspects like rate of spread and heat stress; energy consumption eg for air conditioning; tourism levels; rates of coastal erosion; occurrence and severity of impact of air pollution such as photochemical smog; and more!!

Finally Bob’s view is that ‘green’ and ‘climate change’ campaigns impoverish the world. However, I’d point out that there few if any governments around the world are genuinely green and tackling climate change – and its very much our persistence with the current greed-based, un-green economic system that has brought both economic booms and busts and serious environmental degradation requiring urgent action!

We need more hospice facilities not fewer!

Pat Simmons letter (‘Its not sentimental, but practical to keep hospice’, Open Lines, Friday August 28) was absolutely spot on – and was also very moving. Wanting to keep a fantastic facility like St Peter’s Hospice open in Knowle is indeed about practicalities not sentiment. As Pat points out the location of St Peter’s enabled easy and fast access for her (it has done for many over the years). We need more of such facilities not fewer. I’m afraid we cannot currently regard health provision in Britain as fully ‘cradle to grave’ - but this is what we need.

Like Pat I’m also very puzzled by the sudden-ness and speed of the decision. It was announced in the media and now we are, very sadly, already close to the point of complete closure. Little or no broad-based consultation was, as far as I am aware, sought or undertaken by those taking the decision at St Peter’s – yet they are funded by public donations and do receive large sums for some of their work from the NHS.

Despite a very well supported petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-our-hospice/ ) and public meeting on the matter there is no sign of them changing their minds or even delaying to re-examine their options and talk properly with the wider community and with elected representatives about funding, keeping the Knowle facility open or establishing an alternative locally.

It strange to me that no fundraising campaign was launched. I cannot understand how a building relatively recently refurbished - in the late 1990’s I think – now needs so much spent on it. Was the refurbishment badly done? Has planned maintenance not be properly carried out?

I very strongly support getting away from ever-larger, more centralised institutions. I thought St Peter’s supported this thinking. However, it does not look this way now and South Bristol, lacking in health facilities already, may lose a valuable asset. If it can be established and widely agreed that the Knowle site is too big an annual drain on resources why not invest the considerable income that would result from the sale of the site in a new local facility?

I worry that this may well be a case of ‘you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til its gone’.

Significant stats (2): UK population reached 61.4 million in 2008

...having grown 408,000 in the previous year at a rate of 0.7%. More than two million people have been added to the UK population in the last seven years, and our numbers have increased by more than a fifth since 1950 - in less than a lifetime, in one of the most densely populated countries in the world. At a recent growth rate of 0.6% a year, population would reach 100 million before the end of this century, passing 200 million soon after 2200. The most recent projections exceeded the previous four: on 23 October 2007 2006-based population projections released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed expected population growth of nearly 17 million (more than two Londons) to 77.2 million in 2050, and on 19 November 2008 migration figures for 2007 revealed a near record net inward flow of 237,000 people, pushing up population growth to a staggering 434,554. Although a third* of the public believe population growth to be the most serious threat to the future wellbeing of Britain, no political party has a clear policy to reverse it. Act now. Call for an population policy - stabilisation and gradual decrease by 2050. See Fertility, Migration, OPT Policies, OPT Population policy projections and Briefings and Submissions for population policy alternatives.

(The above from the Optimum Population Trust).

More on the issue:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/baby-boom-drives-british-population-to-record-high-1778384.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6098326/Baby-boom-sees-UK-population-pass-61-million.html

Sustainable Knowle, neighbourhood transition group: origins, plans, hopes, fears…

If not me, then who? If not now, then when? Its been like that with me all through my adult life, thus my involvement in forming and coordinating Sustainable Knowle, a neighbourhood Transition group working for sustainability and improved quality of life in Bristol.

As well as working for Green political change I want to be part of creating moves towards sustainability now. The Transition movement is about working with others to create such change in the local community and so last year I placed this pledge ‘I will start a group called the Campaign for the Achievement of a Sustainable Knowle (CASK) in my area of Bristol but only if 10 other local people will do the same.’ on the PledgeBank website http://www.pledgebank.com/. I gave the pledge a year to gain support but in less than half that time it was successful and Sustainable Knowle was formed.

Sustainable Knowle aims to assess the local area and establish exactly what changes are needed to make it environmentally and socially sustainable. It wants to find effective and practical ways to achieve those changes in the interest of the security, stability and quality of life. These are likely to include: much better cycling and pedestrian provision; protecting, enhancing and if possible increasing open, green, natural spaces; the retention and improvement of locally available facilities, services, and jobs; education for sustainable living; local energy saving and the micro-generation of energy; more local, ethical and organic food availability; home and allotment grown food; higher land, air, water and environmental quality; people taking personal responsibility to be more environmentally-friendly; broad based public participation in community life…

The group made somewhat gradual beginnings in terms of face to face meeting, with a few people meeting informally for coffee initially. Regular meetings are now ongoing though, the group has a website (http://sustainableknowle.blogspot.com/) and is building links. Areas of activity have been and are: input into the council’s green space plans; campaigning to stop a local pub from being turned into a Tesco Express; litter picking; input into council consultations on environmental noise; support for the 20’s Plenty campaign for a default 20mph speed limit….

We have grown from 10 to 16 in number and hope for more publicity and growth. Sustaining activity when we all have family and work commitments has be an ongoing concern for us though – what we do is sensitive to slight changes in the personal circumstances of a relatively small number. We hope that more specific projects will get off the ground and spark others. Resources, physical and financial, are a constraint though – we are short of time compared to the opportunities and to the amount of work to be done!! We each need and want balanced lives but also need and want to work for positive overall green outcomes, both measured and judged. Relative unresponsiveness and the lack of coherent plans on an adequate scale from councils and Government is not helping the transition to sustainability however – people are ahead of the politicians!!

[This article originally appeared, edited slightly, in The Spark magazine earlier this summer]

Why people dont act on climate change

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.900-comment-why-people-dont-act-on-climate-change.html?full=true Great article written by George Marshall.

Ask three questions, get zero answers!! A perfect combination of ignorance and dismissiveness!!

I've been investigating the environmental decision making surrounding the introduction of corn starch bags into Bristol's food waste recycling system for a while. Recently I put the three questions below to the Cabinet. I received just one response - and that did not give the information requested!

The figures given by Cllr Hopkins are certainly not carbon footprint figures and I am still looking into what they actually imply. He completely ignores my second question about other environmental impacts (carbon footprints make up less than half the total environmental impact of a product). He also completely ignores my third question which asks about economic as well as environmental assessment. Despite not backing anything he says with anything like full and accurate facts Cllr Hopkins still asserts 'this shows that there will be an overall positive impact to the environment.'!! A perfect combination of ignorance and dismissiveness.

C3. Glenn Vowles to ask Gary Hopkins, Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety

Environmental decision making and corn starch bags

In a debate on Cllr Bolton’s blog I said ‘…the decision on the [corn starch] bags has been taken without full information being sought! This is irrational. Environmental decision making should be put on a firm evidence-based process. This has not been done by any party running the council…’ to which you Cllr Hopkins replied ‘I do not base my judgements on guesses but on evidence’. My subsequent request for data on the total environmental impacts of the corn starch bags in this debate was not replied to and so I doubt that full information has in fact been sought.

Q1. What figures does the council have for the carbon footprint of these corn starch bags, in order to assess whether they more than make up for their carbon cost?

Q2. What figures does the council have for any other environmental costs the corn starch bags may have eg water footprint, land take, biodiversity impacts?

Q3. Can you outline if/how you intend to quantitatively and fully assess the net effects of corn starch bag introduction: on the environment; on the economics of waste management for Bristol?

C3. Reply:
For the plans we have regarding potential roll out of corn starch liners across Bristol, the environmental costs of liner production is summarised as:
- 45t of bags will need to divert 540t - 1125t of organic waste from landfill to make the CO2 equivalent net saving, which will require approximately 3% increase in organic recycling. This is a very realistic estimate.

In summary this shows that there will be an overall positive impact to the environment.

For clarity, this calculation does not take into account the further expected reduction in waste arisings, as previous evidence has shown that when residents start recycling food waste for the first time, they are surprised at the amount they throw away which tends to make them reduce their waste in the future.

Significant stat (1): 16% of 16-24 yr olds not in education, training or employment

Abject Labour Govt failure - official figures show that one in six 16 to 24 yr olds (959,000 people) are NEETs (not in education, employment or training). The numbers of young people not working or in school, college or university have been on the rise for some time and are now at record levels - they are 100,000 higher this year than last year. They may well rise further (and pass the 1 million mark) within months.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labours-lost-generation-one-in-six-young-people-do-nothing-1773805.html

Support the petition asking the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing for being gay that led to his untimely death

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/ - signed this petition today after seeing a story in The Independent detailing Richard Dawkins call for an apology for Turing. The petition details say...

Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.

He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a 'cure', and took his own life, aged 41.

The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man's life and career.

Bristol Schumacher Conference 2009: From the ashes of the crash - Rebuilding with the new economics

Received this from the Schumacher Society:

Following on from the success of last year's Bristol Schumacher Conference, LESS IS MORE Can We Really Live Better By Consuming Less? chaired byJonathon Porritt, this year we are partnering with the New Economics Foundation (nef) and keeping a similar format - three lectures and 2x four workshops.

The Conference will take place at the Council House on Saturday 17 October 2009 - some details are below.

It is advisable to book in advance as last year was sold out before the day.

We would be most grateful if you could forward this email and attached leaflet to any contacts you think might be interested.

FFI or to book tickets:
www.schumacher.org.uk
Tel 0117 903 1081

We do hope you will join us for an inspiring day of lectures and workshopswith such leading edge speakers on such a timely subject.

Laura Hamilton
Schumacher Society marketing volunteer
-------------------------------
The Schumacher Society
The Create Environment Centre
Smeaton Road
Bristol
BS1 6XN
Tel: 0117 9031081
admin@schumacher.org.uk
www.schumacher.org.uk

******************************
Bristol Schumacher Conference 2009

FROM THE ASHES OF THE CRASH - Rebuilding with the new economics
Saturday 17 October 2009 Council House, Bristol, BS1 5TR

CHAIR Stewart Wallis - nef Executive Director

LECTURES

Dr. Jayati Ghosh - Professor of Economics, New Delhi
THE MARKET THAT FAILED

Andrew Simms - nef Policy Director
THE TERRIBLE FREEDOM BEFORE DUSK

Stacy Mitchell - Researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, USA
A NEW DEAL FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES

WORKSHOPS

a. David Boyle (editor, Radical Economics)
Reinventing money

b.. John Christensen (Tax Justice Network uk)
The attack on democracy: tax havens as the engines of chaos

c. Liz Cox (nef) & Ciaran Mundy (Transition Bristol)
Transition to a low carbon high well being future

d. Nick Robins (HSBC), James Vaccaro (Triodos) & Mark Mansley (Rathbone Greenbank Investments)
Investing in a low carbon economy

Guest Artist Rory McLeod

****************

The Schumacher Society in partnership with nef (new economics foundation)
Sponsors Rathbone Greenbank Investments & Triodos Bank
FFI & tickets
www.schumacher.org.uk
Tel 0117 903 1081

Who supports a new BCFC stadium if funded by selling Ashton Gate to Tesco??

Very, very interesting - and highly convenient - assertion by Bristol City FC Chief Executive Colin Sexstone reported in todays Post. He asserts that there is a 'silent majority' in favour of the proposed new Bristol City stadium funded by selling the Ashton Gate ground to Tesco. There is little or no evidence to support this assertion that I'm aware of. By definition we dont know the
view(s) those who are silent hold !!!

Bearing in mind that there are many people who dont want our green belt built over, good numbers may still support a new stadium for Bristol City - but not at the cost of having a Tesco at Aston Gate!! My supporting evidence? Number who have to date signed the petition against Tesco at Ashton Gate 772 - number who have signed the petition in support of Tesco at Ashton gate 105.

If there is a 'silent majority' in favour of or against anything, anywhere I'd urge them to get as involved as they possibly can, getting together with like-minded people where appropriate -politicians and other decision makers at all levels have been left to get on with things far too much and would benefit greatly from high levels of public scrutiny and participation.

Bristol's green belt: protected? Or disappearing under mass house building, another major road, a new football stadium and an expanded airport?

Many are campaigning for the green belt around Bristol to be protected and to mean something! There are various threats: many, many thousands of houses; the ring road; expanding the airport; building a new footbal stadium...Here's the response I got from Bristol City Council's Lib Dem Cabinet to two questions I recently put:

C2. Glenn Vowles to ask Jon Rogers Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability

Development on green belt land

Q1. Should large scale development be permitted on green belt land around Bristol, whether the development impinges on green belt in whole or part?

C2.Q1 Reply:
The issue of use of Green Belt is a complex one. My colleagues and I have campaigned and won in the recent election with a pledge to “fight the loss of Green Belt” and that remains our policy.

We are also considering the Multi-Area Agreement MAA at the meeting today, and you will see our heavily caveated concerns about the possible imposition of a Regional Spatial Strategy RSS, requiring development with which we would not agree. In particular, the housing targets in the draft RSS from the Secretary of State do not appear to be backed by evidence. These are concerns shared with our neighbouring authorities, and we need to be very mindful that such decisions could be taken out of our control.

We have repeatedly stated that we wish to develop urban sites and brownfield sites and avoid development on Green Belt. All developments need to be of the best sustainable design and infrastructure.

It is also important that the Bristol Development Framework BDF gets approved (which it'll only do if it articulates with the RSS) as without it, we have 12 year old development control policies which say nothing about sustainability.

Officers have asked that I point out that development on the Green Belt is guided by national, regional and local policy. Regional planning guidance sets the framework for Green Belt policy, including the direction of long term development. Government guidance set out in PPG2: Green Belts considers that once the general extent of Green Belt has been approved it should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.

The Council is producing a series of planning documents known as the Bristol Development Framework which will guide development over the next 20 years. The Core Strategy is the first of these documents and it must be in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). The RSS proposes urban extensions within the Green Belt to the south east and south west of Bristol to help meet the housing requirements of the sub region. These proposals include allocations of 1,500 dwellings within the City boundaries as part of the wider extensions. Therefore, the City Council has to plan for these areas in the Core Strategy.

If the requirement for urban extensions remains in the final version of the RSS then the land required to accommodate the urban extensions will be removed from the Green Belt. The specific areas of Green Belt required to accommodate the urban extensions will be identified on the proposals map accompanying the Site Allocations Development Plan Document. The remaining areas will be protected in the Core Strategy Green Belt policy from inappropriate development (as defined in Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts). The acceptability of development within the Green Belt will depend on the use and form of the proposal as assessed in relation to policy.

Sounds very much like a lot of our green belt will be built over and degraded if national and regional govt get their way.

Q2. If development is permitted on green belt land should the developers plans and designs be required to compensate as much as is practically possible for all the environmental impacts they cause eg through maximising the use of green design, green technology and green schemes?

C2.Q2 Reply:
Yes. Where development in the green belt is found to be acceptable in principle, it will be required to meet the standards of the development plan. The emerging policies set out in the Core Strategy will require development to be built to high environmental standards, maximising energy efficiency and contributing to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Any negative impacts associated with development will require mitigation in accordance with policy requirements.

Its noteworthy that this second answer applies a different - and much lower - standard than the one I refer to in my question. Compensating as much as is practically possible is most certainly not what would result from meeting the standards of the development plan or Core Strategy!!

Invest in stronger regions and local communities rather than subsidise Bristol Airport expansion

Letter objecting to the application to expand Bristol International Airport sent today:

The forecasting process that is behind the planning application to expand Bristol International Airport (ref 09/P/1020/OT2) is highly inaccurate and in any case the wrong approach to take. Projections of passenger numbers look increasingly ridiculous in the light of both economic and environmental contexts. Government is in denial as they persist with their forecast figures for more flying, modified only slightly. Generally the air travel industry is, in contrast, more realistic: in the last year or so numbers using UK airports fell by 6.4 million (13%) according to Civil Aviation Authority figures; the head of easyJet, Andy Harrison, told journalist and campaigner George Monbiot that ‘there was no point in expanding airports outside the south-east because the demand wouldn’t materialise’.

The forecasting process and plans for airport expansion are hopelessly out of tune with environmental targets. In the Climate Change Act the UK sets a target of reducing carbon emissions from 1990 levels by at least 80% by 2050 – this reduction cannot be achieved if we keep expanding air travel. Such legislation, if it is to mean anything in practice, means we should be backcasting instead of forecasting, that is plan out how to achieve the scenario that is necessary and desirable by working back to determine the actions we need to take from now. Bristol airport flights already produce a ‘city scale’ half a millions tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions which we should be reducing eg by refusing planning permission to expand airport capacity.

Bristol International Airport already has significant negative impacts on people, the economy and the environment. Noise levels and noise event frequency should be cut from current levels. Parking in the green belt for cars is already significant, money lost to the region is high as many more people take their money abroad to spend than arrive here to spend (£700 million per yr is lost in UK as a whole), traffic levels on local roads are already at far too high a level. All of this points to refusing planning permission for airport expansion and moving to a different, green pattern of economic and social development focussed on building strong regions and local communities.

Many in the industry feel the 13% drop in numbers using UK airports is not just a short term trend and that expansion plans are thus not viable. Airport operator BAA has delayed its plans for a second runway at Stansted for example. British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair want BAA reduce the £900m Gatwick upgrade because they have serious doubts about the business case. National and regional government has been attempting to accelerate any natural trend for people to fly more despite its warm words on fighting climate change. In the past ten years government agencies have spent £80m on helping private enterprise to increase the number of flights. The South West Regional Development Agency has spent £19m on extending the airport terminals at Bristol and Bournemouth, aircraft parking at Exeter and airport works at Plymouth and Newquay. This has encouraged people to fly – and at the same time government have allowed train travel to become far too expensive and lacking in the most efficient technology. Its time this pattern of subsidy for air travel is reversed and with the South West Regional development Agency saying ‘The relationship between high growth sectors in the region and air travel appears to be weak’ and with their board agreeing not ‘to make any further investment in airports for the purpose of increased passenger capacity’ perhaps they are on board for another, greener pattern of development now.

The economics of expanding air travel are dubious eg in 2007, before the airline crisis began, total air transport turnover in the UK was £20bn. Aviation accounted for 0.78% of total business turnover, a smaller proportion than the machinery rental sector, according to government statistics!! The chief executive of the International Air Transport Association was quoted in The Guardian as saying, “Business habits are changing and corporate travel budgets have been slashed. Video conferencing is now a stronger competitor.” This comment is in tune with building a more sustainable future – be part of this by refusing the application to expand Bristol International Airport.

Safer Medicines Campaign: scientifically compare animal experimentation against human biology-based tests

I sent a postcard from the Safer Medicines Campaign to my MP Kerry McCarthy today. This campaign is an independent patient safety organisation of doctors and scientists whose concern is whether animal testing, today, is more harmful than helpful to public health and safety. [Their] goal is to protect human health by promoting human-specific medical research. The wording on the postcard is as follows:

Please sign EDM 569, which calls for an unprecedented comparison of currently required animal tests with a set of human biology-based tests, to see which is more predictive of safety for patients.

EDM 569 does not seek to ban any animal tests but merely to assess them scientifically.

A million Britons are hospitalised by prescription medicines every year, costing the NHS £2 billion (Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, 3 April 2008). These figures must be improved. There is evidence that human biology-based technologies may be more predictive of safety for humans: hence the need for a scientific comparison.

The End of the Line: major film on the impact of overfishing

Received from Wilf Mound, Bristol Greenpeace:

MUST SEE FILM 2009
"THE END OF THE LINE" - NO FISH after 2048 ?
@ THE WATERSHED 3pm SATURDAY 15th & SUNDAY 16th AUGUST

£3:50p Box Office: 0117 927 5100

Rupert Murray UK '09 Ihr 26mins Imagine an ocean without fish. The first major feature documentary film revealing the impact of overfishing, The End of the Line examines the imminent extinction of bluefin tuna brought on by increasing Western demand for sushi, the impact on marine life resulting in huge overpopulation of jellyfish, and the profound implications of a future world with no fish which could come as soon as 2048.

Filmed across the world - from the Straits of Gibraltar to the coasts of Senegal and Alaska to the Tokyo fish market -featuring top scientists, indigenous fishermen and fisheries enforcement officials, this disturbing and powerful film is a wake-up call to the world. Introduced by Wilf Mound, Chair of Bristol Greenpeace group.

nohiggsboson@hotmail.co.uk T= 0117 927 6322


PLEASE ONLY eat sustainably caught fish

CALL on politicians to respect the science* and cut the fishing fleets

JOIN the campaign for Marine Reserves and responsible fishing

SEE : www.greenpeace.org/oceans


"THE END OF THE LINE" film amplifies the GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL campaign for MARINE RESERVES.


The Ocean's resources can no longer be regarded as limitless –
THERE ARE NOT PLENTY MORE FISH IN THE SEA !!!


"THE END OF THE LINE" examines what we are doing in our relentless technology-efficient quest to catch some fish, and points the finger at the politicians, corporations & chefs who are to blame.


*eg: Boris WORM et al "Impacts of Biodiversity loss on Ocean Ecosystem services" [SCIENCE V314 No 5800 pp787-790 3rd NOV 2006];

& GRAHAM, EVANS & RUSS "The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef [Environmental Conservation (2003) 30:200-208 Cambridge University Press ].

20's Plenty for Us: new blog site

New Blog site from the 20's Plenty for Us campaign which is 'working with local campaigns throughout the UK to implement 20 mph as the correct speed limit for residential streets.' They will be using this Blog for the various comments made to campaigns during their work.

http://www.20splentyforus.blogspot.com/

Loss of quality of life in Redcatch Rd/Axbridge Rd/Friendship Rd neighbourhood

Its already been reported that Tesco's application to build a car park over part of the Friendship Inn garden was finally given planning permission by Bristol City Council. The pub will now rapidly be converted to a Tesco Express. Based on the rough notes I made this is what I said in person to the planning committee in addition to my written statement:

Here we are again. A whole range of people in very large numbers have expressed concern and opposition. Council strategies state the aim of improving neighbourhood quality of life and building a greener city but this plan, which would worsen both, could be given permission! You can ensure this does not happen by refusing permission.

Here we go again in a period when people want real and proper democracy (government by the people for the people) after expenses scandals that have brought politics in general to an even lower ebb than usual. Really listen to the people and you do your bit to boost politics. Really listen to the people and you'd reject this plan.

I note that members of the public dont get equal time and facilities when responding to planning applications compared to councillors and officers. I note that very often developers get lots of time and access to officers and councillors about their plans (including in this case, where inferior plans went back and forth between the council and Tesco) - this should give this committee all the more reason to give real weight to the number and range of people opposed to this plan from the public.

The councillors on the committee did not listen to the people - those from Labour (Sean Beynon and Colin Smith) gave particular support to Tesco's plans . Planning rules are truly out of date and badly out of tune with council policies, especially on quality of life and sustainability. The committee made their decision on a very narrow basis indeed, paying little or no heed to the context of the application and implications of giving permission. Another neighbourhood will lose quality of life and green character as a result and Knowle's local shopping will be disrpted by a giant supermarket chain with an anti-competitive attitude. It may not end here because several local people are wondering what plans Tesco might have for that part of the pub garden that wont be covered by the car park (room for expansion? room for a petrol station? room for...?).

The Bill for the choices we make

Interesting clip. Strike a chord with anyone??

Sustainable Communities Act successes

I'm very pleased to have received the email below today showing that two of the 22 proposals I submitted to Bristol City Council's Sustainable Communities Act process have been successful, passing the various tests (see the proposals described after the email). It will be very interesting to see what the Local Govt Association make of them.

Dear Ms White and Mr Vowles,

I'm writing to let you know that following decision at the Council's Cabinet meeting last night. I am pleased to say your joint proposal regarding reducing commercial and industrial waste and the seprate one submitted by you individally Mr Vowles on statutory biodiversity/ecofootprint data in planning applications have been submitted to the Local Government Association Selector Panel today.

We would like to thank you for your input to this process so far and will let you know as soon as we have further information from the LGA on the progress of these and other proposals the Council has submitted.

Kind regards,
Deborah

Deborah Kinghorn
Policy Officer
Deputy Chief Executive's Unit
Bristol City Council
0117 92 22792

1.The proposal is to establish statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications.

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 all planning committees.

The proposal would improve the eco-footprint of new development. In theory it should lead to an increase in resource supporting biodiversity, reduce the contribution new development has on climate change, might boost the local economy through local supply, improve the resource efficiency of the development.

People submitting planning applications for new development would need guidance on how to undertake this and what would be required. Therefore Officers and Members of the Council would also need training and guidance in order to implement this proposal successfully.
It would require a change in legislation to become mandatory.

2.Reduce commercial and industrial waste.

Give local authorities the responsibility for managing all commercial and industrial waste to ensure that the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle can be applied to commercial and industrial waste as well as municipal waste.

If local authorities are given this responsibility, establish a national indicator for waste minimisation that covers commercial and municipal sectors.

Municipal waste only accounts for 15% waste and Commercial and Industrial accounts for 39% with construction and demolition 46%. (WEP Joint waste strategy paper)

There is currently little influence on the commercial and industrial sector to minimise waste through the three Rs , reduce, reuse, and recycle. The main influence is the financial cost which is not prohibitive enough to encourage minimisation of waste to landfill.

If local authorities are responsible for the whole waste stream, it will enable waste to be tackled in a more joined up way and with more regard for the environment. Commercial and Industrial waste tends to have fewer waste streams and can often be easily recycled.

Save St Peter's Hospice in Knowle: online version of petition

You can now sign the St Peter's Hospice petition online by clicking the link below:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-our-hospice/

St Peter's Hospice, Knowle: petition opposing closure

I'm helping the campaign to keep St Peter's Hospice in Knowle from closure. Having already written to St Peter's Director of Patient Care I will also be attending, and helping to publicise, the public meeting at Windmill Hill City Farm this Friday (see details in the post below this one or click on the image, left) and helping to collect signatures on a paper petition that reads as below (copies available from me, or by phoning the number below if you'd like to help - I'm hoping to have the petition available to sign electronically within a few days and will post details here):

We, the undersigned, believe that the decision to close the hospice in South Bristol with the loss of ten beds in September will result in many terminally ill people being denied a specialist in-patient pain relief service and being left to die on busy hospital wards. We cannot understand why there has been no emergency appeal to save this essential service.

We call upon St Peter’s Hospice, Bristol Primary Care Trust and United Bristol Hospital Trust to consult the people of South Bristol about these plans and to work together to ensure that a full hospice service remains available in South Bristol.

If you are signing this petition, please tick if you want to help with this campaign. Please return the completed form to: Save Our Hospice, 15 Addison Rd, Victoria Park, Bristol BS3 4QH. To contact us, phone 07929 897149 or email: saveourhospice@hotmail.co.uk

St Peter's Hospice: public meeting about the proposed closure in Knowle

World Cup games in Bristol: case against

A powerful case against the World Cup coming to Bristol has been outlined by the Bristol Blogger! The financial case for having World Cup games in Bristol appears to be very shaky indeed !

And of course there is the environmental case against: loss of green belt land to build the BCFC stadium that is essential to staging World Cup football in the city; stimulus to further loss of green belt land as development fills in much of the space in and around the new stadium and roads; large carbon footprint and other environmental impacts in constructing and operating the new stadium (neither BCFC not the council have fully committed themselves to the principle of any development fully compensating for total impacts); large increase in Bristol’s eco-footprint from developments that follow the new stadium. Many people in Ashton Vale and Long Ashton will be seriously impacted by a new stadium.

Can someone demonstrate net economic and environmental benefits to me?? I’d need to see this before I can support the World Cup bid. Several statements by local politicians and others would seem to presume that a new stadium for BCFC at Long Ashton is automatically highly likely and desirable. It isn’t. Has it been forgotten that building on green belt land is not really supposed to happen at all, unless circumstances are exceptional. Is it the view of all the big political parties in Bristol that the circumstances are exceptional?

Have BCFC come up with a new stadium design and construction process that is truly innovative and green (efficient, renewably powered, carbon neutral…and more), so much so that it can be quantitatively shown that most aspects of environmental impact have been fully compensated for?? Did they exhaust the options for redeveloping Ashton Gate, a ground with so much heritage value??

These are the considerations that I’ve had in mind for some time. Any administration running Bristol that considers itself green should have these considerations in mind. Have we forgotten our green capital ambitions?? Since the start of the new stadium process greens have contributed to the BCFC consultation, urging the use of green designs, processes and technologies – we will continue to make such points throughout the planning process.

Use and abuse of computer generated images of the proposed new Bristol City ground

This post is about the use and potential/actual abuse of pictures of proposed developments. Developers can and do use pictures to mislead people about the apparent nature and impacts of what they plan.


New plans will involve drawings and pictures and/or three dimensional models, these days often computer generated. The plans for a new Bristol City stadium are no exception to this (see aerial view left) - many have been featured very prominently and repeatedly in the local press (eg here) as well as in the architects report (here) and on the Bristol City FC website (here). Pictures are familiar and require little specialist training to interpret, making them a powerful communications tool (which developers, planners, councils and the media are of course well aware of).

Pictures are useful - but the viewer should consider both what is shown and what is not shown. Viewers need to weigh up how representative and realistic what someone has chosen to present to them for their chosen purpose, not necessarily the viewers purpose, truly is. People usually see things from the ground yet we are often given aerial views (as above) and not shown the view from residents back gardens (as is the case with the computer-generated pictures of the proposed Bristol City stadium the Evening Post has prominently featured).

Many images we are presented with are shown in isolation or with the visual context that those producing the pictures want to give. The picture above shows one approach to the proposed Bristol City stadium which includes: a) very large, mature trees that would take years to grow b) a couple with the children just behind them. None of the images of the proposed stadium I've seen show any traffic or crowds whatsoever. Its not that the images we are presented with are 'wrong' its that they are partial and are selected to show what a narrow range of people want us to see!!

How green is the proposed new Bristol City stadium design?

Saw this Evening Post report about how the proposed new Bristol City football stadium would be 'sunk into the ground' to minimise impacts. Subject to the full details, which I've yet to see, this is likely to be a good aspect of its design as visual intrusion, noise pollution and possibly light pollution would be cut. I made an enquiry to find out more via Trimedia (ashtonvale@trimediauk.com) who are dealing with a lot of the consultation/PR for BCFC and I was told the stadium would be sunk 3 metres into the ground. They also sent me further design information, which I'm looking over, and I sent the email request below for asking about a wide range of green design features/principles:

____________________________________________________
Thanks for this - I'll look over the attached information asap. I'd be grateful if you could establish which of the following you feel are a part of the BCFC new stadium plans:

*abiding by the concept of compensation for loss of green space in the green belt;

* a thorough ecological assessment of the whole area, at various times of the year;

*walking, cycling and light rail transport links;

*an unobtrusive external colour;

*use of ecological footprinting to measure impacts;

*permanently protected nature reserves around the stadium, designed to maximise biodiversity;

*aiming to be a carbon neutral stadium;

*avoiding any 'sprawl' in design;

*being an example of sustainable design (see examples below) - promoting sustainable economic activity, the latest energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable transport technologies.
Examples of football clubs who have used or attempted to use green principles, designs and technologies (this would fit well with Bristol's green capital ambitions and compensate to a degree for the loss of green space):

Dartford FC – living grass roof, solar electricity and heating, rainwater collection and low noise and light pollution design.

Ipswich Town – carbon neutral scheme.

Renewables in football clubs information.

Middlesborough – solar roof and wind turbines project.

Man City – community involvement, transport and waste initiatives (wind turbines were planned but sadly now abandoned).

Many thanks for your help.

Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles

Bedminster Residents Against Tesco's Expansion Into Ashton Gate: petition and newsletter

Opposition to Tesco on Ashton Gate is organising - see e-petition link and the newsletter from BERATE (Bedminster Residents Against Tesco's Expansion Into Ashton Gate) . I note George Ferguson's current position on this issue (the Bristol Evening Post had a story about George's view, headlined [somewhat inaccurately?] 'Cautious Support for Tesco Stadium Plan' on 3 June). If you can offer BERATE assistance please contact them (details below).

http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/petition.php?id=262#sign

BEDMINSTER RESIDENTS AGAINST TESCO’S EXPANSION INTO ASHTON GATE.

NEWS
5th July 2009

Greater Bedminster Residents meet to form “No-Superstore” Campaign Group

More than 70 people from Greater Bedminster packed into a meeting room at the Southville Centre on Friday night, to hear more about the proposed Tesco superstore development at Ashton Gate Stadium.

Local residents, Chris Uttley and Tom Griffin, who organised the meeting said, “Whilst we are seeing plenty of information about the supposed benefits, there has been no opportunity for public discussion about the massive increase in traffic, noise, air pollution and disruption created by a store that opens 7 days a week for virtually all day.

“We wanted to give all residents and traders an opportunity to voice their concerns without the stage-managed atmosphere of the Public Relations devised consultation they have had so far”

Traders from North Street, people who live in close proximity to the stadium and residents from throughout the area, including many Bristol City Football Club supporters, heard more about the plans and were given an opportunity to voice their concerns.

Many people at the meeting commented on how inappropriate the proposal seems. Abigail Stollar, a Southville resident said, “ I shop all the time on North Street. What’s being proposed will contribute very little to the local community and will have a massive impact on the existing shops and businesses. I like the fact I can walk round the corner with my kids to buy virtually everything I need”.

Some residents highlighted the rushed manner in which they were being consulted and the ad-hoc way in which information is being released. In many cases, people who live very close to the stadium had not been consulted at all. Only 3 people raised their hands when asked how many had been approached directly for their views.

People were particularly angry at the way this development has been linked with plans for a new stadium and the Bristol World Cup bid and the attempt to brand those who oppose a new superstore as anti-World cup and anti-Bristol City. Many people said this was “cynical”, “ill-judged” and “divisive”.

George Ferguson, owner of the Tobacco Factory, summed up the feeling from the meeting saying, “There is nothing like a major threat to its future to galvanise a community. This is an appalling proposal – another giant shopping shed set in a massive sea of car parking. The potential economic and environmental damage to this area is immense. I fully recognise the importance of Bristol City’s success but it is quite wrong to imply that a new supermarket is something to do with the new stadium or the World Cup – the two issues have to be de-coupled. It is inappropriate and legally dubious to consider the applications for the new stadium and the new supermarket simultaneously”.

The proposal to create a group to fight the proposal was welcomed by all those who attended and many volunteered to be directly involved. BERATE has now begun a petition against the superstore and will continue to oppose the plans and gauge the response of a larger cross-section of the community towards the development.

For further Information:

Contact details: berate_ashtongate@hotmail.com

Or Chris Uttley on 07920 797110
Or Tom Griffin on 07772289718

'Answers' to questions on sale of Bristol to Bath Railway Path land

Copied below are some questions recently put by me to Bristol City Council Cabinet members. The reply to Q1 is in my view disingenuous. Whilst it is interesting to note that no Bristol to Bath Railway Path land has yet been sold the response to Q1 gives the misleading impression that the council is consulting about the future of all affected railway path land. This is not the case. The hedgerow section I refer to is not covered and that the sale of this land will go ahead has been confirmed to members of the Bristol Parks Forum. The only indication of this in the answer I got was this bit '...on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path.' This new consultation is quite unnecessary as the views of locals on all the land concerned was established in a consultation only months ago!!

________________________________________________________

C1. Glenn Vowles to ask Gary Hopkins, Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety and Jon Rogers Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability

Hedgerow loss due to Cycle Houses

Plans for the development of ‘cycle houses’ on the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory site have been granted planning permission. The development would, unless modified, mean the destruction of approximately 150 metres of mature hawthorn hedgerow. Hedgerows are of high landscape and conservation value. They add diversity to and are a traditional feature of the landscape. They provide foraging, roosting and nesting sites for birds. They are rich in animal and plant species (around 500 vascular plant species are found in UK hedgerows). They are home to many types of insect, mollusc, spider and small animal. They act as wildlife corridors allowing flora and fauna, including birds, foxes, badgers, mice and other small mammals, beetles and molluscs, routes for dispersal from remnant islands of habitat through an increasingly hostile landscape.

Q1. Can you confirm that Bristol City Council has sold to the developers a plot of land on/adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path that includes the 150 metre (approx) hedgerow referred to and that the Liberal Democrat administration authorised this sale?

C1.Q1 Reply:
No land has yet been sold. The Cabinet believe that, on balance, the redevelopment of the derelict Chocolate Factory site will bring substantial benefits. This will inevitably have consequences for the land adjacent to the Railway Path. However, we are not persuaded that the design solution currently proposed represents the best balance between regeneration, environment and use of the Railway Path, and we are therefore seeking the public's views as to the respective merits of shared or individual access from the 'cycle houses' to the path.
This administration is also concerned that there remain aspirations for Bus Rapid Transit along the Railway Path. We are therefore also reviewing the terms of the access arrangements between the Railway Path and the Chocolate Factory development to protect the Path.

Q2. Did the Bristol Liberal Democratic Party at any time in the last year appeal to the developers to modify their cycle house plans so that hedgerow loss was avoided?

C1.Q2 Reply:
Yes. Liberal Democrats (and others) have raised concerns about the placing of the cycle houses so close to the Railway Path and the consequent loss of hedgerow. These concerns were raised as part of the planning process and in earlier consultation.

Cuts proposed in the 52 bus service

I've just sent the email below to Bristol City Council (publictransport@bristol.gov.uk) having picked up a consultation leaflet about the proposed cuts in the 52 bus service (pictured - click to get larger image), which many in Knowle use of course. The council are consulting on the change until Friday 3 July and want to hear about the incovenience and hardship this service cut will cause - so get your email in very soon or write to Public Transport and Park and Ride (CD/BH), FREEPOST BS6529, Bristol, BS1 5BR.

______________________________________________________________
It is with considerable dismay that I learned of the proposed cut in the 52 bus service, both as a Knowle resident and user of this service and as a keen green urging more, better and cheaper public transport. The council is minded to withdraw this bus service for Monday to Saturday evenings and all day on Sundays and Public Holidays despite having a policy of trying to encourage the public onto public transport! Government policy is also to encourage people onto public transport! If we are to have more people using buses (and trains) the council and government must put their money where their mouth is!

Its very hard indeed to square the use of the term 'service...withdrawn' with 'minimising hardship' on the consultation leaflet. The leaflet itself acknowledges that to access alternative services people would have to walk further. This is a disincentive on bus use of course but the picture is worse that just that. I have family and friends, including children, who would have the pattern of their lives disrupted and made less safe. They dont feel safe walking through certain areas at certain times yet they would be forced to do so if the changes happen in order to get a bus when they normally do. With lifts in a car unavailable some would at times be put-off going out altogether.

If the 52 bus service is cut, travelling back from town to Knowle is likely to take longer, with more waiting around. Friends and family currently travelling together but living in different parts of Knowle would, at times, no longer be able to catch the same bus - a service common to both would be gone.

The proposal to direct some 52 bus users to the Bristol Dial-a-Ride in the event of a service cut is inadequate. This would not cover all bus users as Dial-a-Ride is for those with mobility impairment. Those with mobility impairment would still experience service loss on Saturdays and Sundays when the 52 is currently available but Dial-a-Ride is not.

This bus service cut proposal is entirely inconsistent with the apparent drive to promote and encourage bus use in central Bristol, such as via a circular route or 'hub'. If we are to make significant overall progress in getting people onto public transport we must have properly coordinated improvements in services across the city.

Update on my Sustainable Communities Act suggestions - 14 out of 22 deemed eligible for Cabinet consideration!!

I reported here the 21 suggestions I submitted to Bristol City Council's Sustainable Communities Act process. I submitted 1 suggestion jointly with another person also. Had the letter (below) yesterday showing that 14 of my suggestions have made it through for further consideration. I'm

very, very pleased with this of course - and I'm hopeful that the Cabinet will include some of my suggestions on the shortlist it will send to the Local Govt Association.

Dear Mr Vowles

I am writing to thank you for participating in the Sustainable Communities Act process. We had a fantastic response, with 151 suggestions being submitted.

Suggestions made to the Council under the Act have now passed through the first stages of the Council’s evaluation process.

The Council’s Legal Services department has evaluated the suggestion(s) you submitted in order to identify whether they met the requirements of the Sustainable Communities Act, in that:

*It would need a change in legislation to be implemented
*It would contribute towards sustainability as defined in the Act

Your suggestion(s) listed here were deemed eligible under the terms of the act.

*Reduce commercial and industrial waste: give LA's responsibility for commercial waste; introduce NI for waste minimisation [this one submitted jointly with another person]

*20 mph default speed limit
*Carbon budgets and carbon trading for all
*Statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications
*Government to assess capabilities of all technologies prior to implementation
*Ecological compensation for greenfield development
*Prioritising cycling and walking via a review of national and local transport policy and practice
*Immigration and emigration zero balance
*Broadening range of statutory planning considerations
*Criteria of fairness, openness and balance for government public consultations
*Transport costs to reflect total costs of travel
*Financial accounts to be accompanied by social and environmental accounting
*Councils to publish total ecological footprint
*Welfare or well-being index

75 suggestions overall were eligible to go forward and these have also been considered by the following:

Officer Panel – senior Council officers with appropriate expertise added factual comment where necessary. This panel did not recommend or exclude suggestions.

Local Panel - Bristol City Council commissioned VOSCUR (an independent organisation set up to support voluntary and community action in Bristol) to convene a panel including representatives from neighbourhood partnerships, equalities groups and councillors. This panel prioritised the suggestions prior to forwarding their views onto Cabinet Member, Councillor Jon Rogers.

Cabinet Member – all suggestions have been sent to Cabinet member, Councillor Jon Rogers. Recent guidance from the LGA has set out what sort of information will be needed to support a suggestion. Councillor Rogers will now use this guidance to review all the suggestions and comments made by the Local Panel and recommend a shortlist of the strongest and most feasible ideas to be worked up for submission to the Local Government Association. This shortlist and all other relevant information will be available on our website www.bristol.gov.uk/sca shortly.

The Council’s Cabinet will decide which suggestions the Council will adopt as its formal proposals. These will be forwarded to the Government via the Local Government Association (LGA).

The final decision will be made by Cabinet on Thursday 30th July at 6pm in the Council House. Cabinet meetings are open to the public, and any members of the public may present a statement or question. Statements must be submitted by 12.00 noon the day before the meeting, and questions by 5 pm 3 clear working days before (Friday 24th July). These should be sent to Ian Hird, ian.hird@bristol.gov.uk, tel. 0117 922 2384. Papers for the Cabinet meeting should be posted on the Council’s website on Thursday 23rd July.

The Council recognises the value of all suggestions received and appreciates the time that has gone into producing them. If your suggestion does not go forward, we will forward your ideas to the relevant council department for further consideration and respond to you in writing.

If you need any further information about this process, please contact Deborah Kinghorn, Policy Officer, on 0117 922 2792 or email Deborah.kinghorn@bristol.gov.uk or visit our Sustainable Communities Act page on our website www.bristol.gov.uk/sca

Yours sincerely

Deborah Kinghorn
Policy and Scrutiny Team
Deputy Chief Executive’s Office