Objection to 'cycle house' plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaint about complaint!

Sent the email below to Bristol City Council today, marked for the urgent attention of Jan Ormondroyd, Chief Executive, Bristol City Council. There appears to be disarray in the handling of my complaint and so I've complained about it!

______________________________________________

Please see below details of a complaint I made to the council via the online form available. This was submitted on 18 Sept. I was promised a full and formal response within 15 working days and have not received it. The time period elapsed some time ago and I have followed up on this through both a reminder email, a statement submitted to a full council meeting (14 Oct) and through phoning the complaints dept today and yesterday.

All I have had is a brief indication in a few emails who would be dealing with my points (the last information I have is that Richard Mond would be dealing with it, though it was previously with another person) with some brief discussion on issues. I recently sent a reminder email to Mr Mond asking for the latest on the progress of my complaint but received no response to this. Complaints are very unhappy that the proper procedures have not been followed by those officers dealing with my complaint and I had a conversation early this afternoon with Tim Sheppard from Complaints who is now contacting Richard Mond on my behalf to speed the process up from here. I 've not been contacted this afternoon by Mr Mond.

I'm very concerned about time slipping by however (my complaint has a strong bearing on a planning application that I want to comment on and object to and the time within which I can do this is running out) and thought I would email you too. Mr Mond did not give me information on the stage my complaint had reached, thus this email, which I think means my complaint is at stage 3 (?). I've been advised by my local councillor to contact the local govt ombudsman on the substance of my complaint and the process by which it has (or rather has not) been handled - I'm in the process of looking into doing this now and this message is copied to the local govt ombudsman.

I look forward to your response with interest.

___________________________________________________________

Bristol City Council Complaint

I have two complaints about what appear to be procedural errors on the
part of the council in relation to land on the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path (where the development of the former chocolate factory is now
proposed).

1. I am very concerned that the council's own procedures on green spaces
disposal or change of use has not and is not being applied to the green
corridor that is the Bristol to Path Railway Path.

The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy mentions the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path as an example of a significant and important green space. Yet it
seems that a strip of land which is council owned has either been sold-off
or is the subject of an in-principle agreement to sell before an Area
Green Space Plan covering the area has been drawn up and consulted upon.

This procedure is clearly outlined in the strategy and so I cant
understand why it has not been followed.

I'm also very concerned that a week ago I emailed Cabinet Member Cllr
Rosalie Walker for clarification of the status/designation of the land and
have not even received an acknowledgement, yet alone a prompt reply.

2. I am also very concerned that the plans for development on the strip of
land at Greenbank that I refer to above have not been subject to an
Environmental Impact Assessment as described by an EU Directive, even
though the directive is supposed to be interpreted and applied broadly in
order to make environmental protection effective.

Ensure that procedures outlined in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy are
followed and applied to all green land along the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path.

Draw up an Area Green Space Plan, after public consulation, covering the
Bristol to Bath Railway Path green spaces, before any land is actually
sold and review urgently any in-principle agreement to sell council-owned
land on the path.

Inform me of the status/designation of the land in question, explaining,
if required, the reasons why the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy does not
cover the green spaces along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.

Explain why an email to a cabinet member has not even been acknowledged, a
week after it was sent.

Urgently review whether the EU Environmental Impact Assessment procedure
should be applied to developments on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway
Path, interpreting the directive and its use as was intended by its
authors ie broadly.

'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.

Bristol to Bath Railway Path land sell-off: council response to my objection letter

I've today received a reply from Bristol City Council (below) to my letter objecting to the sell-off of Brstol to Bath Railway Path land owned by the public. My response, point by point, is in italics.




Dear Mr Vowles,

Further to your e-mail dated the 4th September, I respond to your concerns with regard to the potential sale of the land as follows:

The potential loss of the green corridor along side the Railway Path was raised as a concern by Bristol City Council's Nature Conservation officer. As such, if this sale proceeds it will be on the condition that Squarepeg engage in dialogue with this officer to ensure that proposals provide the necessary compensatory measures for any loss of habitat and vegetation.

*Attempting to compensate for loss of habitat and vegetation is highly problematic and sometimes controversial. ‘Nature knows best’ is a great guideline for conservation. The council’s Nature Conservation Officer will know that a potentially big compromise has been made. We may be getting better at compensation but measuring the full value of the land before development is in itself an issue. Then you cant simply and easily ‘put back’ mature, fully functioning ecosystems and so there is likely to be a loss of quality for some time and quality may never return to its best. When land is back to an ‘equivalent value’, if at all, is often very hard to say.

Some say that habitat compensation is based on an economists view of nature not an ecologists. It thus serves to accommodate development interests not those of sustainability, attempting to legitimize damaging economic growth.

With regard to the lack of consultation over the potential sale of the land adjacent to the railway path. Bristol City Council has stringent procedures which it must follow when disposing of land, these procedures do not require the council to carry out public consultation prior to disposing of this land.

*I had the opportunity to object to the land sale only because of what I read online in various blogs (here and here). This means that very many members of the public locally, who own the land via the council, have not had the same chance. This is unjust and undemocratic. Please could you reply outlining the ‘stringent procedures’ you refer to as I’d like to see exactly why they mean public consultation is not required. Even if technically not required under current procedures I am dismayed that the council does not take the view that consultation is desirable on grounds that openness and public participation is to be valued (I note that developers Squarepeg are keen to stress that they value an open approach in the report on this issue in the Bristol Evening Post).

I can confirm this sale is not a 'done deal' and that whilst discussions have taken place with Squarepeg over the potential sale. No terms have been agreed, when seeking authority to proceed with this sale your objection will be presented along with the proposed terms.

*Not a ‘done deal’??? But today’s Bristol Evening Post story refers to a spokesman for the council saying: "The developer of the chocolate factory is negotiating with the council, which is finalising an in-principle agreement to sell a small strip of land…’ Sounds to me like a deal is virtually done - what else does 'finalising an in-principle agreement' mean!?!?

If you wish to discuss this matter any further please do not hesitate to contact me on 0117 9224028.

*Please pass on my further objections along with my first letter. I'd appreciate a response to my points about the highly problematic nature of habitat compensation, what council 'stringent procedures' are, the lack of opting in to full and open participation of the public on the land sale and when exactly a deal is or is not done.

Yours sincerely


Peter Webb



Peter Webb
Portfolio Management Officer
Valuation Practice
Floor 6, B Bond
Smeaton Road
Bristol
BS1 6EE
Tel: 0117 922 4028
Fax: 0117 922 4676

Photo of land near the area concerned, by Martyn Whitelock. Lots of great photos of the path on his site http://railwaypath.blogspot.com/ well illustrating its green quality.

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.

Bristol to Bath Railway Path land sell-off

Letter objecting to sell-off of land near/on Bristol to Bath Railway Path sent this morning to Bristol City Council Pete.Webb@bristol.gov.uk and Chanelle.Brodie@bristol.gov.uk . I urge others to object in writing too. Acanthus Ferguson Mann (see image) are the architects retained by developer Squarepeg. See the Green Bristol Blog and Bristol Blogger sites for more infromation on the issue, especially the lack of openness and public participation.


Dear Sir/Madam,

Railway Path land sell-off, Greenbank

I'm very concerned about the proposed Railway Path land sell-off at Greenbank, Bristol, linked with the planned development of the former chocolate factory. I'd like to register an objection to the sale of this land.

I dont want any of the green corridor of the Railway Path lost. The mature vegetation supports a wide range of biodiversity which would be adversely affected by the plans. In addition the greenery absorbs carbon from the air and the area would be less effective at doing so if developed. Users of the path are likely to experience a loss of visual amenity and the feel of the place will change negatively if developed as suggested.

I'm dismayed and unhappy that consultation on the land sell-off is completely lacking. The City Council are breaking at least the spirit of their stated openness and participation policies. One cant help but feel that behind the scenes its all a 'done deal' before it eventually reaches the public domain via planning processes.

I'd appreciate a response telling me exactly what the current situation is and how the council and developers respond to accusations of cutting biodiversity, reducing the carbon sink effect and reducing visual amenity with their plans.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Vowles
http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/

Flogging of Bristol green space: why no consultation?

Letter to the appropriate Executive Member of Bristol City Council's Cabinet seeking views and clarifications about the Bristol to Bath Railway Path land sell-off.

Dear Cllr Rosalie Walker

Please see the letter below I've just sent to the Bristol Evening Post [an adaptation of this blog post]. As the Executive Member for Culture and Healthy Communities I'd appreciate a response from you on the issues raised.

I'd be particularly grateful if you could clarify the status and designation of the land due to be sold on the Bristol to Path Railway Path. What are the council's 'stringent procedures' (according to the council's Pete Webb) on land selling that mean public consultation beforehand is not a requirement?

Does the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy not apply to this land? If not then could you please explain why? The strategy certainly mentions the Bristol to Path Railway Path as an example of an important green corridor so the lack of consultation before selling is most puzzling.

In your letter to me (dated 30 July), responding to my e-petition on the flogging of green spaces, you were at pains to empasise public consultation via the production of Area Green Space Plans. You also indicated that land outside the marginal, low value and surplus category would not be sold and yet land on the Railway Path is to be sold.

I look forward to your response.

___________________________________________________________________

Interesting link between this local issue and what new Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP has posted on her blog today (extract below):

Participation, co-operation and community ownership are the solutions to creating sustainable urban environments, Green Party leader and MEP for the South East will say at a panel debate in London today (11 September).

In a session entitled ‘Rethinking sustainability’ at the Stephen Lawrence 8th Annual Memorial Lecture, Dr Lucas will attack the ‘bricks and mortar’ approach of mainstream models of regeneration which prioritise quick profits over the need to empower community residents.

At the event hosted by the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, Dr Lucas will say:
“Plentiful green space, access to good public services and improved safety all lie at the heart of successful and sustainable communities. But in order to create neighbourhoods that really ‘work’ – economically, socially, culturally and environmentally – we also need to give people a stake in their communities.

“Reducing crime, improving prosperity, and ensuring access to services like a GP, good schools or just somewhere to kick a ball around are hugely important. Most of all though, a sense of community is crucial. Residents must be given genuine opportunities to participate in decision-making regarding their homes and areas.

'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.

What place for legitimate nature conservation, environmental and amenity concerns in the face of high development pressures?

My MP, Bristol East's Kerry McCarthy, has been cajoled by myself and other local bloggers (here), into debating the sell-off of biodiverse green space on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path and the pros and cons of the proposed development on/near this land (see planning application details and form to submit comments, objections etc here). I was distinctly unimpressed with her initial unwillingness to engage in discussing the issue (she tried using her blog rules to try to avoid discussion at first but then engaged after further pressure from both the Bristol Blogger and Green Bristol Blog author Chris Hutt).

At least we have discussion somewhere now, thanks to bloggers and concerned locals. Bristol City Council has not consulted on the land sale, though the planning process now has to be gone through. I've not had a reply from Cllr Rosalie Walker (see here) on why this land is, apparently, not covered by the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and have written to Kerry expressing concern about procedures and asking her to look into it.

I strongly disagree with the views my MP was pressed into giving on her blog, which appear to favour development on this high value green space which is home to such protected wildlife as badgers and sloworms (see Kerry's comments in italics below). What priority is Kerry giving to legitimate nature conservation, environmental and amenity value issues? Wouldn't we just build, on a small scale if its just a matter of scale*, anywhere eg Bristol's Downs, Leigh Woods, Ashton Court... if we shared Kerry's apparent attitude? The plans could and should in my view be scaled back and/or modified in the eastern portion at least, as the Railway Path is one of Bristol East's few good quality green spaces. This would address some of these issues whilst not impacting the development as a whole that much. Is this too much to ask??

MP Kerry McCarthy's view '...I've seen the Bloggers site, the Green Bristol site and others. I've looked at Square Peg's plans for the 'cycle houses' and am now following it up with various people (although I think I'm right in saying that no constituent has contacted me directly). I just haven't chosen to blog about it, and I'm not going to let other people dictate to me what I do and don't blog about. My initial view is that it doesn't look as if very much land is involved*, but I want to see for myself how the land is currently being used and whether the development would have a detrimental effect on the enjoyment/ use of the cycle path, or mean a significant loss of green space*. From the plans, it doesn't look as if that would be the case, but I take on board people's comments that the plans may be misleading.As for Kevin - several campaign leaflets have gone out to everyone in SGW and he's replying to everyone who has written back. If anyone raises this issue - and it hasn't come up on the doorsteps so far, not that I know - I'm sure he'll respond to them with his views.'
_____________________________________________________________

And more of her views '....And as for the railway path, as I've said it's a very small section* (100 metres acc to Chris) and I'm not opposed either to building upwards (I think it's overstating it a bit to call it a tower block) - how else would you suggest we find space for homes for the 19,000 people on the council waiting list? Obviously brownfield sites must be the priority, but it's not the entire solution. I'm also concerned about the number of houses being turned into flats, with associated problems re parking, and often anti-social behaviour from the people who rent them. We need family homes - but they've got to be built somewhere. Where do you suggest?'



Well, her own party's policy in Bristol says not on high quality green spaces !!

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

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

Tim, [Corporate Complaints Manager, Bristol City Council]

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

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

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

I very strongly object to the notion that


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Glenn Vowles

Tim Sheppard, Bristol City Council Corporate Complaints Manager writes:

Dear Mr Vowles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scrutinising plans and proposing changes...local democracy, not a problem!!

Councillor Abdul Malik does not seem to want much public debate about selling, then building on publicly owned green space, rich in wildlife, on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path ('Call for unity over factory development', Bristol Evening Post, Sept 20). He does not want light shone on the issue I guess (?). Very unquestioning as far as the development is concerned. He contradicted himself by saying he did not want ‘arguments to threaten the future of the site’ (employing a fear tactic..) but later said that he had ‘concerns about over-development’! Scrutiny of plans and seeking after any necessary changes is an essential part of the local democratic process! Does he just want people to accept proposals?



Over 200 local people have signed a petition on this issue and so concern is certainly significant (and growing as people find out the facts). Also, given that the Bristol to Bath Railway Path is used by large numbers of people from all across Bristol and from outside it, there are a wide range of stakeholders interested in the green nature of the path and its protection. There is a much bigger issue here of the procedures that should be used to decide on land selling and change of use, given that the council has plans to flog off more of Bristol's green spaces year on year!

Public investigation and debate, which Councillor Abdul Malik seems surprisingly reluctant to have, and which has been lead by bloggers (see here too), has shed a lot of light on this issue which we would not otherwise have had. Its been vital in revealing how intensive the development is and how the process has lacked openness. The plans need to be scaled back and changed to avoid the worst impacts, which have been a big concern to the council's own Nature Conservation Officer. I’ve written direct to the George Ferguson, Chairman of the architects involved about this and copied the message to the council and developers but so far have no reply nor even an acknowledgement.

An introduction to green Bristol

Copy of article just drafted for Suit Yourself magazine, comments welcomed:

Bristol has 450 parks and green spaces totalling over 1300 hectares. Millions visit these each year. Loads of events take place in them. Green spaces are one of the city’s most valued features; one of the most obvious ways you can argue it is, in a relative sense, green. No other city in England has as much green space.

There’s plenty of green space just outside the city boundaries, within easy reach, eg Ashton Court. As in many parts of the country green spaces are threatened by development. Bristol City Council has agreed a strategy to sell off of 2.4% of city green space. The future of green space is a key ongoing issue when there are plans to build many thousands of houses both within and around the city as well as a ring road around South Bristol. Bristol is a very popular place to live. Its population is currently forecast to rise by over 30% by 2031, exerting very significant additional social and environmental pressure at a time we need to cut it.

Bristol is also relatively green as a city as it gained its first Green Councillor, Charlie Bolton, in Southville, a few years ago. About time many would say, given the large number of organisations promoting respect and care for the environment that have for years been Bristol-based (CREATE Centre; City Farms; Transition Bristol; Farmers Market; Slow Food Market; local food advocates like the Better Food Company; Community Recycling Network; City Car Club…). What better example than the BBC Natural History Unit in Clifton, one key organisation behind June’s Festival of Nature and October’s Wildscreen the world's largest and most prestigious international wildlife and environmental film festival. The unit is responsible for world class television like Blue Planet and Planet Earth…playing a huge part in raising green awareness (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/).

Leading sustainable transport charity Sustrans, has, from its central Bristol HQ, been closely involved in some of the most discussed and controversial local issues this year. Bristol City Council had planned to build a bus rapid transit route over the Bristol to Bath Railway Path, the UK’s most popular cycle path, also used by a large variety of local walkers, until a 10,000 signature petition and a motion to the council from Green Councillor Charlie Bolton helped to cause a rethink. Going ahead with the plan might well have messed up the council’s bid to become the UK’s first ‘Cycling City’, which was ultimately successful. The council will have tens of millions to spend, wisely one hopes, on cycling.

Sustrans and other local greens, such as those at the Bristol Cycling Campaign or Bristol Friends of the Earth will continue activity on cycling but also on Bristol’s many transport problems. One of the major ways in which Bristol is very far from being green is the poor quality public transport (bus and train firm Firstbus are hardly fondly regarded locally!). Partly as a result Bristol’s air quality and noise levels can be poor at times and the city contribution to climate change needs to be cut by a factor of ten over the coming decades to approach sustainable levels! One small success of late is the rail service improvement on the ‘Severn Beach’ line – it’s a quick, efficient way to get around certain parts of the city, such as from Montpelier or Stapleton Road to Clifton.

There is ongoing scrutiny of how green Bristol actually is in a relative and absolute sense, eg whether or not it decides to mass incinerate much of its waste . The Bristol Partnership, the council working together with businesses, voluntary and community groups, has ambitions for the city to become a green capital ‘a low carbon city with balanced and sustainable communities enjoying a high quality of life’.

The eleven green objectives are commendable; leading Bristol-based organic food charity the Soil Association a leading light behind the September’s Organic Food Festival, is no doubt pleased to see the objective seven ‘healthier, locally produced food’ but the tension between green objectives and the Bristol Partnership’s other ambitions are great, in particular its economic thinking, which is still based on economic growth and a consumer society when environmental resources are finite. Bristol’s major current development is the huge new shopping area Cabot Circus. Green economics guru EF Schumacher, whose work is celebrated here every October at the Schumacher Lectures is probably turning in his grave.

Bristol to Bath Railway Path damage

Copy of email sent to Cllr Jon Rogers this afternoon: You may have seen this post, with photos, on Chris Hutt's blog detailing damage to greenery on the railway path.

http://greenbristolblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/overkill.html

I'm very concerned about this - particularly the tree losses. They seem very over the top (and not the first time in council tree management history!).

Please look into this and let me know whether what's being done is absolutely necessary, is best practice and if so what kind of restoration work is planned.

___________________________________________________

Many thanks to Chris Hutt for bringing this to my attention and that of others.

___________________________________________________

Cllr Rogers posted this reply (below in bold italic*) on Chris Hutt's blog - do we buy all that the officer's say?? I dont agree with the 'low ecological value' statement for a start - they seem to have a very different view of the terms ecology and value to mine! All the techniques and processes used should be reviewed.

*

I have had the following officer response,

"We were aware of the sensitivity regarding the railway path and the potential negative impact on trees or vegetation. As such we have tried throughout the whole design process to limit this impact. Right at the start of this project we commissioned an Ecological survey. The survey identified that the habitats along the route were of low ecological value but that it was an important corridor of virtually continuous vegetation from the open countryside to highly urban parts of inner Bristol. It therefore enhances the ecology of a large part of Bristol by allowing species access to spaces such as gardens and parks. It is also of significant importance in providing a large number of people an opportunity to come into contact with wildlife.

*

"The dominant vegetation is secondary woodland dominated by ash and sycamore. We have worked in partnership with aboricultural colleagues in Parks to assess the quality of trees and the impact of the works on this and licences were granted by the Forestry Commission for felling. "There are two reasons for the felling the first being that the excavation of trenches ( into which lighting cables are to be laid) would require the cutting of tree roots. The root protection zone of a tree is generally 24 times the diameter of the tree stem. As a visual representation the roots underground generally mirror the extents of a trees canopy.

*

"The advice from colleagues in Parks is that trees do not survive if their roots are cut and the roots closest to the surface are the most important. The position of such trees could be remote from the line of the trench and to the general public could be seen as excessive clearance. The second reason for tree felling is to promote biodiversity within the corridor and this has taken place on the southern bank. A thick tree canopy prevents sun light to the ground flora limiting the number of species which then limits the quality of the habitat for fauna. The ecological diversity created retaining some of the cut back tree stumps and shrubs on a coppice cycle of regular cutting back can for example create more nesting sites for birds. The extra light that is let onto the ground will encourage more wild flowers, birds and butterflies and the additional insects using the space will also provide a richer feeding ground for bats.

*

"As mitigation we are planting new trees, which are native species unlike many of the self seeded trees. This planting was carried out in winter 2009 and more trees will be planted next week. During the informal consultation, carried out in June and July 2009 and throughout the planning process we attempted to explain that tree removal would be carried out and that new planting would take place.

*

"I trust this explains the approach we have taken and the reasons why."

*

I am deeply unhappy that the first that Gary and I hear about this is from emails and your blog. We have already asked that any Cycling City developments that affect mature and substantial trees should be discussed with us as Executive Members.This is a wonderful linear park and wildlife corridor, which we are determined to conserve and enhance as was confirmed by the motion we attempted to get through council in April 2008.

Further questioning Bristol City Council on green spaces and transport

The question below has been submitted by me to the next full Bristol City Council meeting (13 Jan 2009) for Cllr Rosalie Walker. It follows up on a series of questions I put to the November Cabinet meeting (see B1 on the list if you follow the link) and follows my complaint to the council that official green spaces policy is not being followed.

Note that a 31 page, 13,000 word document of complaint was sent to the Local Government Ombudsman by me this morning saying: that Bristol City Council has not followed its own green spaces policy and procedures; that senior officers have taken ad hoc decisions; that prominent figures with a vested interest in developments have had undue access to officers and influence over decisions; that officers and councillors did not respond adequately and promptly to communications; that the decision on not conducting an environmental impact assessment on the 'cycle house' plans may not have been taken on a proper basis; that dealing with my complaint was consistently delayed, lacking in detail, lacking in references, lacking in explanation and lacking in direct response from those with the most specific expertise; that current consultations are sorely lacking compared to official policy.

I've been compiling this document as the issue has developed over weeks/months and every time I've thought it was complete another relevant development has occurred eg the 'consultation' referred to in the question below (very ably criticised by the Bristol Greengage and Green Bristol Blog).

Q. Consultations have begun over the sale/lease of land on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to property developers Squarepeg, though the process appears to be a very, very poor substitute for the Area Green Space Plan process laid out in official policy, the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and appears to focus in much more on the development issue via leading questions than on the land sale/lease: can you explain why the Area GreenSpace Plan process, now underway in several parts of Bristol, was not brought forward for the locality encompassing this land ??


Follow-up questions to Cllr Mark Bradshaw on transport issues in South Bristol also submitted to the same meeting:

Q1. In response to questions I put to the November Cabinet [see C2, C3, C4 on the link] meeting about the South Bristol Link you informed me that estimates of the impact on air pollution and congestion in the Knowle/Brislington area had not been released: what are your thoughts on the importance of information such asthis being made widely available asap during a consultation period??

Q2. In response to questions I put to the November Cabinet meeting you confirmed that you may use Cycling City cash to buy land along the Callington Rd Link (intended to be part of a strategic road network): will cash be returned to the cycling budget if a road is built there??


Further detail on previous green spaces and transport questions here and here.

Contesting Eastville Ward in Bristol’s local elections: Vote Vowles, Green Party, on June 4

I’ve received confirmation that my nomination as the Green Party candidate for the Eastville ward has been accepted. I will therefore be contesting the Eastville seat and want to say why people should vote for me and what I will work for if elected.

I’ve been active on protecting and enhancing Eastville’s green spaces – having been heavily involved in the (ongoing) campaign to prevent the ‘cycle house’ development encroaching onto the Bristol to Bath Railway Path, opposing the sell off and/or leasing of publicly owned land there, and having presented a petition to the council opposing their policy of flogging parks and green spaces.

I’ve also pressured for increased safety, and reduced air pollution and noise nuisance from roads, especially the busiest roads like those leading to the M32 (and the motorway itself) eg through speed reduction, having put proposals to council consultations on noise and walking.

In both previous elections and in continuous campaigning between elections I’ve been working to:

*Get safe residential roads, with a 20mph limit, to protect our kids. This would help in creating the much better cycling and pedestrian provision we need.

*Achieve quality learning for all children - no to large, impersonal education factories. Education for sustainable living should be a central feature.

*Encourage and support home and allotment grown food, widen fresh, local, healthy, organic and ethical food availability

*Protect, enhance and if possible increase Bristol’s open, green, natural spaces – no to inappropriate developments.

*Retain and improve locally available facilities, services, and jobs, giving local people and communities the biggest say over them

*Put people before profit - no to the privatization of local/public services

*Promote local energy saving and the renewable micro-generation of energy

*Create a Transport Authority for Greater Bristol, sort out Bristol’s buses/trains – we need far better and cheaper public transport

*Get much more investment in cutting people’s fuel bills and in local public transport - cut Bristol’s carbon emissions significantly each year and generate loads of local jobs.

*Achieve higher land, air, water and environmental quality.

*Bring abandoned land and buildings quickly into good use, stop ‘grot spots’ growing

*Get government, councils, businesses and individuals acting on their responsibility to be environmentally-friendly

*Achieve respect for and the enabling of broad based public participation in community life (see the list of 21 suggestions I’ve submitted to Bristol City Council’s Sustainable Communities Act process)

I’ve lived in Bristol, on the edge of the Bristol East constituency, for over 40 years. For over 20 years I have campaigned as a Green here. I was Parliamentary Candidate for Bristol South in 1987 and 2001 and have fought many local elections, last time in Knowle where I live. As well as being a founder-member of Bristol South Green Party I formed and now coordinate Sustainable Knowle – my neighbourhood Transition group. I've a long history of continuous activity/campaigning both party political and otherwise, including raising and presenting petitions, putting questions and making statements to the council and contributing to consultations.

I’ve worked from home as an Associate Lecturer in Environment (environmental decision making and environmental technology) with the Open University for the last ten years, having been a science teacher for fifteen years and a research and development technologist in the polymer industry for six years. I have had several years’ experience as a UNISON steward and NASUWT rep. and have been a governor in three schools. (full biography here)

Please vote Vowles, Green Party, in Eastville on June 4th 2009 !

http://www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk/

Kerry McCarthy MP backs 'cycle house' plans (and fails to consider changes to parts of them).

Letter to my MP, sent today.

Kerry

Please see below a copy of what I've just posted on your blog about the cycle houses development. I'm concerned that this issue is fully and formally taken up by you and that you accurately appreciate my position. Note that I have previously emailed you on this issue.
__________________________________________________________________
Kerry, you have been mislead by developers, in this post are positively campaigning for the development as it is currently planned and give no thought to any changes people are proposing, whether small or large, either in the whole development or some small part of it. This is close-minded and unwise and its extremely disappointing to know that you do not take a proactive interest this green space in your constituency eg by playing your part in seeing that the proper procedures are gone through. You state,

'I'm told that none of the people who have been opposing the cycle houses on blogs - Chris, Glenn, Adam, Blogger (and yes, we do know who you are) - have been in touch with the developers directly'

This is total rubbish! I'm going to be the third person to say here that I have contacted them directly. I blogged about emailing them and had a letter in the Bristol Evening Post to say I had too! Like the Bristol Blogger I've had zero response and so they do not appear to be open to considering the changes I think are needed in one small part of the development (note one small part). I've also emailed you about this issue and have no response other than from the auto-reply system. I still have no reply from Bristol's Cabinet (Cllr Rosalie Walker) and still wait a council response to a formal complaint I put in about the procedures they have (or rather have not) followed.

It is inaccurate to describe me as an opponent of the cycle house development - I have not been opposing the development as a whole, though it should be preceeded by the formulation of an Area Green Space Plan as is council policy. What I have in fact been doing is calling for, (repeatedly on my blog and previously on your blog Kerry) the scaling back of and change in the plans in one area, the east, in order to avoid the worst damage to wildlife and green area character. I guess it would be in the interests of the developers and perhaps you Kerry to misrepresent the case of opponents on political grounds.

After a heated exchange on one of your previous posts(Back to work) you'll recall making this statement about me

'to be frank I'm fed up with the manner in which you 'demand' answers'

because you felt I should wait until after your site visit. What I said to spark this extraordinary reaction from you was this,

'The Bristol Blogger is right that the greenery along the Bristol to Bath Railway Path is described in the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy as significant...so why no Area Green Space Plan and why no Environmental Impact Assessment..'.

I note that after your site visit you still dont address the specific points I raised. It is backwards to sell off and plan to build over publicly owned green space without an Area Green Space plan (council policy) first being drawn up is it not?? The relevant EU Directive states that the Environmental Impact Assessment process should be interpreted and applied broadly and yet no EIA has been deemed necessary for these plans - why?? There are wide implications here for how the city deals with green spaces issues and you should be looking into the matter further. I'll email you a copy of this comment because I want to ensure your full and formal response as my MP.
___________________________________________________________________

I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles

Rosy outlook for Bristol green spaces??

Bristol City Council Cabinet letter of response to my green spaces petition is below. I should first point out a number of things in response to the letter (bit of a rant coming I'm afraid as I found the letter patronising and infuriating, as scrolling down and scanning through it will quickly demonstrate to you!!).

I've made no statements at all that indicate that I recognise the importance of the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, except in the negative sense that it legitimises flogging land, though you could be forgiven for thinking I had looking at the letter's beginning. I have read all the relevant documents and understand them at least as well as, if not better than, Cllr Rosalie Walker. Its always a useful argument tactic to just tell your opponent they simply dont understand or are not aware (too stupid, too lazy...not labels that stick well to an academic egghead like me), though its not aimed at genuine debate (which would have involved Rosalie in the very hard task of explaining for instance how flogging off land to be covered in concrete helps rainwater management...).

I'm much more interested in what the council actually has done and is doing than what some documents say (though she fails to comment on the councils past record). I'm at a loss to see how flogging land can be consistent with council policies on health and wellbeing, climate change, rainwater management, biodiversity...none of which are likely to be improved due to green land becoming tarmac/concrete...

I simply dont believe that no-one at the council has looked at where land might be sold off - how did they come up with figures like 90 acres or the previous 200 acres if they have not looked and estimated? How genuine is the Area Green Space Plans process if the council already has a very good idea what it wants to flog and where?

As for being committed to not selling higher value land, what about planning to flog off strips of green space near/on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path for housing development, using technicalities as an excuse?

As for the Parks and Green Spaces strategy being popular, well I seriously doubt that the council has measured this fairly via its 'consultation' processes - I'm sure that investment in parks is something people want but I'm also confident that people dont want land flogged off to a sales target!

____________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr Vowles

E-petition – Protect and enhance green spaces instead of flogging 90 acres to developers

Thank you for using the council’s e-petition processes to contribute to the debate about the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy. I am pleased that you and fellow petitioners recognise the vital importance of this new policy framework for the city’s green spaces, which was adopted by the Cabinet in February this year. It would appear however that you have not read the strategy, or indeed if you have, not understood how the council intends to approach the admittedly complex issues over land disposal. Indeed you do not appear to have read nor understood the wider green space policy imperatives around health, climate change, biodiversity etc which underpin the proposed 20 year investment programme – and where the council, yourself and most of the petitioners are fully in agreement. I am of course assuming you are aware that the approved strategy and numerous background documents are available at http://www.bristol.gov.uk.parkstrategy/.

Regarding your concern over the lack of evidence to justify land disposals in the form of maps, lists and debate, I refer you to page 36 of the adopted strategy which explains how the council is interpreting value and states that this will drive any future decision on the potential disposal of ‘low value green space’. This page includes the following…….

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

Page 44 further explains the process of producing Area Green Space Plans and includes the following….

“…This strategy document is not the end of the decision making process or to community involvement in what happens at the local level. We will develop “Area Green Space Plans” in consultation with local people and ward councillors, making specific proposals to improve quality and facilities and provide the parks people need in their local area……..Part of the analysis for producing Area Green Space Plans will be an assessment of value of those spaces identified as candidates for change of use or disposal.”

Further information on value assessment can also be found in appendix 5 of the strategy. If you would like to know more about the programme to produce Area Green Space Plans please email richard.fletcher@bristol.gov.uk who would be pleased to send you more information.

With regard to your concerns that the council will keep selling higher value green space to raise funding, the strategy also covers this in some detail. On page 42 concerning ‘resources’, this section summarises the ambitious investment plans for the city’s parks and green spaces which by the way attracted overwhelming support during last summer’s comprehensive public consultation.With an estimated £87m needing to be raised over the next 20 years to bring the green spaces up to a ‘good’ standard, an estimated £41m of this would be raised from property disposals, with 70% of the capital receipts reinvested in the strategy. This section goes on to state…..

“…The achievement of the strategy will be geared to the pace at which capital can be generated; this is why disposal of some land is essential if its ambitious quality improvements are to be realised. It is important to emphasise that it is not the intention of the council to keep selling land until the funding requirements of the strategy are achieved, irrespective of the importance and ‘value’ of the space to the community. On the contrary, should there be insufficient ‘low value’, marginal land available once the area planning process has been concluded, the council will review the ambitions of the strategy and consider alternative funding sources.”

This means that if the Area Green Space Plans do not identify 90 acres of ‘low value’ space that higher value land will not be sold to achieve any area or funding targets.

I hope that this to some extent eases your concerns over the way the strategy is going to be delivered. We appreciate that some residents feel that every square metre of green space needs to be protected at all costs – however our research and consultation has demonstrated that a large majority are more concerned to see the quality of our parks and green spaces improved and that a small loss of quantity to help raise funding for this purpose, and to release land for essential needs such as affordable housing, is a compromise worth making and in the wider public interest.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Rosalie Walker

Executive Member for Culture and Healthy Communities

Questions to Council's Cabinet on: hedgerow loss; green belt; environmental decision making

Questions to be put to the Bristol City Council Cabinet meeting of 25 June, for the attention of Cllr Gary Hopkins:

*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.

1.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?

2. 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?

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

2.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?

*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.

1. 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?

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

3.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?