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

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


Dear Mr Vowles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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 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.

Change these plans to stop harm to wildlife

I understand why George Ferguson wants to emphasise what he sees as the upside of the 'cycle houses' development planned on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway Path (see report on plans in today's local paper). He is of course not an independent, dispassionate voice in relation to it though as he is Chairman of the architects of the plans (Acanthus Ferguson Mann)! He has apparently been intimately involved in discussions with the council about land purchase according to local blogs and has talked up how innovative the ideas behind the plans are! He would emphasise the positive wouldn't he.

A balanced, dispassionate, analytical approach would also consider the downside of the plans, in particular the impacts on wildlife, including protected species such as badgers and slow worms due to the loss of 150 metres of mature hedgerow on part of the site under current designs. Attempting to compensate for habitat loss, as is proposed, is highly problematic and inadequate. Will the council, developers and architects respond to significant public concerns and react to ensure that the plans are modified so that hedgerow and wildlife impacts are removed? This would also contribute significantly to retaining some of the user amenity value of the site due to its current green and pleasant character. I thought Bristol City Council had a Parks and Green Spaces Strategy to safeguard high quality greenery though its obviously not being applied to this area!!

I'll try to contact George direct about this and copy in someone at the council and at the developers. I will be objecting to the current plans on the basis outlined here and will also complain to the council that they have not carried out an environmental impact assessment and not followed the procedure on green spaces in their own strategy.

Appeal to Bristol City Council's Chief Executive

Email sent to Bristol City Council Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd this weekend appealing for her to review my complaint about the council not following its own green spaces policy:

I've been looking at the council complaints policy and conclude that Stage 3 involves a review by the Chief Executive. I asked Complaints Manager Tim Sheppard about this and was told that 'The CX will not have "reviewed" your complaint but she will have read it and will be aware of the issues.' Having pondered this I find myself somewhat confused.

Tim did confirm to me that the council complaints system had been exhausted (leaving me free to approach the Ombudsman) but I dont think this can be considered the case until you have reviewed it. Can you confirm that the council complaints policy involves, in Stage 3, a review by the Chief Executive?

Can you confirm a) that you have read my complaint and are aware of the issues b) that you will now review my complaint or do whatever is required to fully comply with council complaints policy?

Sorry to be a pain but I really must insist that you conduct a review, unless you can explain that its not a compulsory part of council policy of course. This is because I need to ensure that I've gone through the whole of the council complaints procedure before it can be considered exhausted. I dont want to go to the Ombudsman only to find that they reject what I send, telling me to get back on to you/the council. This would represent considerable waste of time and effort.

Many of the key issues are addressed in the most recent exchanges between Tim Sheppard and myself ( see below).
__________________________________________________________

In addition to a response to the above email I'm also awaiting a reply from Complaints Manager Tim Sheppard to the points I made in the post below. I'm also waiting for a response to my request for a meeting with David Bishop, Strategic Director for City Development and Regeneration at the council and Steven McNamara, Head of Legal Services at the council. I've also sent a message to George Ferguson asking if he is willing to meet with me to discuss modifying the cycle houses development plans and a range of other matters (I previously contacted him but had no ackowledgement).

By George he's not got it!

Plenty of evidence around at present that architect George Ferguson (PPRIBA, BA, BArch, RWA according to here) doesn't get what is truly meant by sustainability. His column in todays Bristol Evening Post provides a good example to illustrate what I mean. He says this near the start,

'I am writing this from the sweltering heat of the Venice Architecture Biennale exhibition - I call it work. This city is wonderfully sustainable and dominated by pedestrians and water traffic.'

Later in the piece he contradicts this by referring to the 'massive annual maintenance bill, not to mention the mega-million flood defences.' of Venice. Far from being 'wonderfully sustainable' I'd say Venice has some serious sustainability problems to deal with, not least sinking/subsiding/flooding and the massive economic consequences George himself points out (see viability section on diagram).

So I'm left puzzled as to what overall sustainability scale gives Venice a 'wonderful' score (even though the dominance of pedestrian and water transport is an obvious and significant upside).

Add to this the example of the proposed 'cycle houses' development on/near the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. It's much favoured by George (his architects Acanthus Ferguson Mann have been retained by the developer Squarepeg) but consistent with sustainability thinking its not. One part of current plans would cause significant damage to a biodiverse green space, a negative change in its 'rural' character and a loss of visual amenity. See previous posts here, here and here, plus the Green Bristol Blog, Bristol Blogger and Keep the Bank Green .

Of course it might be that George does get sustainability but puts other factors ahead of it??

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

Vogons on Bristol City Council sell off Filwood Park

The sell-off of Filwood Park by the council is an apalling act ('They sold our park and didn't tell us', Bristol Evening Post front page, Oct 10). Its only fair that the council should stick by its own policy on green spaces. This is to draw up Area Green Space Plans through local consultation before doing anything with land. Such plans would determine issues of land quality and value, uses and any possible disposal/development.


I currently have an official complaint in to the council because they have an in-principle agreement to sell green space on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path to the so-called ‘cycle-houses’ developers without an Area Green Space Plan agreed beforehand. They seem to have a habit of doing this, having sold off Filwood Park! Are there other examples like this? As I write this I still have no formal reply from the council and the 15 working days I was told it would take are up!


The council said the sell-off of Filwood park was 'well advertised, with notices on lampposts...classified ads and public meetings'. This reminds me of the opening scenes of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where Arthur Dent finds out that his house is to be demolished for a by-pass the day before the bulldozers turn up - the dialogue with Prosser (in charge of the bulldozing) then goes:

Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know."
"Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time? The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver. Then he told me."
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine month."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
A cloud passed overhead. It cast a shadow over Arthur Dent as he lay propped up on his elbow in the cold mud. It cast a shadow over Arthur Dent's house. Mr Prosser frowned at it.
"It's not as if it's a particularly nice house," he said.
"I'm sorry, but I happen to like it."
"You'll like the bypass."
"Oh shut up," said Arthur Dent. "Shut up and go away, and take your bloody bypass with you. You haven't got a leg to stand on and you know it." (see the clip on YouTube).




Rather than behave like the Vogons in the Hitchhikers Guide, building over green space after so-called consultation and information of a very poor standard...


"People of Earth, your attention please," a voice said, and it was wonderful. Wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to make a brave man weep."This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council," the voice continued. "As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less that two of your Earth minutes. Thank you." (see clip on YouTube)


...the council need to ensure people are getting the benefits of parks. In an urban area open, green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development. There are self-evident leisure, recreational, entertainment, sporting and health benefits in open, green spaces. They are a way of connecting with and appreciating the natural world vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature. We sorely need this respect in order to build the green attitudes needed to fight extremely serious environmental (and thus security) threats.

Parks and green spaces provide key ecological and environmental function benefits. There is storm water drainage and thus flood protection, as the land soaks up, temporarily stores and then gradually releases rain. Green spaces take carbon dioxide from the air and thus help fight climate change (losing open space is thus as good as adding carbon to the air!). There is the provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity. Worth protecting and enhancing isn’t it!!

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.

Questions to Bristol City Council Cabinet on green space flogging controversy

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

Parks and Green Spaces Policy not being followed:

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________

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

Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager, writes: 11 Nov

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

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

_____________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 7 Nov

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

____________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 6 Nov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 3 Nov

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard Council Complaints Manager writes: 3 Nov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________
Glenn Vowles writes: 24 Oct

Thanks for the attachment and opinion on complaint stage Tim.

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

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

___________________________________________________
Tim Sheppard, Council Complaints Manager writes: 23 Oct

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

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

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

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.