Rees: remodeller?

'I stand for change' says the leaflet just received from Marvin Rees. But the prescription is the same old stuff. Its party political, present day 'Labour' Party material. Being photographed next to Dawn Primarolo in another leaflet hardly suggests change either because Dawn has for decades been a key player in government - national and local - that has been a part of bringing our society its current social, economic and environmental problems.

The Rees/Labour prescription is often vague and populist, like that of many of the mayoral candidates (the Greens aside).  In the typical style of Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Parties the prescription has policies that contradict each other eg Marvin Rees promises to 'make Bristol greener' but also promises to build 4000 homes without saying where they would be built or detailing how and favours a large development on green belt land (the proposed BCFC stadium) with its associated large supermarket developments.

When referring to a greener Bristol Marvin Rees talks about the stereotypical issues, like recycling, waste, ‘sustainable energy’. Typically his ‘environmentalism’ is a mere add-on. No joined up thinking. If he really got sustainable development he would successfully integrate his social and economic policies with his environmental ones and not end up having some policies that could make us more sustainable counteracted by many that make us less sustainable.   

Greenery = healthy

More evidence that green spaces are good for you (see here). More access to green spaces means: less liklihood of developing asthma or allergies; lower levels of stress; greater likelihood of a more active lifestyle; greater opportunities to mentally and physically engage with the natural world. Promoting good health was always one of the key reasons why Bristol should be protecting and increasing its green spaces not flogging them - and protecting its green belt from inappropriate developments like the proposed South Bristol Ring Road/Link and the Bristol City stadium (picture shows Ashton Vale green belt)  .

"Urbanisation is a relatively recent phenomenon, and for most of our time we have been interacting in an area that resembles what we now call the natural environment," he said.

"Urbanisation can be seen as a lost opportunity for many people to interact with the natural environment and its biodiversity, including the microbial communities."

While it was not possible to reverse the global trend of urbanisation, he said that there were a number of options.

"Apart from reserving natural areas outside of urban areas, I think it is important to develop city planning that includes green spaces, green belts and green infrastructure," Dr Hanski suggested

Democracy or ochlocracy?

Those who want a town green in Ashton Vale and not a new Bristol City football stadium have again been called NIMBYs (see comments here). Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way, including those in Ashton Vale, usually don’t hold such views and often have a well developed case with a range of reasons.

For example: if the stadium is built green belt land, which is finite in supply, will be lost; carbon emissions will rise; natural flood drainage space will go; land with food production potential will go; wildlife habitats will be smaller in area; green space important to human health and wellbeing will be cut. Our current system has warm green words but little or no green action - which is why planning permission for the Bristol City stadium was given.

A key feature of the UK democracy is the rule of law. The UK is not a straightforward ochlocracy, where there is dictatorship of the majority or rule of the mob. Protection of the law for individuals, minorities and society as a whole has some value here. The law around town greens is one small part of this.  

On another note: it was always a big mistake to assuming that building this stadium will have a net positive effect on jobs and investment. To my knowledge no-one has done the research sums to see if total benefits exceed total costs, taking into account all factors, including those I've mentioned above. Mostly what we’ve heard about the proposed stadium is simplistic benefits - my point is ok but what about the complexities and the costs?? This means trying to account for the impacts both on current generations and the generations of people to come - once green land is built over its nigh on impossible to get it back again.

The planning process very often has no objective evidence whatsoever that total benefits outweigh total costs - and a decision taken on the basis of little or no evidence is irrational. Could it not be argued that the stadium proposal is an inappropriate development based on outmoded, old-fashioned, discredited economic thinking and that therefore pursuing it would be unwise? Bristol is supposed to have 'green capital' ambitions after all. Wouldn't giving the land town green status mean that it would be maintain our ability to: fight climate change; increase wildlife; manage flooding; keep people healthy...If you built a stadium the opposite might happen and therefore shouldn't someone estimate the costs/benefits of all this in order for a rational decision to be made?

The law should help prevent locals from being bullied into a situation they don’t want. The law on town greens does empower people to apply for green spaces to be protected. A real and proper democracy rightly has legal processes to protect a community and its space and the process is being gone through.

Confusion or clarity?

The town green/new Bristol City football stadium in the green belt saga goes on. The latest Evening Post headline says that confusion reigns but the judge '...told the assembled legal teams that he was “minded” to approve the application for judicial review...The judge said he had fresh evidence that he wished to consider.'. This is clear not confusing. The judge is going to mull over some new evidence and deliberate just a bit more. Some journalists are 'easily confused' it seems!!

On: Bristol's unfair handling of a town green application and 'ignorance and stupidity' from senior council officers

Blistering - and correct - attack by the Bristol Blogger here on the [un]fairness with which Bristol City Council officers and councillors are dealing with the Ashton Vale Town Green application process. The phrase 'judge and jury' is certainly apt, as are the words - council: bias; prejudice; skewing; fixing; partiality; preference; unfairness; favoritism; predisposition; preconception; injustice; one-sidedness...

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the sheer scale of the ignorance and stupidity that characterises Bristol City Council’s ruling senior officer clique. In their latest wheeze we find some effete little public sector accountant has awarded themselves the powers of an expert lawyer!

The publication of the report on the Application to Register Land at Ashton Vale as a Village Green for the council’s Public Rights of Way and Greens (PROWG) Committee to consider on Thursday finds the Council House’s chief bean counter, Will Godfrey in this new starring role as judge and jury.

The crucial part of this report into whether greenbelt land in south Bristol should be made a Town Green – as an experienced and qualified barrister advises – or whether the city’s wealthiest man should be allowed to build his football stadium...

...At the very least, surely this compelling so-called “new evidence” needs to go back before a legally qualified inspector and be tested under cross examination before Godfrey forms a view to present to the PROWG committee?

Lose a local election, continue to run the council

Despite election losses the Lib Dems will continue to run Bristol (see link at end*). No surprise there, especially given the electoral arithmetic when we elect only a third of councillors at any one time. I doubt that any other party relishes taking on running the city in a time of cuts in any case (no doubt they are happy that their opponent will continue to take the blame).

I'm pleased to see the green spaces sell off halted subject to review, though I'm someone who opposes the principle of selling off green spaces whether the decision is taken by the council or more local Neighbourhood Partnerships. We need more not fewer green spaces for a wide variety of economic, health, social and environmental reasons.

I also welcome a prompt decision on the town green in Ashton Vale, though I have grave doubts about the basis on which some councillors will be deciding, given the fairly frequent and commonplace statements about wanting to see a football stadium on this greenbelt land. The matter will end up in the courts.

The new group set up to consider major transport issues like tram proposals, the bus rapid transit schemes and the Temple Meads transport interchange is a good idea. Should have been set up before now. I'm not yet clear on what its full role is and what power it will/can have to propose and enact changes though. This is a vital issue given the heavy traffic and poor public transport and integration is one key reason why Bristol is far from being a green city.

*http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Lib-Dems-stay-control/article-3568496-detail/article.html

Also see: http://www.bristolgreenparty.org.uk/News/greens-celebrate-new-influence-on-council.html

Greens call for Stadium rethink as Sainsburys' prospects fade. | News

An Ashton Gate Sainsburys will hit other local traders far harder than the grocery giant has admitted. The independent report commissioned by the council from experts GVA challenges Sainsbury claims that its superstore - the third proposed for the Ashton Gate site [1] - can sit comfortably with existing retail businesses in South Bristol, especially those in North Street and East Street. It predicts that turnover in those shops would be cut by an average of 7%...

Greens call for Stadium rethink as Sainsburys' prospects fade. News

Planet Bristol: Peter Madden: green city, green stadium...

Keep up Peter Madden, keep up Forum for the Future - I've been putting this idea to Bristol City FC since the beginning of the consultation process on stadium designs! And I've given them the same examples. If I was involved in talks between Bristol City and the Town Green supporters in Ashton Vale a first class stadium built to the very highest sustainable, green design standards would be something I would want to see on offer. I'd also like to see some guarantees about keeping the surrounding area green and on no further developments in this area. There are always going to be issues about why any green land at all should be taken up - and also the poor transport links in the location proposed BUT as I've said before the offer of a top notch green stadium design and surroundings would be some compensation and would certainly have its attractions for me. Having said all this I'm not someone who lives in Ashton Vale.

Planet Bristol: Peter Madden

So, what of this could a new stadium incorporate? Open green space – if not for grazing livestock, then at least for walking dogs, running and playing, or free events.

Could the stadium make a positive environmental contribution? Could it be carbon neutral, through generating its own clean energy? Could it enhance biodiversity, through areas protected for wildlife and a 'green roof' with plants growing on it? Could traffic problems be lessened by making tickets cheaper if people walk or use the park and ride?

There are educational possibilities, too. If it was a state-of-the-art environmental stadium, facilities could be used to engage City supporters and other Bristolians – as well as visiting fans – on green issues, further multiplying the positive impacts.

Other clubs are doing this. Ipswich Town went carbon neutral. And lowly Dartford FC built the UK's first sustainable stadium from renewable timber with a grass roof and sunk two metres below ground level to reduce noise and light pollution.

So, why shouldn't Bristol have the greenest major football stadium in the country, a beautiful building that shows what can be done, is useful to the local community as well as the fans, which provides the benefits of a village green and has a zero environmental footprint?

Talks between town green and new stadium sides

Its a good thing for both sides to talk issues through. Polarisation and vilification that has occurred during the debate has hindered rational consideration. I watch with interest to see what is proposed, by whom, and what the final outcome is.

A DOOR has finally opened which could break the deadlock over Bristol City building a new stadium at Ashton Vale.

Green stadium design for an aspiring green capital?

'Why not outline for us how a man like yourself with so many letters after your name would achieve for the people of Bristol such a facility along sustainable development principles?' says sharp tongued Bristol Evening Post online debater Mark from Bristol.

I dont pretend to have all the answers but sustainable development is good sense not rocket science. First, dont build over green land in the green belt - either redevelop Ashton Gate or find a suitable brownfield site near existing good transport links. Second, seriously consider sharing any new ground. Thirdly use well established green design principles eg the One Planet Living Principles that are outlined here:http://www.oneplanetvision.org/one-planet-living/opl-framework/

I took part in the BCFC consultation and submitted some ideas on green stadium design plus examples of several football clubs who have used green design principles (see here and Dartford FCs Princes Park stadium design, pictured). Despite asking for a response by email and phone call I received none. Had city gone for a top notch green stadium design it would have been much harder for people like me to oppose it - and perhaps it would have been harder for Ashton Vale people too. Shouldn't our aspiring 'green capital' have a green football stadium??

More on 'ground vs green'

Copies of further comments I made yesterday in the online 'ground vs green' debate (below). 'Dog Walker' was one of the few to respond to my posts:

Dog Walker - by 'dealt with' you mean ignored or dismissed! This must be so because: f this stadium is built green belt land will be lost; carbon emissions will rise; natural flood drainage space will go; land with food production potential will go; wildlife habitats will be smaller in area; green space important to human health will be cut. Our current system has warm green words but little or no green action - which is why planning permission was given.

We are in agreement that our MPs are not competent drafters of the law! I dont agree with your assessment of my democratic credentials however - your way of thinking would mean that law has no value in a democracy and that there should be, in effect, no such thing as local democracy. I believe our democracy is not localised enough whereas your line of argument leads, in effect, to Vogons from another planet [pictured, from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy film] being allowed to turn up out of the blue and destroy the whole planet.

You make the big mistake of assuming that building this stadium will have a net positive effect on jobs and investment. To my knowledge no-one has done the research sums to see if total benefits exceed total costs, taking into account all factors, including those I've mentioned above. Mostly what we hear about is benefits - my point is ok but what about the costs?? This the opposite of selfishness, Carl, because its trying to account for the impacts both on current generations and the generations of people to come - once green land is built over its nigh on impossible to get it back again.
_________________________________

Dog Walker - its so convenient for you to simply dismiss a whole range of health and environmental arguments isn't it. Is this a ground vs green debate or not? You seem to be ducking out to me. The planning process has no objective evidence whatsoever that total benefits outweigh total costs - and a decision taken on the basis of little or no evidence is irrational.

Why is it that you dont want to talk about and deal properly with climate change, biodiversity, habitats, flood management, human health and quality of life?? Where is your evidence that net economic benefits will result (you only state a possible benefit and mention no disbenefits)? Could it not be argued that the stadium proposal is an inappropriate development based on outmoded, old-fashioned, discredited economic thinking and that therefore persuing it would be unwise ? Bristol is supposed to have 'green capital' ambitions after all.

Given that we've gone beyond the planning process now wouldn't giving the land town green status mean that it would be maintain our ability to: fight climate change; increase wildlife; manage flooding; keep people healthy...If you built a stadium the opposite would happen and therefore shouldn't someone estimate the costs/benefits of all this in order for a rational decision to be made?

My point about Vogons [pictured] is not extending the argument to absurdity at all. Its my view that local democracy should count for much more than it does - and that the law should help prevent locals from being bullied into a situation they dont want. The law on town greens does empower people to apply for their space to be protected. You have not indicated that you would like any form of local democracy or legal processes to protect a community and its space and so in effect you are saying that if, as in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Vogons turn up one day to destroy our planet then that's all ok.

Ground vs Green

Just chipped in to the 'Ground vs Green' debate going on on the Evening Post website, particularly in response to someone calling themselves 'another cynic' because they did not regard opposing building a stadium in the green belt as rational. Here's my contribution to a debate that is, as usual, of the very highest quality (!!):

'I think most rational people would be pro stadium. The only thing to be cynical about is the use of the TVG laws by a minority of people to undermine the workings of the democratic planning process.' said another cynic.

What's rational about:

- designating land as green belt and then not protecting it?

-the council/govt saying we need to fight climate change and then turning land from a net absorber to a net emitter of carbon?

-expressing concern about the need to be ready to deal with flooding caused by the sudden heavy rains we now get and then removing land that naturally absorbs and steadily releases flood water?

-saying wildlife needs to be protected but then concreting over habitats?

-having government agencies like Natural England working to show how necessary to our physical, mental and social health green spaces are and how we all need to live close to a green space and then removing said spaces?

-saying what a good idea local food production is, especially in view of things like peak oil, and then reducing the land area available to grow food locally?

-MPs strengthening the law on town and village green establishment in both 2000 and 2006 then going on to campaign against the use of the laws they established??

By the way another cynic, the current planning process is a statutory ie legal process primarily and not a democratic one. Though it has a democratic element to it through the involvement of elected Councillors and Secretary of State, they are supposed to be guided by rules and regulations not a party line...hopefully to establish a rational outcome. The Ground vs Green debate will not be finally resolved by petition or voting but by the law that is an essential feature of a modern democratic system - and in this instance it may well prevent a wider majority view prevailing over a very local majority view.

Debate on new BCFC ground

THE Ground v Green debate to discuss plans for a 30,000-seat stadium at Ashton Vale will be broadcast live tonight from 7pm.

The Evening Post and BBC Radio Bristol have joined forces to organise the high-profile debate on one of the biggest issues in the city for years...

Ashton Vale stadium: 'MPs call for Councillors to commit unlawful acts'

Some very interesting comments on this post from the Ashton Gate Blogger. For example:

The MPs have written a letter calling on councillors to reject the Town Green Application so as to bring about a football stadium on the land for the benefit of the club and others.
Under the Commons Act 2006, the future use of and aims for the land cannot be taken into account.
By calling for the Councillors to do so, the MPs are asking them to commit “Misfeasance in Public Office”. This is where a public official acts knowing that he has no power to do the act complained of – causing detriment to the legal rights of some, for the benefit (commercial or otherwise) of others.
What a bizarre world we now live in where MPs call for Councillors to commit unlawful acts so as to overide the legal rights that have been given to local people by those very MPs only 4 years ago

says Harry T....rightly in my view.

And following on from this Still Waters says...

Just out of interest, does this act of inciting Misfeasance in Public Office toward BCC come under Misconduct in Public Office for the MPs? Maybe their Chief Whips should be nudged?

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04909.pdf

“there is often an additional offence that can be committed where someone ‘attempts, conspires, aids or abets, counsels or procures’ another offence. The problem with attempting to prosecute someone for such an additional offence is that the intent needed to be proved is both for the alleged attempt, conspiracy, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring’ the first offence, but also the intent to commit the original offence.”
I think a bloody great big article in a newsrag is ‘proof enough’…

Bristol's football and rugby clubs sharing one good, new stadium: eminent good sense

Letter from todays Evening Post that I agree strongly with:

I HAD a nightmare last night. I woke up in a sweat realising that I had definitely lost the plot. Was I going mad? I had dreamt that the directors of Bristol City, Bristol Rovers and Bristol Rugby actually got together around the same table – and discussed how one, state of the art stadium could be built to house one united Bristol City football club and Bristol Rugby. How wild was that?

The plans even included an athletics track, indoor sporting facilities etc that could rival other major cities. I simply had to wake up from this crazy nightmare.

Surely we are never going to achieve Premiership football status with two mediocre teams, or a Premiership rugby side with a struggling first division side. We do need creative thinking, vision, financial investment and a team of enthusiastic 'drivers' who could perhaps make my nightmare a reality.

It will never happen if things remain as they are and the City shows no ambition. My dream stadium was going to be built somewhere along the M4 / M5 corridor which has good connections to motorways and rail links whilst away from residential areas.

Thank goodness I woke up then and realised that I was having a really mad crazy idea, and that, thank goodness, it was only a dream. We must carry on here in Bristol with second best, of course.

Sonny,
Portishead.

BRISTOL City chairman Steve Lansdown raised £58 million yesterday by selling off shares in the stockbroker firm he helped to found.

Lansdown: now not living in the UK let alone Bristol or the West Country; now avoiding paying taxes here but clearly has made and is making shed loads of cash here....does he sound like someone committed to this country and this city to you?? Maybe someone would like to make the case for this man ??

BRISTOL City chairman Steve Lansdown raised £58 million yesterday by selling off shares in the stockbroker firm he helped to found.

Mr Lansdown – who has a personal fortune of £452m – recently bought a house on Guernsey and is now living full-time in the tax-free Channel haven.

The latest biased and ridiculous rubbish on the Ashton Vale stadium

BRISTOL could reap the benefits of hosting events like the Ryder Cup if the Ashton Vale stadium goes ahead, golfer Chris Wood said last night.

Er...but we dont have a decent golf course...or is that the next thing they will try to build on green belt land?? Or perhaps the whole event would be scaled down and staged on a mini golf course inside the new Bristol City stadium?

Ashton Vale Wildlife

This web site is dedicated to Birds and Wildlife in a small area of south Bristol called Ashton Vale, which includes the site of the proposed new Bristol City FC stadium development.The site runs parallel with the A370 in the North,and the A38 in the South. The Boundary in the West is Yanley lane which runs from Long Ashton through to the A38.Down the middle runs the Bristol to Plymouth railway line. On the A38 side the fields are on quite a gradient leading up to Bedminster down.There is a large landfill site owned by Veridor and this is next to Hanging Hill wood.Colliters brook runs through both sites and holds a host of wild life.On the A370 side the fields are flat and used for agriculture,when the harvest is collected lots of birds feed on the spilled grain.Walking in a westerly direction from the Long Ashton park and ride you will come up on a small copse known by the locals as the Plantation.Also part of the area is the Long Ashton cricket pitch which is situated near to Yanley lane.The fields near to the cricket pitch some times hold a few Roe deer although poaching has hit them really hard in the last few years.There are four small ponds around the edges of the landfill site, and most hold a number of dragonflies and damselflies.In the spring many migrant birds stop off at the site, in recent years Redstart, Nightingales, have been recorded. Buzzards,Tawny owls, and Little owls are all resident and during the summer many Warblers nest, Green and Great spotted woodpeckers breed and the song of the Skylark can be heard above the landfill site where it has bred.

More from: www.ashtonvalewildlife.com/

Plans for a £92 million stadium at Ashton Vale have once again been thrown into turmoil.

This is an excellent decision by the inspector. The council should now proceed to formally register the whole site. There is a value to this green space well beyond cash - leisure, recreation, entertainment, health benefits, storm water drainage and thus flood protection, taking carbon dioxide from the air thus helping to fight climate change, provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity. Green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development and helping us to connect with and appreciate the natural world – vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature.

Plans for a £92 million stadium at Ashton Vale have once again been thrown into turmoil.

Plans for a £92 million stadium at Ashton Vale have once again been thrown into turmoil.
Residents who live near the site have won their fight for the 42-acre site to be designated as a town green.
An independent inspector has recommended that the whole site where the stadium would be built - including the former landfill site - should be given town green status.
If approved, it would effectively rule out any development on the site for ever...

Insainsbury's

What is all this irrational nonsense about bulldozing one BCFC stadium to build another just down the road - and demolishing one Sainsbury's just up the road only to construct another...er...just down the road!! Funny old world innit!! Great post on my green friend and colleague Tony Dyer's blog looks at this issue in detail:

http://aureamediocritas-tonyd.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-superstore-at-ashton-gate-its.html