Wealth redistribution - Bristol style

Every time council officers need to explain what green spaces are being considered for sale, whoever carefully tabulates the data must take a holiday. The result is jumbled lists like this that won't mean much to anyone other than dedicated openspacewatchers.  And, maybe, watchful developers.

Crow Lane Open Space; Arnal Drive open space; Land at rear of Merrimans Drive; Muller Rd Rec / Downend Park Farm; Arnal Drive open space (north); Longcross Woodland; Lockleaze Open Space; Elderberry Walk; Moorend Gardens; Portway Tip (Daisy field); Plummers Hill open space; Moorgrove; Small land, Snowdon road open space; Sturminster Close; Napier Square Park; Bracey Drive open space; Gill Avenue; Sherrin Way (Billand Close); North Valley Walk; Delebare Avenue; Huntingham Road/ Keble Avenue (Four Acres?); South Valley Walk; Tranmere Road; Willmott Park North , Hartcliffe; Cook Street Open Space; Terrell Gardens; Willmott Park South, Hartcliffe; Withywood Park (Paybridge Rd); Fonthill Park; Ladman Road and Bus Terminus; Henacre Open Space; Belroyal Avenue; Gillebank Close; Broomhill Road/Emery Road; Furber Road; Ladman Road and Bagnell Road; Brentry Hill; Gladstone Street; Maple Close; Hazelbury Road Open Space; Trym valley; Duchess Way O/S; Bath Road (3 Lamps) Burnbush Close; Broomhill Park; Craydon Road Triangle, Stockwood; Bonville Rd Open Space; Allison Avenue; Newbridge Road, Open Space; Dovercourt Road Open Space; Salcombe Road.

That's the list as approved by Cabinet last month.  Barely comprehensible.

So, for clarity, here's a map - and a reshuffled list - showing which Neighbourhood Partnerships are being told to decide which of their green spaces to sell - and how many are on the hit-list in each.   Where there's no number, of course, there's nothing to be sold.

The whole unsustainable strategy of financing the parks by selling parkland was based on the illusion that this would be 'fair', helping all parts of Bristol achieve a common standard of access to parkland amenities.  Wealth redistribution in action - a rare thing from any Con-Dem administration.   But the map shows that with the parks, a loss of assets in poorer parts of the city will provide more in the wealthier wards. (OK, it's a generalisation, but it's broadly true).

That's what the outer Neighbourhood Partnerships are being asked to approve.  And the more they sell, the more open space they lose, and the more receipts go into the central pot. 

........................
Here's the full list, by NP

Avonmouth & Kingsweston (NP01): 
Land at rear of Merrimans Drive
Longcross Woodland
Moorend Gardens
Portway Tip (Daisyfield)
Moorgrove
Napier Square Park
Cook Street Open Space
Henacre Open Space


Henbury & Southmead (NP02)
Crow Lane Open Space
Arnal Drive Open Space
Arnal Drive Open Space North
Elderberry Walk
Brentry Hill
Tranmere Road
Fonthill Park
Trym Valley


Horfield & Lockleaze (NP04)
Muller Road Rec/Downend Park Farm
Lockleaze Open Space
Dovercourt Road Open Space


Greater Fishponds Area - Eastville, Hillfields & Frome Vale (NP05)
Small land, Snowdon Road Open Space
Bracey Drive Open Space
Gill Avenue
Delebare Avenue
Duchess Road Open Space


St George East & West (NP09)
Plummers Hill Open Space
Terrell Gardens
Furber Road
Gladstone Street


Filwood, Knowle & Windmill Hill (NP11)
Bath Road (3 Lamps)
Salcombe Road


Brislington Community Partnership (NP12)
Broomhill Road/Emery Road
Newbridge Road Open Space
Belroyal Avenue
Bonville Road Open Space
Broomhill Park
Allison Avenue


Dundry View - Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe & Whitchurch Park (NP13)
Sherrin Way (Billand Close)
North Valley Walk
South Valley Walk
Huntingham Road/Keble Avenue (Four Acres?)
Withywood Park (Paybridge Road)
Willmott Park North
Willmott Park South


Hengrove & Stockwood (NP14)
Sturminster Close
Hazelbury Road Open Space
Craydon Road Triangle
Burnbush Close
Ladman Road Bus Terminus
Gillebank Close
Ladman Road/Bagnall Road
Maple Close

There's more about each site among the draft  Area Green Space Plans  and (most of them) in this FoI disclosure

At Last! an FoI response on Green Spaces....

Here they are, folks, the council's 2009 assessments of the sites selected for sale. Seven weeks late, but intact.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/area_green_space_plans_potential

If there's a particular threatened open space near you, this link   might tell you more about their reasons for choosing it as a sacrifice.

Green Space "Call-in" and an FoI Failure (updated)

Tomorrow (Thursday, 5.30pm) sees the Cabinet's decision to sell off significant green spaces in Bristol - including eight here in Stockwood - "called in" by the Members' 'Overview and Scrutiny Panel' (details here)

Everyone who witnessed the decision will be well aware that the Cabinet rode roughshod over massive opposition and demonstrable flaws in the consultation process - and still reached a decision that doesn't actually provide the funding that the city's parks are said to need.

For the record, the council's own failure to respond to my 'Freedom of Information' request (for the assessments of the allegedly 'low value' sites in question) remains exactly as it was at the end of the consultation, and through the whole of the decision making process. It's now gone seven weeks beyond the date set by law for a reply.

The idea behind the request was to get vital background information, on which the council was basing its decisions, into the public domain. How else could the accuracy of its evidence be challenged? But that vital data remains under wraps, even now

That's just one example of the many failings in the whole process.


Postscript (6/1/11):

The call-in panel wasn't persuaded. It was only too clear from the start that this decision would be taken on party lines - and the call-in panel has 3 LibDems, 1 Tory, and 1 Labour member.

The 'complainants' were Labour's Mark Bradshaw and the Tories' Mark Weston, as the chairs of the two scrutiny commissions whose 5 hour investigation led to an all-party plea for the sell-off decision to be deferred. They argued that the Cabinet had been unreasonable and over-hasty in their decision to sell-off green spaces - the consultation was demonstrably flawed, the sales wouldn't fulfil the Strategy objectives, so why rush the decision?

Officers - who'd clearly been given an impossible task of assessing the many thousands of consultation responses - did their best to justify themselves, while Gary Hopkins decided (as always) that attack is the best form of defence, and turned the whole thing into tedious party political bickering. Sad.

So we finished up with a 3:2 decision to take 'no further action'. The Cabinet decision stands. Every site earmarked for sale will eventually get put on the market at a time to be decided by the officers. Unless of course it's unsaleable.

I'll (reluctantly) request an internal review of why my own FoI request remains unanswered 7 weeks after the statutory date for a response. It's way too late for the documents in question to be challenged, though. The decision's been made.

Aren't Neighbourhood Partnerships brilliant?

We actually achieved a bit of people power at the Neighbourhood Partnership meeting last night.

It was a pretty earnest but uninspiring agenda that delivered all that was required of it - but the interest lay elsewhere.

We threw out the 'Code of Conduct' required of Partnership members, and substituted something called 'ground rules' for the meetings, yet to come, and to be written in plain English. For me (as one of the delegate members), it means I can feel free to blog about the NP without first signing an Official Secrets Act.

We had a Public Forum item, too - which is probably unique in the curent round of NP meetings, because it's been disappeared from their agendas. It drew three statements, and they in turn contributed to our final decision - added as an emergency item in spite of vigorous protests from the LibDem corner (including our own Goulden Boy, self-styled saviour of the Craydon Road Open Space). They didn't want it discussed at any price and raised every possible objection (none of them valid!)

The subject was, of course, the Green Space sell-off - or rather the failures in the consultation, such as the loss of Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces response, the failure to fulfil FoI requests, and the under-recording of petition numbers. I'd distilled this into an appeal from the NP to Thursday's Cabinet to delay any decision to sell land until it could be sorted out. Eventually, it was overwhelmingly approved - with the sole exception of the three dissidents, who presumably want an immediate decision to sell.

I'm glad to say that today's Scrutiny Commission reached the same conclusion as our Neighbourhood Partnership, so the Cabinet will be faced with a multiple appeal to hold back on the controversial sales when it meets tomorrow.

FOI FUDGE

I thought it was a simple question. Has the council been exploring the idea of siting a public transport interchange on part of Plot 6 at Temple Meads where all the infrastructure for a quality transport hub is already planned for the 'Digby Wyatt' shed? Or does it, or the landowners, want to nip the idea in the bud?

The other day, the LibDem's one-time transport supremo Dennis Brown certainly tried to undermine (here, 28 mins in) any commitment to any interchange anywhere near Temple Meads. Still, what else would you expect ? At the same meeting, he'd already reflected how much better it would have been to get to Regional Assembly meetings in Exeter in a Car Club vehicle instead of his own.

The two 'transport leads' who've followed Dennis seem reluctant to say anything much about Plot 6 - so I put the question in as a Freedom of Information request. It had to be rephrased of course:

"I wish to make an F.O.I request about the potential use of Plot 6 (the development site currently in use as a car park, immediately north of the station buildings) at Temple Meads as a public transport interchange, including buses.

Can I please have copies of communications (hard copy or electronic) and details of meetings (minuted or not) or transcripts of telephone calls, referring to such use of any part of Plot 6 as a public transport interchange, between officers, members or agents of the council, or between them and the Plot 6 landowners, their agents, and lessees (including First Group) since August 2008.

A week after the deadline for reply, I get a non-response. Maybe no-one read the question. They tell me:

"Officers from the City Council have been involved in discussions and in providing guidance to the landowners of the land known as Plot 6, Network Rail and the South West Regional Development Agency. If you are able to clarify your request and confirm exactly what "information" you require, I will be happy to assist. However I can confirm that it is
unlikely that all information can be disclosed at this stage as the process is at such an early phase.

This is nonsense. First, because it ignores the perfectly clear nature of the FoI request for information about the use of the site as a transport interchange. Second, because plans for Plot 6 and the rest of the Temple Meads area have been worked up in enormous detail (and no doubt at enormous public expense, the main players being Network Rail and SWRDA), with a speculative mix of offices, retail, and flats. They're NOT at such an early phase. And the council have been party to it.

So what's the real excuse for dodging the FoI question?

Watch this space. At least till they build a block of unsaleable 'buy to let' on it.