Horrors of SERC

It's three years since the Localism Bill was proudly unveiled by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles. It would, he said

“herald a ground-breaking shift in power to councils and communities overturning decades of central government control and starting a new era of people power “ . 

There was a lot more of the same sort of populist guff....

Six months earlier, South Glos councillors had turned down an application from SITA to build an incinerator – sorry, waste-to-energy facility – sorry, Severnside Energy Recovery Centre - at Hallen, three miles north of Avonmouth. It was much more than a NIMBY decision; the area was already overcommitted to waste treatment plant over and above the local need, and the West of England councils were committed to a 'dispersal' strategy to reduce distances that waste must be carried . [Since then, our councils, with that unlikely Local Hero Gary Hopkins at the fore, have abandoned incineration altogether and gone for more advanced technology, along with then innovative food waste colections which are both proving themselves well . Gary survived the Evening Post vilification treatment. Lets hope Daniella Radice is equally resilient ].

But SITA now saw a commercial opportunity to burn as much as half the industrial and commercial waste produced in the West of England area. They appealed to the Secretary of State against the South Glos. decision. In 2011 there was a planning inquiry, at which Mr Pickles' Inspector took the SITA side. Pickles duly overturned the local councillors' decision. So SITA got their permission, but, in the absence of the local customers they'd described in their appeal, they still had nothing to give investors the confidence to put up the cash.

Incinerators need an assured flow of waste to burn – so the operators build in contract terms so that their customers must pay dearly for any shortfall in supply. Who cares that that obstructs any new measures to reduce waste or divert materials for recycling? If local authorities, desperate to avoid landfill taxes, commit to paying out £1.4 billion to burn waste by open combustion in an incinerator for 25 years; well, it's a proven if primitive technology, and financiers are keen to put up the capital with such low risks and high prospective profits. That's the theory.

Having had no more luck selling disposal contracts to local businesses than it had with the West of England local authorities, SITA cast its net wider. In west London it found a consortium of 6 underperforming and unambitious boroughs that were still sending high levels of waste to landfill, and were pretty low down the recycling tables. A deal was done. The incinerator would be built at Hallen as that champion of localisation, Pickles, had ruled; the waste to feed it would now come from the bins of Ealing, Brent, Hounslow, Richmond, Harrow, and Hillingdon.

Of the incinerator outputs, some would be the stack emissions, mostly drifting across North Bristol; some would be 'bottom ash'; some would be highly hazardous fly ash. Some of the heat would generate electricity for the grid, but unless neighbouring customers could be found for the bulk of the waste heat, that would just be dissipated to atmosphere.

Even given the deal, the promise of a cast iron long-term contract, and the profits and low risks that go with it, it seems that investors still didn't exactly queue up waving their cheque books.

Enter the Green Investment Bank. Set up about the same time as Pickles was banging on about the virtues of small government and local decision making, the GIB is supposed dip into its £3.8 billion to back 'green' projects in offshore wind, energy efficiency (especially the 'green deal') , or waste reduction/treatment where its “capital, knowledge and reputation make the difference that enables a project to be successfully financed“.

The GIB must be struggling, what with investors pulling out of offshore wind and the controversy over the big energy companies 'taxing' consumers with what Cameron reportedly dismisses as 'green crap'. It's been putting money into such bizarrely ungreen projects as converting Drax from coal to biomass – wood pellets imported from the forest clearance in the USA. Apparently that's a net reduction in local CO2 emissions, so it qualifies.

At Hallen, the GIB has put £20 million into SERC. As their press release put it, “GIB will invest £20 million of the senior debt alongside a lending club of Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and Mizuho Bank. Equity will be provided by SITA UK, Japan's ITOCHU Corporation and Scottish Widows Investment Partnership.”

Thanks to them, and Mr “where there's muck there's brass” Pickles, household waste with plenty of recyclable materials still in it will be rail freighted from London to be burned here, in an area where our more progressive local authories have already found ways to recycle more, to pollute less, and to keep it local.

Happy Christmas.

Every Little Helps

Keeping Money in the City: a local levy on giant supermarkets

“a classic example of trendy politics colliding with reality “ according to Gary Hopkins, but his Evening Post comment was more like a classic case of party point-scoring colliding with reality.  Maybe he feels his role in the LibDem group is being challenged

Gary was dismissing the proposal brought to last Tuesday's council by the Green group – and, on the day, roundly rejected by the other parties .

Had the other councillors accepted it, and if broad support could be shown from other councils and civic groups across the country, it would have strengthened the chances of a request to government to let councils (if they think fit) impose an 8.5% levy on the business rates payable by certain large retailers on their patch – particularly supermarkets. Government could not reject the suggestion out of hand – it must first negotiate with the Local Government Association. All being well, it would ultimately lead to the law makers allowing councils this limited discretion to raise money for public use from some of the most destructive of retailers.

Complicated, that. Clearly too complicated for Gary's LibDems, for Labour, and, of course, for the Tories. Too complicated for the council officers charged with providing an objective report to the council. And far too complicated for the Bristol Post.

Together, they rewrote the story. It became, in their view, a proposal that Bristol should now impose an 8.5% levy on all its big shops. That would send out a message that Bristol is unfriendly to business. It would induce all such shops to abandon their lucrative trade in Bristol. The poor would be then unable to buy cheap food. Even if the shops remained, the poor would pick up the tab at the tills.

Only one small part of this gross distortion did have a rationale of sorts. The council cannot at present distinguish between the 'comparison' retailers like B&Q or Harvey Nichols (not that the poor would find they'd lost much there) and the prime target, the huge and profitable food supermarket businesses.

But anyone who'd looked at the real proposal (and 'Local Works', which had prompted it) would know that legislation would be needed. That's where a distinction between the business types could be written in. It was a non-objection. And the rest was pure invention.

Fortunately, not all councils, or parties, are as blinkered as Bristol's. In Gloucester and in Torbay, it's been the LibDems who are making the running (Gary please note). In Leeds, with an overwhelming Labour majority, a similar proposal was passed with cross-party support. In Liverpool, though, it was Labour who took the supermarkets' side and killed it off

Of course, there's no reason to think that the ill-informed debate at Tuesday's meeting, with councillors voting en bloc along with their parties, reflects public opinion. It doesn't even establish council policy. It's still within the mayor's powers to sound out real public opinion, and if he can show that people would like the option of a levy, he can join other councils in seeking powers from government. That's how the Sustainable Communities Act works – by encouraging initiatives from the grass roots, to complement the usual centralist 'top-down' legislative structures.

But how to show George that Bristolians think councils should be given this power?

Writing to Mayor Ferguson is one option – you can draw on the information on the Local Works pages.

The quickest way, though, is to sign up to Charlie Bolton's petition on the council website.

Playing Politics with Plot 6

It turns out that Bristol's 'strategic transport supremo' (as the LibDems like to call Gary Hopkins) was leading us all up the garden path when he confidently told us that Plot 6, alongside Temple Meads railway station, is set to become Bristol's major transport interchange.

Gary based his optimism on 'pressure' he put on Transport Minister Norman Baker in February. But when I wrote a follow-up (on behalf of the Greens) to the Minister in support of the same thing, the reply revealed just how hollow Gary's statement had been.

Not only is the Transport Minister unable to intervene (the disposal of Plot 6 is driven by Vince Cable's dBIS), but Gary's officers in Bristol City Council couldn't give Network Rail any idea of what a transport hub would entail. So you can see how seriously they've been taking the idea

(more - with loads of references - in this news release)

Council House to Temple Meads - via Damascus

Earlier this month I blogged about the need to safeguard Plot 6, the development site at Temple Meads, before it goes into the fire sale of SWRDA's assets. It encouraged me to put a question about it to Gary Hopkins at Tuesday's council meeting - but his reply was seriously ambiguous, it could have meant anything from a fully integrated multimodal city transport hub to a bus stop outside the SWRDA office. Probably the latter, seeing that BCC officers have been actively opposing any designation of the site for an interchange.

All the more surprising, then, that within 18 hours of that exchange, Gary and I were again dealing with Plot 6, this time in a BBC radio interview. And suddenly Gary sounded really positive about a transport hub.

The details and links to the interview are on a Green Party press release here; possibly the LibDems will be giving their own interpretation. Gary's critics will find it easy to point to weaknesses and ambiguities in what he says (short radio interviews aren't the best place to spell out your plans, or to put them in a readable way), but let's for once give him the benefit of the doubt.

All we need now is a bit more flesh on the plans, and something firm in the council's own policy statements. Not much to ask....

This could be the dawn of a decent transportation system in Bristol. Yes, really.

Babs, Gary, and the Age of Stupid

Barbara Janke was an onlooker at Wednesday's scrutiny commissions meeting where her councillor underlings spent over five hours going over the plans to sell off green spaces, all across the city.

Who knows whether she'd managed to read the 400-page plus documentation, let alone the public statements, but she did hear very clear reports of a flawed consultation, mislaid papers and petitions, expert advice disregarded, Freedom of Information requests unfulfilled, all of it showing that the 'consultation report' is founded on unreliable envidence. Probably the inevitable result of asking a heavily cut-back department to deliver and assess a huge consultation and review of the city's open spaces, way beyond its own resources.

The five hour session was enough to persuade the councillors that a hasty decision to sell the land on such dodgy grounds would be unwise; far better to give it just a bit more time to make sure we get it right. After all, these are final decisions, there's no going back, and there's no rush. So that's what they recommended to the LibDem Cabinet.

The Scrutiny Commissions' appeal was echoed by many others, including even the independent Parks Forum which had until now been 100% behind the sell-off plan (and is being vilified by the Evening Post for it). Add to that the pleas of more councillors, groups like our own Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces and the Neighbourhood Partnership, residents groups and individuals.

To defer a decision on the sales seemed obvious..... Everything to gain, to make sure the eventual decisions are well founded, sustainable, and in keeping with sensible city planning. Anything else would be stupid.

A pity the Cabinet was unanimous in rejecting their advice, and chose the stupid option instead.

Something to do with false pride, the pleasure of exercising power........ or even, possibly, just being stupid?

Strategic Diversions in the Parks

Today's Evening Post publishes some questions emerging from all the protests about the threatened sale of Bristol's green spaces - and how Gary Hopkins, the Cabinet member with the Parks brief, responds. I've added my own comments in italics - plus a bonus Q&A at the end.

Q THERE has been vocal opposition to a quarter of the areas put forward for sale at the very least – is that an acceptable number?

A It's certain there will be changes to the original list that officers came up with.
But just because there are comments doesn't mean there will be changes to individual sites.
How can we address 30 years of neglect without a strategic, sensible action?

* Of course it needs action. The problem is whether the way of funding that action is fair, realistic, or sustainable. I suggest it is none of these.

We will guarantee that every park not sold off will be protected for the next 20 years.

* What's so special about that promise? Isn't it what councils are supposed to do anyway?

Q Is it fair to give money raised from selling land in one part of the city to another area that might not lose any green space?

A The whole point of the strategy, which all parties signed up for, is that there should be minimum standards people should be able to expect for their green spaces.

* As Glenn Vowles has pointed out (and Gary Hopkins himself admitted at Stockwood) the Green Party opposed the funding method from the start. No one listened though.

It would be ludicrous to sell off land where there is a deficit of green spaces.

* Setting up an aunt sally just to knock it down again. No-one's suggested any such thing

Q Should money be going to improve parks in relatively wealthy areas like Clifton and Henleaze, which won't lose out on any green spaces?

A What about areas like Easton and Lawrence Weston, which have a shortage of open space? Would it be fair to say you should deprive people of Easton of the parks they need?

* A politician blatantly avoiding a question. The general cash flow will be from the less wealthy outer wards of Bristol into the centre - and into the general council pot.

The argument that you can't sell off land because you're spending the money elsewhere in the city is not a particularly strong argument. Improvements cost money.

* The fact remains that many poorer communities, where green space is one of the main amenities, will lose out. That makes it a stronger argument than it would otherwise have been!

Some people might come up and say we don't want anything sold off up here but then say we would quite like those improvements.

* It's not unreasonable for people to expect that children will have play space near their homes, and would look to the council to provide it in the course of time. That doesn't have to mean raising cash by selling valued land, then putting (some of) the proceeds into buying new swings.

In some areas there wasn't any local group interested in that land, so we have stirred up interest.

* A bit like saying the blitz was a good thing because it brought people together.....

Q Instead of selling off green spaces to raise money for improvements, why not spend section 106 money, raised from developers who submit major planning applications?

A We know it's not enough. It's a quarter of what's required. There are four funding sources – land sales, section 106, council money and grants. The grants are easier to come by when there is a strategy showing what you want.

*Here in Stockwood, the major improvements aren't being funded by the Parks Strategy sales, but by old Sec 106 money. Can't that happen elsewhere?

Q The council says it wants to sell the green spaces to help fund an £87 million programme of improvements to other green spaces in Bristol. How many of the 62 sites will have to be sold to raise the £63m the council says it needs to fund improvements?

A We can't say how many, it depends on the sizes of the areas and other factors.

This is a 20-year strategy, so we're not talking about selling off 15 to 20 spaces now.

*The Strategy gave ball-park figures of £90 million, raised by the sale of 90 acres, providing £60 million to spend on parks improvements and maintenence over twenty years. What happens after that is anybody's guess. That was always the real target - not some notional mapping of those land assets considered to be of 'low community value'. It follows that market value will determine which sites are put up for sale.

It's not likely any of these will be sold in the next few years.
The situation has always been that land has been sold off on a piecemeal basis but the money has not gone back into parks.

* Of course every council will buy and sell land in order to function (some might even give it away if there's a rich tax exile wants it). In this case, of course, only 70% goes back into the parks, and some of that is merely for maintenance.

Q Why not just sell off brown field sites instead of building on green spaces?

A That's what the site allocation plan is for. The money from those will go back into the council coffers, and some of the money for the green spaces plan will come from the council.

* Not entirely true. The site allocations document is about future land use, whether by the council or anyone else.
Still, this simply suggests that the parks can't expect anything much in future from general council funds, even though they're a council service. We've been conned.
How do other councils find the money to provide and maintain parks? Bet they don't use the Bristol method....

Q The council is consulting on two separate documents at the same time – the area green space plan and the site allocation document – which confused some residents. Should the consultations have run separately?

A No. They are two separate processes but there are connections between them because both involve council use of land. If responses have been sent to the wrong department that's not a problem.

* AGREE!

Q What happens when the consultation comes to an end?

A A list will come out in December of the sites that are going to be sold off.

* Verdict first, evidence afterwards.

[Here's one further question, not put in the Evening Post:]

Q. What if there is insufficient 'low value' marginal land available once the planning process has been concluded?

A. The council will review the ambitions of the strategy and consider alternative funding sources. (At least, that's what it says on p42 of the Parks and Green Space Strategy. Looks like Hopkins and Co have unilaterally ditched that part of the deal, though!)

Those Recycling Questions Answered.

Gary Hopkins has given written reassurances that the 'waste' we put out for recycling really does get recycled. Though I have to say that he was pretty ungracious about telling me!

His full answers to the questions I submitted from the 10th June Cabinet meeting are here

Recycling Assurances

I hope that puts Gea's fears out of the way - for Bristol, at least.

I have no wish to reduce confidence in recycling, I want it to improve as a percentage of waste (but ideally decrease in absolute terms). Gary's kneejerk confrontational style led him to make some false claims in his preamble, but fortunately, that shouldn't prejudice confidence in the rest of the answers, as they will have been written by officers, not by Gary. The style's a giveaway!

Bristol's Other Railway Path - 1

[This is the one that runs south through Stockwood along the Sturminster valley, following the route of the old Radstock line. Part of NCN route 3, which, if you stay with it long enough, will take you to Lands End.]

The rumoured sale of some of the green wooded space lying between the Whitchurch Railway path and Hazelbury Road raises questions about the council's observing its own rules for land disposal, as laid down in its Parks and Green Spaces Strategy which was adopted in February 2008. Did they really do it without the "extensive local consultation, research and observation" we were promised?

They certainly tried it with land alongside that other railway path (the one everyone talks about, up past the chocolate factory.) But after that little scandal was exposed, could it happen here, quietly, while the Area Green Space Plan is still being drafted?

It's enough to prompt questions in the council meeting. I've tabled some for Gary Hopkins to answer on the 15th:

2. Is the ribbon of green space (mapped in green and brown) in Stockwood alongside the Whitchurch Railway Path (National Cycle Network Route 3) 
a) a part of the city Parks land holding? and
b) subject to the P&GSS ?

3. Is any part of it currently up for sale, in the process of being sold, or recently sold? (if so, a map would be helpful)

4. Has any such land been fully assessed before sale as prescribed in the P&GSS (p36)?

Paying for the Parks

It's just over a year since the council adopted its Parks and Green Space Strategy, a plan to restore Bristol's parks to something to be proud of. Except, of course, those parks and green spaces that get sold off to pay for the rest.

We're more than a little nervous about this in the south east corner of the city - after all, we've got 94 square metres apiece to gambol about in, whereas residents of more deprived areas - like Henleaze and Redland - have to wedge themselves into as little 4 sq. m. Always conscious of equality issues, the Strategy wants to redress the balance, and has set quantity standards for each neighbourhood.

It could be achieved by moving a load of people from those northern inner suburbs out here into the fresh air. We've the land to build them new homes, away from the overcrowding and pollution of the city. Like the Sally Army sending the huddled masses out to the colonies. Then, the places where they used to live could be returned to nature, for the enjoyment of those who remain. Possibly that was the centralist, socialist Labour administration's plan. Let's be realistic, though; the libertarian LibDems probably won't go for it.

So it's a problem, and it's made worse by the recession. The £90 million quid that was to be raised by selling 'low value' land looks like a joke now. Does it mean they'll have to up the original estimate of 90 acres of public open space to be sold off to developers?

In search of the truth, I've put down a question for our new Chief Parkie, Gary Hopkins, to answer at the Cabinet meeting next Thursday. It asks if the Strategy will be reviewed in the light of plummetting land values, who'll be involved, and when they'll tell Joe Public what they're up to.