Board Witless.

Dear Neighbourhood Partnerships Business Support Team

You've been asking Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces (FoSOS) what's happening about the community notice board you generously paid for.   You know the sort of thing......  nothing fancy, but good enough to do the job.

Yes, it seems unbelievable that a year has passed since everything was in place, ready to go.  During those same months, the Arena has moved on apace, the South Bristol Link has been turned from green belt meadows into a sea of mud ready to link up with the emerging Ashton Vale to Temple Meads metrobus. The BearPit is being transformed . Bristol is certainly looking different.

But Stockwood - apart from a fire in a tattoo parlour - looks exactly the same.  

If all had gone well, you'd now be seeing our notice board in the middle of this picture, and FoSOS and a load of other local organisations, not least the Neighbourhood Partnership itself, would be putting it to good use.  You might even see a council candidate or two posing in front of it.

The empty space is not the fault of FoSOS. Sure, it was FoSOS that researched and drafted the bid after a couple of the council's 'arms length' partners had promised, then failed, to do it, and FoSOS who got endorsements from a load of other community groups who'll benefit - while our councillors sat on their hands. It was FoSOS that agreed to act as fundholders. That, in spite of the last time FoSOS 'fund held ' on behalf of a community project, the council managed not only to lose the cheque returning the unspent money, but to suggested that FoSOS had misappropriated it. Remember?

Anyway, we finally got there, cash in hand, and on the point of placing the order for the board. Just one problem..... it turned out that the city council are the only people permitted to embed it in the pavement, and they're much too busy with the big vanity projects to bother with a piddling little notice board to tell people what's happening in our not-very-important neck of the woods.

Once that little snag became clear, FoSOS took up a request to organise the work itself, using other council-approved contractors. But they weren't interested in the job..

So we came up with another scheme. Abandoning the preferred plan for a conventional post-mounted notice board, we opted for second best. Another kind of board could be bolted to the masonry walls of the raised flowerbeds alongside the original site. Fixing this one would be no problem – local people would volunteer their skills and labour for free (just as well, because a more expensive board would have to be bought). We were given the OK to go ahead.

After a bit of negotiation with the suppliers – they'd wanted the cash up front, but we preferred half now, half on delivery – the order was finally placed and our cheque for half the cost was sent off. Yippee.

BUT – then we got the message from the council. We mustn't install it ourselves. The flowerbeds are, it turns out, the property, and responsibility, of the Highways department. They, and only they, can fix the notice boards. And only when they have the time, and are paid the money.

So the order, and the manufacture of the boards, has had to go on hold yet again. There's not enough money left to pay the Highways dept charge for doing the job.

So there's still – three years after being 'officially' proposed – no public notice board in Stockwood.

Thank you BCC. Your monitoring form is being be returned, completed as requested.

Note:  Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces has NOT been asked to endorse this post!

Neighbourhood Partnerships in partnership

A good day at Circomedia looking at ways to make Neighbourhood Partnerships work better.  Plenty of NP members and councillors there - Labour Green and Tory.  For the Stockwood/Hengrove partnership, there were two of us Stockwood residents, but no sign of any of these wards' councillors.  Pity.

Clearly some Partnerships are already very proactive and forward-looking, and it's intended to expand the role of NPs later this year (a cynic might think we can do little more at present than decide which road repairs won't get done - and get the blame for it!)  So there's hope even for NPs like ours that rarely - if ever - stretch beyond the bread-and-butter workload prescribed by officers.

To work, though, it's got to attract a wider range of residents, not just the narrow demographic broken down by age and sex that we saw today and we see at NP meetings.  And can it break free from the local authority stranglehold by a bit of 'arms-length' creativity, or with urban parish councils?   Though even with that independence, a top-down austerity agenda will emasculate them from the start.

Little local difficulties

For most of us, this was the first sighting of The Man from Stoke Bishop in Hengrove. At centre stage, too, as it turned out to be his turn to chair the Neighbourhood Partnership meeting on Wednesday.

It didn't start well. After inviting the other councillors to introduce themselves to those residents who'd bothered to turn up in the lecture hall of the Oasis Academy, Mike Frost took his own turn.... “I'm Councillor Mike Frost, the newly elected UKIP councillor for Hengrove....” To add a bit of emphasis, he then asked those present to raise their hands if they'd voted for him – and looked a bit crestfallen at the minimalist response. Evidently UKIP voters are rare among those who actually take part in local democracy.

It could only get better after that embarrassing intro, and it did, mostly because Cllr Frost generally deferred to the more experienced officers who really run the show in these parts.

There were a couple more fireworks in the box, though.

The threat of a new bus stop

Not just any old bus stop. This one, proposed for Fortfield Road, will not merely inconvenience those living nearby. Peeping toms (well, you know what bus passengers are like) will threaten privacy, walls will collapse under their weight, vandalism and rowdyism will be rife, road accidents will rocket, and civilisation as we know it will come to an abrupt end. ( Somehow Stockwood Pete hadn't realised this when he blogged about it over a year ago.)

Most of the residents present had come simply to alert us to this threat, so that we could act now to make sure it doesn't happen. And the newly elected UKIP councillor for Hengrove made no secret whose side he was on. He brought the topic straight to the top of the agenda from its lowly spot in 'Any Other Business'

The objectors were quickly reassured that the whole issue will be revisited, this time with extensive consultation through a couple of widely advertised drop-in sessions. That wasn't enough for the objectors, though. After they'd offered some pretty broad ranging contributions from the floor, the newly elected UKIP councillor for Hengrove closed the discussion and moved to the next agenda item. Cue a mass exodus by most of the objectors, loudly complaining they'd not been listened to. The newly elected UKIP councillor for Hengrove looked perplexed. You could tell he's not been around for long.

The threat of a public forum

It was Stockwood Pete who lit the blue touch paper on the second firework. And did he really, as Stockwood Cllr Jay Jethwa claimed, twist her words? Or was he untwisting them when he said that at the last NP she'd rejected suggestions (broadly supported by the Hengrove councillors and most others present) to open up a new dialogue between councillors and residents. Whichever was true, neither was mentioned in the draft Minutes, so they could not be a true record.

Stockwood has long stood out as a ward where the councillors take pains avoid any kind of public forum where they can be held to account. And this new threat to their cosy position was a suggestion, put to the last NP meeting, that “we have a spot in the ward forum meetings...... in which councillors can report back on their activities and deal with any related questions from the floor?”

Whatever the truth of how she responded at the last meeting, this time Cllr Jethwa was unequivocal. She has NOT turned down the suggestion, and she told us so.

So maybe.... just maybe.... our next ward forum might see our Stockwood councillors tell us for the first time what they get up to at City Hall. They might even let us ask them about it. Watch this space.

Election Fever grips Stockwood

Yes, there's are elections coming up.  Three of them.  I'm a candidate in one.

But this time it's not in hope of representing Stockwood on the council, let alone becoming a Euro-MP. This one's for the ultimate in localisation, the Hengrove Stockwood and Whitchurch Neighbourhood Partnership.

Up to four residents can be elected, with voting open to all who live in the ward. Last chance to vote will be on the afternoon of Thursday 29^th May at the Library (2.30 till 4), but the ballot box appears before that at the Ward Forum (Christ the Servant church, 7 till 8 on Thursday 8^th May). That one's a bit special, because we'll also see whether our two city councillors will, for the first time ever, take up the challenge to 'report back' to residents on their activities at City Hall

There's more information (and probably nomination papers) at the Library, or online here

Meanwhile, here's my candidate's Statement. The electoral suicide note is at the end!

As a Stockwood resident of ten years standing, I joined the Neighbourhood Partnership when it was created, initially representing Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces, later as a 'resident' member. In both roles I think I have influenced the Partnership for the better, though I believe there's still plenty of room for improvement. Slowly (too slowly), the NP is moving toward being more democratic, more representative, and more influential, but it needs members who are ready to challenge the status quo as I have done in the past.

I'm proud to say that I've taken a significant part in most NP backed initiatives, not least establishing priorities on new open space amenities, (including suggesting the seats on the Showering Road path and the new bridge across the Saltwell Valley brook), taking part in community litter-picks, making the Stockwood Local Food Festival happen, and bringing the outdoor table tennis table to the shopping square. I've had a part, too, in proposing and improving public transport services. If re-elected, I aim to continue on the same lines. One priority is getting a community notice board at the shops.

I bring a generally 'green' approach to the Partnership. So (boy racers please note) if the Partnership is asked to take a view on the ward's speed limits being brought down to 20mph, I shall argue that greater safety and lower noise pollution outweigh any journey time losses.

A sudden outbreak of democracy. Seize it!

The slow and avoidable death of the 'HandS ON' local e-forum (until recently linked from this blog) reflected much that was bad about NP14 – the Neighbourhood Partnership for Hengrove and Stockwood. What should have been a lively forum of ideas and news – and of the work of the Partnership – was shunned from the start by ward councillors and by officers - the very people who had agreed to fund it and were key to making it work. Unsurprisingly, given that lack of support, it never took off. For the vast majority of local people, the Neighbourhood Partnership remains even more obscure and irrelevant than the council election ballot box.

That seemed to suit the councillors. There's enough to do already – why add to it with an interactive forum giving instant access to everyone with a web connection ? No, best stick with the tried and tested 'democratic' fig-leaf of quarterly meetings of the self-appointed Neighbourhood Partnership. And the occasional promotional pre-election ward newsletter. Democracy in inaction.

BUT – there have been stirrings..... Of course, it would never be fully attributed to MrGrouchy, but there is the prospect of change in NP14.

At its next meeting – (24th June, 7pm, Christ Church, Petherton Road) – the resident partners for the coming year will be elected. Yes, ELECTED. Really.  By all present.

The details are on the official (and very one way) NP website at http://www.bristolpartnership.org/neighbourhood-partnerships/hengrove-a-stockwood. Best introduction for would-be partners is in the invitation letter:

The Hengrove & Stockwood Neighbourhood Partnership (NP) is a body that aims to improve the quality of life for residents living in the area. Comprising local councillors, resident reps and officers from Bristol City Council, and other agencies, it aims to find local solutions to local problems. This is an exciting time for NPs. The whole process is currently undergoing a review, which may result in substantially increased responsibilities and decision-making powers for NPs. The mayor has expressed his support for increasing the role of NPs in communities.

If you wish to stand for election to be a resident rep on the NP, please read the attached documentation.

If you are interested in either standing yourself or nominating another resident (who you should check is willing to stand), you are invited to complete the attached forms.

Enclosed you will find:

• Details of the election process we will be following
• A nomination form, which needs to be completed and returned by 12.00pm Monday 17th June 2013
• A copy of the Neighbourhood Partnership Terms of Reference
• Information on Neighbourhood Partnerships

All elected reps are expected to accept the following responsibilities:

• You will need to attend Neighbourhood Partnership meetings on a quarterly basis.
• You will need to take part in feeding back outcomes to the Neighbourhood Partnership meetings and other meetings/groups with which you may be involved within your community.
• You will need to make a declaration of interest when joining the Neighbourhood Partnership and at any time during the term of service should your situation change.
• You will be expected to take an active role in other working groups, take part in an induction and other training and development as and when required.

The rest of the papers – including the nomination form – can be downloaded from the same site. There's not long to do it, though. Note the June 17 deadline.

NP14 Inaction

For Mr Grouchy, the last couple of months have not been good. Every day he wakes anticipating the enlightenment promised by his local councillors. Every night he goes to bed disappointed.

It started when Mr Grouchy used the 'public forum' in that cradle of local democracy, the Neighbourhood Partnership, to raise matters that had been ruled off the formal agenda. The chair, local Tory councillor Jay Jethwa, had dismissed it, overriding protests from others present, to ban all discussion. 

Since then, it's been removed from official view; even the title “Something Rotten in the State of NP14” has been minuted as “Hengrove and Stockwood N P”. But there was a silver lining..... a written response was promised. Mr Grouchy's been waiting for that for nine weeks now.

An email reminder to the four councillors got no response. A direct request to Jay's fellow ward councillor, David Morris brought only the grudging assurance... 'you'll get an answer'. And at the Ward Forum, it was the same... Cllr. Jethwa conceded that she's still drafting a response, but couldn't say when it might be delivered. As a Christmas present? A new year's gift?   Sorry, don't know...... Switching into jobsworth mode, she reminded Mr Grouchy that there's no deadline for a response.

So even now, no-one's so much as acknowledged that the 'Partners' in this Partnership have any right to put items on the NP14 agenda, as other NPs do. No-one's even conceded that it would be common courtesy if councillors offered an explanation when they override the majority view and the decision making guidelines. Instead, the criticisms from Mr Grouchy and friends are dismissed as being negative, disruptive, or even bullying.

Mr Grouchy has a sneaking suspicion that the Hengrove and Stockwood councillors see the Neighbourhood Partnership as an irrelevant irritant – and why should they want to make it any more irritating by allowing the partner/residents to play a real part?

Is it time for Grouchy and co. join the many residents who've already given up on NP14 ? 

Maybe....  it would take a superhero to restore democracy to Hengrove and Stockwood.

Further Downhill in NP14

The grouch-index rose several more points at this evening's quarterly meeting of the Neighbourhood 'Partnership' . That's the one where the big decisions are made.

Some big, controversial, and expensive issues – the Hengrove public arts project – dominated the agenda. Even so, there was a low turnout from residents (with less than half the resident 'partners' bothering to turn up), plus officers and the all-powerful committee of councillors. It was one of them, Jay Jethwa, who took the chair.

It didn't start well for Mr Grouchy when he asked why the Minutes don't get published in the promised six-days, but instead only come out (and then in skeletal form) after two or more months. The question was dismissed as irrelevant. He was even told that people who'd been at the meeting would know what had happened.

After more in the same vein, Mr Grouchy's big chance came when his public forum statement came up. He described the contemptuous way the Committee treats any initiative or opinion from the resident 'partners', offering several illustrations. He gave more examples of the several ways that officers and councillors get unwelcome issues kicked irretrievably into the long grass. He suggested that many resident 'partners' are getting, or have already got, so thoroughly pissed off with the whole charade that they've ceased to take any part. (The Chair intervened here, with the odd claim that it was irrelevant to how the neighbourhood partnership functions)

More positively – or maybe it was a memory lapse – Mr G didn't try to embarrass the committee by mentioning that this year's NP14 AGM had passed without any invitation to join or nominate, any nomination process, any check that people still wanted to be 'partners', or any vote – the previous membership was simply rubber-stamped.! 
Not did he mention that the agenda - which became a rule book - for this evening's meeting had been set by a small panel, sitting under another name, to which at least two 'resident' members had been told they need not come.    
And in more generous spirit, Mr Grouchy went on to offer a number of simple, practical things that could be done there and then to start putting things right.

The reaction of the committee was self-evidently pre-planned. Here was something else that needed kicking out of sight into the long grass.

Their answer....  the Committee will write to Mr Grouchy.    Next business.

Several resident partners' voices were raised to say that there should be discussion. The Chair would have none of it. She and officers were asked about a complaints procedure. Answer came there none.    Next business.

Mr Grouchy and one or two others left very soon afterwards, having remembered that there's a better life to be had out there. Looks like he, and they, will have to wait a couple of months to learn the official version of what happened.

….........................

Note to mayoral candidates: HELP! Where do you stand?
.............................
[added 24/10/12]

One week later, and little has happened. The promised response to Mr Grouchy from the councillor/committee remains somewhere in the long grass. 

There's been more reactions from other current and ex members of the NP, all expressing the same rejection of the way things are run in NP14. 

And now there's an officer initiative to set up a 'development meeting' (whatever that is) in response to concerns. Time, purpose, and invitation list t.b.a.   We'll see......

[added 1/11/12]

Another week later, and Mr Grouchy's still waiting for the promised response to his statement.  And the grass keeps on growing...

[added 8/11/12]   Yawn.....   where's that lawnmower?

[added 22/11/12]   .............zzzzz.......

[added 21/1/13]   It's arrived, three months and a day after being promised!   Jay Jethwa's 'answers', on behalf of the four Neighbourhood councillors, are reposted onto the HandS ON website here.    
Mr Grouchy doesn't think much of them.

There is something rotten in the state of NP14

Mr Grouchy's at it again......

Public Forum Statement to Hengrove & Stockwood Neighbourhood Partnership, 17 October 2012

There is something rotten in the state of NP14

This Partnership is far from being either democratic or a Partnership. It carries a thin veneer of both; but there is nothing underneath.

There is an urgent need to put that right, but there is no sign of any interest from the committee or administration in making it happen.
…..........................................................

Below are just three examples of recent continuing failings. All of them demonstrate the failure of the Partnership to allow its members to initiate debate and decision making, and how matters are shunted out of sight and off any record, if that is what the Committee and administrators want.

Town Green recommendations?

Late last year, the suggestion was raised that we should consider trying to securing our best green spaces against being for sold off, by getting the legal protection of Town Green status. This would involve: first, a decision in principle by the Partnership; second, consideration of which (if any) spaces would benefit; third, an application to the registration authority (the council) for voluntary registration; and fourth, a decision by the council. It's a long process, and in our January meeting we agreed at least to prepare the ground for the first step. Since then, nothing has been done to progress it, and it's drifted off the agenda despite requests it should be included.

Well-being Grant decisions

This is the controversy over how we decide which well-being grants deserve public funding. We thought we had it sorted, setting yardsticks to help us judge the quality of the bids, and establishing a panel to look at them in depth. But it was seriously tested at our most recent meeting (June) when the two councillors present overturned, without any explanation, a recommendation from the panel.

So for this meeting I asked for an item on this agenda under wellbeing (Item 6), that we should consider asking the councillor/committee to promise that, if in the future they should reject the advice of the panel, they should explain themselves. I thought it a very reasonable request that they should do us this courtesy; but as the only resident member present at the agenda-setting meeting, I was outnumbered four to one with an absolute refusal to even allow it to be raised on the agenda. So that one's been also kicked into the long grass without getting anywhere near any public debate

The Benches

Equally deep in the long grass is the third example. It's a small deal, but an important one both for this Partnership and for the less athletic people who attempt the steep path between lower and upper Stockwood to reach the main central amenities. It just involves installing a couple of cheap benches alongside the path. First proposed early in 2011, by June 2012 it had slowly progressed, and was already listed as one of our agreed priorities for green space improvements. That led to my request that the June NP meeting could consider giving it top priority as money becomes available, as its high benefits and low costs are self-evident. But we were told it could not be discussed; it wasn't on the agenda. So instead of a brief discussion and decision, it was referred back to our Environment Sub-Committee.

That committee met and agreed that it would be proper to give this particular proposal the priority it deserves. So you might expect it to be a recommendation for this full meeting (as a spending decision it must be made by councillors at a full NP meeting). It's not even on the agenda, despite a request being put at the Agenda setting meeting.

…..........................................................

Given these three examples (and there are more, though virtually none of it is reflected in the record of the meetings) this evening's meeting will understand why to some of us the NP seems more concerned with frustrating progress than with making it; much more concerned with rubberstamping pre-selected 'one-choice' decisions than with allowing any real new input from local people.

Right now, I'd like to propose

1.  that the three items above should be considered today. They've been taken through every conceivable procedural hoop already, and proper requests have been made to put them on the agenda.
2.  that meetings should be set up to discuss, report, and make recommendations based on the recent Voscur study of the way Bristol's 'Partnerships' are functioning, and to bring proposals to the next NP meeting. 
3. that this statement should be included in the on-line minutes of this meeting, there being no data protection issues involved.   

reluctantly submitted by
Pete Goodwin, current member of the Hengrove and Stockwood Neighbourhood Partnership.
15.10. 2012.
___________________________
(added 16/10/12)
a second, quite independent, statement on similar themes has been posted on the 'HandS ON' thread      "Public Forum Statements - read them here if nowhere else!"  . Mr. Grouchy is not alone.

Project (mis)Management

This is Hollway Road, Stockwood, as it appears on Google's Streetview. Inevitably, it's not quite up-to-the minute, in fact it must be all of a couple of years old. It still shows Langton Court, the council's sheltered flat complex that has since been demolished.

A lot happened in those two years. With Cabinet agreement secured, the tenants were found alternative places to live, the buildings were razed, and in their place Housing 21 have built this VSH (very sheltered housing) complex. It's called Bluebell Gardens, and the first occupants are already in. Not bad going, in a recession!

This is Hollway Road from the same place today:

Spanning the same period, there was another, much smaller scale, bid to improve things for Stockwood's less athletic community. It didn't need anyone to be rehoused, no new buildings, no land transfers, no legal work, no planning permissions. Just a couple of simple benches like this.

They were to be placed beside the hillside path that provides the main pedestrian link between the lower and upper parts of Stockwood; just the job for people going up to the shops and library, or down to the school. Fairly steep, though; and the only way to take a breather is to get down on the grass. 

Here's what the path looked like while Langton Court was still up and running in 2010.

And here's what it looks like now.

No change there, then.

The bench project quickly became mired in a Neighbourhood Partnership process that isn't fit for purpose. There's no problem in principle, everyone agrees that these benches would be just the job; a few hundred quid very well spent, and ticking all the right boxes. We might have had them now if we'd let them stay in the 'wellbeing' lists' – after all, if Tory councillors can gift an over-55's group a Christmas meal and, later, a coach trip at public expense, anything is possible. But instead we played fair, switching the benches to be judged alongside other possible open space improvements, and now they can't escape that long, long process. Requests to get the Partnership to give them priority are rebuffed, even after the NPs own Environmental Panel recommended it; the question cannot even be put on the Agenda. 

The situation is ludicrous – but NP managers seem totally disinterested.

Meanwhile, locals will still have to struggle non-stop up the hill, or use a car. Or buy into the spanking new Bluebell Gardens, which somehow got built without local authority red tape getting in the way.

Stockwood and Hengrove's next NP meeting, the first since June, is on Wednesday 17^th October at Counterslip Church on Wells Road. Starts 6.30, business from 7pm. Observers welcome, but participation will, on past records, be strictly controlled!

Free coach trip at public expense. Just join 'Senior Moments'

A Stockwood older peoples' group is to get a coach outing at public expense, at the insistence of Stockwood councillors David Morris and Jay Jethwa. 

A £500 chunk of the ward's 'wellbeing' fund will be used to pay for the trip by 'Senior Moments', the over-50s group that meets each month in the library.

The decision was driven through, despite protests from Partnership members, at this evening's meeting of the Hengrove and Stockwood Neighbourhood Partnership.

The Wellbeing fund is a fixed sum allocated to each partnership from central city council funds. Organisations can ask for grants from it ; every request for a grant is first closely examined by a subcommittee of Partnership members, using agreed guidelines to prioritise the best ones, and making recommendations to help the councillors decide which ones to accept.

Neither of the Stockwood councillors had been at the subcommittee meeting and only one, David Morris, was at the NP meeting. The other, Jay Jethwa, had already made it known that she'd like to see the money spent on the outing – but she wasn't there to vote. 

The consensus of the subcommittee, and the near-consensus of the Partnership, was that coach outings are not what the wellbeing money is for. 

The only other councillor present this evening, Sylvia Doubell of Hengrove, deferred to Cllr. Morris's judgement as it's ''Stockwood money” that's being spent. And he rallied in support of his absent colleague, and voted the £500 away.

So.... if you fancy a summer outing and you're over 50, get yourself up to the Library on the third Wednesday of the month, 10.30am. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. You'll probably find that 'Senior Moments' will provide good company for your free trip out.

And while everything around you is being cut back with the enthusiastic support of our Tory councillors, you can at least benefit from their utter inconsistency and their contempt for the concept of 'partnership'.   And wonder why you get the freebie and others will go without.

UPDATE:  1st October 2012.
A request goes in from an NP member  (Stockwood Pete himself) to get an item on the next NP agenda to try to stop this sort of thing happening again.   The idea is to invite the Partnership to suggest that councillors should give us an explanation if they choose to overturn a 'well-being' recommendation.   Councillors can give that undertaking, or not, as they choose - but it will be on record.
Officers and councillors flatly refuse to allow it on the agenda.   Under what powers is not clear.  

Police Raids in South Bristol

There's a problem in parts of South Bristol.   Bikers tearing up the green spaces - sometimes on stolen bikes, sometimes not.  Strictly, policing parkland isn't down to the police, but if they don't tackle the problem no-one will.

Until now, they've been finding the cash (from the Parks budget, I think) to pay officers to put in extra hours to cover the task, and the results have been good, things are pretty well under control.   Except....  guess what; cutbacks, austerity, the money's no longer available.

So the helmet's being passed round.  It only needs about £500 to keep the problem down in each ward, at least for a while, so that's what the police are asking for. The Parks can't afford the keepers who should do it, and they can't now afford to pay the police.  So it's the Neighbourhood Partnerships' piggy-banks that are being raided to keep the service going.  In particular, their 'well-being' funds.

Usually, to get money from the well-being fund, each bid must be carefully documented, tested against different criteria and prioritised among other rival bids.

Not this one, though.  According to NP minutes, Insp Salmon first introduced the idea at the Filwood, Knowle and Windmill Hill NP on 10th January.  They thought about it...  and agreed to write to the other S. Bristol NP's suggesting we all chip in £500 per ward.

On the strength of that, the same request was raised on 23rd January in the Brislington NP, where a compliant Committee readily volunteered to pay the police overtime out of their well-being fund.

The next evening it was our turn in Hengrove and Stockwood, where the issue was sprung on us without notice, and we were told that other NPs in S. Bristol had already agreed.  There was general agreement that 'Operation Biker' is a worthwhile service, but it was questioned whether the well-being fund is the right and proper source of the cash. The Committee brushed over any doubts. Councillors Doubell and Clark proposed payment from the well-being funds, and fellow-councillors agreed.

So there's a snap decision, short cutting all the usual requirements of a well-being bid, that will skim £1,000 off the money available for community projects in Hengrove and Stockwood. All the councillors seem to be colluding in this abuse of process.  The same appears to have happened in Bris.

Next on Inspector Salmon's fundraising tour will be Dundry View, which meets on March 19th.  When the meeting papers are published, it will be interesting to see whether the Operation Biker bid has been through the usual assessment channels, or has even been mentioned in the agenda and reports.  After all, there's been plenty of time.

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

Neighbourhood Partnerships? or Councillors holding court?

The city council's decision to delegate the controversial green space sales to 'neighbourhood' level will thrust these emergent local democratic structures into a very public spotlight.   Will they deliver?  In this corner of the city, the indications aren't good.

Even at the council meeting, Cllr Gus Hoyt (Green) had to correct the euphoric Labour speakers with a reminder that they'd passed the big decisions not to the people, but to the Neighbourhood Committees.  That is, to the four or six councillors for those wards where sales will be considered.   How those councillors pick which (if any) sites to sell will be their own responsibility.  As will the converse - which sites to retain, thus losing a share of whatever income they might have produced to improve what's left.

In Hengrove and Stockwood, there's no sign that the residents will be involved to any degree.   My own attempt to start a dialogue between councillors, partnership members, and residents, fell at the first hurdle at the 'Stockwood Ward Forum' a couple of weeks ago.   There's no rush, said our councillor, we don't yet know the details, and we already know what our electors think.   No need to be alarmed that the government wants to force councils to sell everything in sight.  Calm down, dear, don't worry, we'll tell the people about it in our Conservative ward newsletter.

Sadly, our Stockwood councillors keep well away from 'open access' fora - whether third party public meetings, like election hustings, or on-line discussions (including even the Neighbourhood Partnership's own 'HandS ON' forum).  Party-funded ward newsletters offer a much more tightly controlled medium to set the agenda, the words, and the response.

But while Stockwood has seven sites on the parks hit list, our Hengrove partners have none, not since a group of residents succeeded in getting Brierley Leaze off the list by forcing a reluctant council to admit it met all the criteria for a Town Green.   So Hengrove has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from Stockwood's land being sold for development, and their two councillors – one LibDem, one Labour - must be aware of that.   And they form half the Neighbourhood Committee, alongside our two Tory conservative councillors. 

Each Partnership meets four times a year for the Neighbourhood Committee to make formal spending decisions.   In practice, the agendas are long and there's no time for in-depth discussion, let alone consensus building at the 90-minute meeting, especially on complex site-by-site issues such as this.   We're assured that land sales won't be rushed into the January meeting.   The next ones are in March and then nothing till June.

So for now, it looks like any decision will be down to four councillors, with little or no reference to the park users or, indeed, to anyone who might put a case for development. They will, of course, take representations from anyone who cares to make them, including their close local advisers and their 'party line'. But the Neighbourhood Partnerships, set up for the purpose, look like being excluded from the discussions. 

There will be no attempt at the tricky task of building a popular consensus. Leave that sort of radicalism to the College Green Occupiers.

Power to the People?

Tuesday's council meeting handed a new and challenging responsibility to the city's fourteen Neighbourhood Partnerships - they're to decide on the thorny issue of selling off some local green spaces for development.  Well, not the Partnerships themselves - it's actually down to the ward councillors who sit within the Partnerships as 'Neighbourhood Committees'.

The word is was (see note below) that they're to reach a decision by the end of January.  They'll also be offered incentives to sell as much as possible - because the more they sell, the greater proportion that comes back to improve the land that's left.



This is where I get parochial; I'll stick with what I know (and the Cabinet and central administration clearly don't) - the threatened open spaces of Stockwood.  Here, seven spaces are on the target list:
Burnbush Close (bus terminus field)
Ladman Road (turning circle)
Ladman Road/Bagnell Road
Gillebank Close (pictured above)
Craydon Road Triangle
Hazlebury Road/railway path
Sturminster Close

As I told the council on Tuesday, only one of the seven could possibly be described as a 'backland' site, such as they love to describe as 'low value'.  None of them has significant antisocial behaviour problems.   Most are well used by the public, and with a little work all of them could be. 

The purpose of delegating the decision to local councillors is to allow local people, who know the sites best, to get involved.  But in practice the younger NP's (like ours covering Hengrove and Stockwood) haven't so far excited a lot of interest from residents in general. 

I'll try using this blog to point to where the local information is and where to join the discussion - on and offline.  Starting with the under-used 'HandS ON' forum where the stage is set to host comments on the Stockwood and Hengrove site sales.  If you're a Stockwood or Hengrove resident, please use it.
 
Note, 24/11/11. The word now is that there will be a little longer allowed for the NP's to reach decisions. In Stockwood that means it's more likely to reach decision time in the April round of NP meetings. It still isn't long, of course. So it was all the more disappointing that at tonight's Stockwood Forum, neither the ward councillor nor the officers showed much interest in launching any kind of dialogue with the residents about it. Power to the people? Huh!

The Big Save Our Green Spaces Debate

Having got twice as many signatures as were needed, the Big Save Our Parks petition will be discussed at the full council meeting next Tuesday evening. The petitioners say that
"Neighbourhood Partnerships should decide on any green space disposals in their area – making sure local people are involved in the decision making, unlike the decisions taken so far by Cabinet."

No doubt the lead petitioners will ask their council colleagues to vote for a supporting resolution (which can't actually make any decision, only recommend that the ruling Cabinet go along with it).

And, judging by what happened at our Neighbourhood Partnership last night, the LibDems will want that resolution emasculated or simply defeated by weight of numbers.

Last night, (just the same as in December - before the Cabinet ignored public opinion and steamrollered through its decision to sell off the green spaces, including eight here in Stockwood) I asked our NP to agree to submit a Public Forum Statement to the full council meeting. In December, our Statement had asked the Cabinet to defer its decision. This one simply urges councillors to support the petitioners' contention that Neighbourhood Partnerships must consent to selling green spaces.

And, just as at the last NP meeting, just three people fought tooth and nail to stop the NP agreeing the Statement. They were, of course, Hengrove's two LibDem councillors plus their Stockwood candidate for the May election.

You'd think that Neighbourhood Partnerships might be pleased to have the say-so on what green spaces on their patch should be sold, but not these LibDems. We had a whole series of attempts to avoid a vote on it, including a desperate claim that we couldn't ask the council to do what it cannot do. (Answer A. We weren't doing that. Answer B. What's to stop us expressing a view, anyway?)

Anyway, we agreed to put the Statement in, the three LibDems dissenting. Just like we did in December. It's getting to be a habit.

It's still a mystery why our local LibDems should be fighting so hard against us getting these rights. Maybe they could provide an explanation here?

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.

Divide and Sell

Vowles the Green has raised an e-petition to save green space around the Pigeonhouse Stream in Hartcliffe from threatened development.

It's part of the green path stretching from Dundry slopes down the Malago into the heart of the city, so it's significant well beyond Hartcliffe.

Even so, I hesitate to sign. The Area Green Space sell-off makes NIMBYs of us all, and sets communities against each other.

The Parks Strategy relies for its funding on selling off the city silver in the shape of chunks of its land holdings. So if one site doesn't get sold, they'll have to find another one to replace it. That one might just be the open space that means so much to you.

Gary Hopkins was quite explicit about it when he turned up in his usual combative mood at our Stockwood public meeting. He encouraged those of us objecting to particular land sale proposals to make it easier for ourselves by nominating some other plot, someone else's backyard.

Yesterday, showing Kerry McCarthy MP some of the threatened sites in Stockwood, we found ourselves pointing out others that might just be more appropriate for the big development sale. Kerry, of course, still goes along with Labour, LibDem, and Tory policy that backs the unsustainable strategy of selling land to raise cash for parks, especially to benefit those parts of the city where other amenities than parks are the major assets.

Whatever the outcome of the current consultation, someone will have to select from named sites just which ones are to go. It probably won't be Gary (or his successor) who takes that painful decision. The duty of executioner will be delegated, in the true spirit of democracy, to local level in the Neighbourhood Partnerships (or, in this case, those for the outer wards that contain the target sites).

How will that work? If the total land sales are to provide a fixed capital sum (in this case, the cash needed for the parks plus 50% for the pot), it must mean each partnership providing a prescribed share. Those neighbourhoods with bigger land banks will, presumably, be expected to volunteer a bigger proportion.

In this Neighbourhood Partnership, will the gloves come off? Stockwood v Hengrove? Upper Stockwood v. Lower Stockwood? Burnbush v. Gillebank?

Nice bit of community building, eh?

The yellow line cover-up

Ward councillors are still denying any suggestion of wrongdoing, after getting the threat of yellow lines outside a colleague's house withdrawn, and claiming the Neighbourhood Puppetship backed their decision.

The charge, as I described to the September NP meeting for Hengrove and Stockwood, was:

"The minutes record the very special treatment that the voting councillors gave to one public forum statement ; they agreed to reverse a recommendation for yellow lines at a road junction, at the sole request of the resident whose property fronts the junction. I (and I am sure most of those present) did not see any such decision being made, or any opportunity for residents or officers to give an opinion on it, or the agenda item it should relate to. It is all the more alarming that the resident making the statement - and winning instant councillor support - is an Alderman and a party colleague of the two Stockwood councillors."

This brought a heated, but wholly unconvincing, response from the councillors involved.

Cllr Jay Jethwa (who'd spent much of the previous 48 hrs calling a fellow councillor a liar) complained that my remarks were 'personal'

Cllr David Morris attempted an explanation to exonerate him: his original bid for yellow lines was at the request of another resident, but it wouldn't be considered anyway because that area's not in the Traffic Dept's programme, so reversing the decision wasn't necessary.

Their LibDem counterpart from Hengrove, Cllr Jos Clark, said the Minute must be right, because the minuting officer is good at his job.

None claimed that the decision had been made openly, or even attempted (given the Morris version) to explain why they'd bothered to take it. Unfortunately, there seemed to be no members of the public there who'd been at the previous meeting (that must say something...) so no-one else could challenge the written record.

The police intervened in the shape of Insp. Colin Salmon, who knocked our heads together (coppers can still do that, as long as they do it metaphorically). He suggested a simple word change ('could' for 'would') in the Minute that should make everyone happy. But the councillors wouldn't even make that concession. The official record remains intact. They took an unnecessary decision that no-one else saw, outside the agenda of the meeting, and which just happened to do a favour to a party friend.

So the charge remains. Until we know better, this was a blatant bid to give Neighbourhood Puppetship authority to a councillors' uniquely generous treatment of a party colleague.

Just One Songsheet for the Neighbourhood Partnerships

This round of the quarterly Neighbourhood Partnership meetings all have a couple of things in common.

One's that the agenda is virtually identical for each. What we can talk about has been decided by unnamed people at the council house, not by the neighbourhood, not even by the ward councillors.

The other's that the 'Public Forum' has been quietly dropped. No announcement, no explanation, no source; it just ain't there - whatever the NP constitution might say to the contrary.

I became one of the first victims of this remarkable turnaround at the Hengrove and Stockwood NP meeting this evening. I'd filed a 'Public Statement' a week or two back, offering suggestions for getting residents more involved and citing some of the things we'd been getting wrong so far. Bits of it were contentious, with suggestions of abuse of power and cronyism. So instead of the Statement, I had to bring that bit up as a challenge to the accuracy of the last meetings minutes.... but I'll save that side of it for another post.

Anyway, I wasn't allowed to present my statement. After prolonged exchanges, I did get a promise that it will be included in the minutes, and so be part of the public record; but it'll be the last one.

No more public statements, no more public forum. Who knows whose idea that was, but, well, that's democracy, Bristol fashion.

............

Later in the same meeting, we, like every other NP, were asked to form an 'environmental subgroup' to advise on local aspects of several council services.

I'm glad to say we went a little bit further, settling for separate groups for each ward, a real effort to publicise it and recruit members, and to invite wider public participation through the medium of the internet. Most of this was on the lines of what I'd suggested.

So watch this space. Somehow, stay optimistic.