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.
Showing posts with label PGSS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PGSS. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Monday, 7 March 2011
The national stage will have to wait...
We'd been led to believe we'd be quoted in the Sunday Times this week. They've been doing a series on selling off public land assets, and this time planned to do a local angle - including Bristol. The phone interviews were done, and a tentative photo-op at the threatened Sturminster Close open space was lined up.
So I bought the paper - all 1.26kg of it, to see what they said. True, Bristol got a brief mention, with a quote about Brislington, but that was about it.
Maybe they had to cut it so that most of the first three news pages could be devoted to the Royal Wedding Dress - after all, Murdoch's flagship of quality journalism must get its priorities right.
Ah well... At least, instead of hanging around for a photographer, we spent Saturday morning down at the orchard, pretty well finishing off the main clearance before the birds start nesting. Amazing what's been done, nearly all by hand, through the winter.
And I'm told that we've hit the 3,500 target for petition signatures, so that there should be a full council debate on the local land sell-off. So we're doing all right!
And the sun's shining, and the blackheaded gulls are getting their black heads back for the summer...
So I bought the paper - all 1.26kg of it, to see what they said. True, Bristol got a brief mention, with a quote about Brislington, but that was about it.
Maybe they had to cut it so that most of the first three news pages could be devoted to the Royal Wedding Dress - after all, Murdoch's flagship of quality journalism must get its priorities right.
Ah well... At least, instead of hanging around for a photographer, we spent Saturday morning down at the orchard, pretty well finishing off the main clearance before the birds start nesting. Amazing what's been done, nearly all by hand, through the winter.
And I'm told that we've hit the 3,500 target for petition signatures, so that there should be a full council debate on the local land sell-off. So we're doing all right!
And the sun's shining, and the blackheaded gulls are getting their black heads back for the summer...
Sunday, 6 February 2011
The Big Save Our Parks Petition - printable version
A printable version of the e-Petition raised by the three opposition parties on the City Council is now available for download from the FoSOS website or from the Green Party website. (I know, I put them there!). Please print copies off and gather signatures from friends and neighbours.
The three councillors behind this petition (Tess Green for the Greens, Mark Weston for the Tories, and Mark Bradshaw for Labour) need at least 3,500 valid signatures to get the issue back on the council table - which could help influence policy in a crucial pre-election period.
Completed forms can be returned to any of the three councillors at the Council House; here in Stockwood they can be returned to
Pete Goodwin, 11 Lanesborough Rise
Margaret Short, 10 Townsend Close
David Reeve, 11 Maple Close
But remember, they need to be returned by the end of February
The three councillors behind this petition (Tess Green for the Greens, Mark Weston for the Tories, and Mark Bradshaw for Labour) need at least 3,500 valid signatures to get the issue back on the council table - which could help influence policy in a crucial pre-election period.
Completed forms can be returned to any of the three councillors at the Council House; here in Stockwood they can be returned to
Pete Goodwin, 11 Lanesborough Rise
Margaret Short, 10 Townsend Close
David Reeve, 11 Maple Close
But remember, they need to be returned by the end of February
Saturday, 22 January 2011
The Big Save Our Parks Petition
.....does what it says on the web page - http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/community/petition/1403
If it reaches 3,500 valid signatures, anyway.
If it reaches 3,500 valid signatures, anyway.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
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.
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.
Friday, 17 December 2010
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?
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?
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
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.
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.
Friday, 10 December 2010
Green Space sell-off: the back-of-an-envelope analysis
Key figures (revised 13/12 to compare like with like):
Feb 2008 Cabinet:
Element of Parks & Green Spaces funding required from land sales:
£41m :For capital investment
£22m :For maintenance
£63m :Total to fund parks programme
add
£27m : agreed share (@ 30% of gross sales) for the council pot
£90m : total sales receipts required.
Dec 2010 Cabinet:
£16m : total value of sites identified and recommended for sale
£ 4.7m : lost to parks as the agreed cut for other purposes
£11.3m : funds available toward PGSS target.
Shortfall : £51.7m (i.e. only 18% of the total can be raised)
Extract from Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, driving the sales:
"should there be insufficient 'low value' marginal land available.... the council will review the ambitions of the strategy and consider alternative funding sources." (p42)
Feb 2008 Cabinet:
Element of Parks & Green Spaces funding required from land sales:
£41m :For capital investment
£22m :For maintenance
£63m :Total to fund parks programme
add
£27m : agreed share (@ 30% of gross sales) for the council pot
£90m : total sales receipts required.
Dec 2010 Cabinet:
£16m : total value of sites identified and recommended for sale
£ 4.7m : lost to parks as the agreed cut for other purposes
£11.3m : funds available toward PGSS target.
Shortfall : £51.7m (i.e. only 18% of the total can be raised)
Extract from Parks and Green Spaces Strategy, driving the sales:
"should there be insufficient 'low value' marginal land available.... the council will review the ambitions of the strategy and consider alternative funding sources." (p42)
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
News Management, Council House style
Extraordinary - but not that unexpected.
Tuesday was the day that BCC had to reveal which of the city's green sites it intends to sell off, so that the others might be properly looked after. With a bit of a bonus; 30% goes into the general council pot, and not into the parks at all.
The details eventually emerged in the papers for the Scrutiny meeting next Wednesday.
But well before that, the press and broadcasting media had been called in for a briefing, even before fellow-councillors had been told what was planned for their wards. Then there was a press release, in which Gary Hopkins reveals that the whole Cabinet has already agreed (what? when?) which green spaces should be sold off - subject, of course, to a token hearing of whatever the scrutineering councillors might say, and public statements made at their cabinet meeting.
In other words, verdict first, then square the press, then seal the deal with a 'democratic' dance of confirmation.
The long and comprehensive consultation process looks like a complete waste of time and effort, at least as far as those of us in Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces are concerned; our comprehensive response to the consultation has been lost, stolen or strayed, because it isn't even listed in the verbatim reports among the papers.
Add to that, of course, that a Freedom of Information request for officer assessments of each disposal site continues to be ignored, way beyond statutory time limits.
It all stinks.
Update, Wed 8th:
The council has promised to get the overdue FoI information to me next Monday - which gives about 24 hours to go through 60-odd site details and get representations to the Scrutiny Commission meeting.
Tuesday was the day that BCC had to reveal which of the city's green sites it intends to sell off, so that the others might be properly looked after. With a bit of a bonus; 30% goes into the general council pot, and not into the parks at all.
The details eventually emerged in the papers for the Scrutiny meeting next Wednesday.
But well before that, the press and broadcasting media had been called in for a briefing, even before fellow-councillors had been told what was planned for their wards. Then there was a press release, in which Gary Hopkins reveals that the whole Cabinet has already agreed (what? when?) which green spaces should be sold off - subject, of course, to a token hearing of whatever the scrutineering councillors might say, and public statements made at their cabinet meeting.
In other words, verdict first, then square the press, then seal the deal with a 'democratic' dance of confirmation.
The long and comprehensive consultation process looks like a complete waste of time and effort, at least as far as those of us in Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces are concerned; our comprehensive response to the consultation has been lost, stolen or strayed, because it isn't even listed in the verbatim reports among the papers.
Add to that, of course, that a Freedom of Information request for officer assessments of each disposal site continues to be ignored, way beyond statutory time limits.
It all stinks.
Update, Wed 8th:
The council has promised to get the overdue FoI information to me next Monday - which gives about 24 hours to go through 60-odd site details and get representations to the Scrutiny Commission meeting.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Whipping Yarns
"We're not being whipped" Cabot's LibDem councillor Alex Woodman told the council debate on abandoning the sell-off of the city's green spaces.
Technically, he was probably right, because a Labour amendment had just been introduced, and any formal whipping on it was impracticable. But only the previous day the LibDems had announced that "Bristol City Council’s ruling Lib Dem group (38 members out of 70) will amend the Tories’ motion on the Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS) at tomorrow’s full council meeting (Nov 16th).". It's hard to know how Alex could have any choice but to do what his party had agreed.
You'd think that the selective sale of green space wouldn't really be a big 'party' issue, except maybe for the Greens - but right through this debate, every vote was conducted entirely on party lines. LibDems in wards threatened by proposed sales still voted for it; Tories and Labour in wards that could only gain voted against. The usual disciplined tribal voting patterns, in fact.
Why this 'default' of routine voting as a block? Don't parties trust their own councillors to make their own judgements?
I put in a Public Forum statement to the same full council meeting to suggest that where a whip is in force, speakers should say so, and say why. I explained that "If an election or manifesto promise is involved, or some intrinsic party values, then a whip is understandable; but for the majority of council decisions (for instance the motion to be heard later about the funding for the Area Green Space Plans) it is very hard to find any rational difference between the parties."
The statement's been referred to the respective party whips. So far, only Labour has responded; I'll come back to this when I hear more.
As a footnote, it's worth noting that Alex Woodman and his fellow Cabot councillor Mark Wright (defender of Green Belt except when it involves a stadium) have put out a 'Cabot E-News', acknowledging that "that there is opposition to the sale of some of the sites (around 15 of the 60 proposed)". It turns out that the 15 are not actually sites, they're protest groups, while the 60 are proposed sale sites - so it's grossly misleading. It's still not been corrected though.
Meanwhile my own Freedom of Information request for the officers' assessments of the various suggested disposal sites remains unacknowledged, a couple of weeks after the statutory date for a full answer. With decisions imminent, you have to wonder why such a delay.
Technically, he was probably right, because a Labour amendment had just been introduced, and any formal whipping on it was impracticable. But only the previous day the LibDems had announced that "Bristol City Council’s ruling Lib Dem group (38 members out of 70) will amend the Tories’ motion on the Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS) at tomorrow’s full council meeting (Nov 16th).". It's hard to know how Alex could have any choice but to do what his party had agreed.
You'd think that the selective sale of green space wouldn't really be a big 'party' issue, except maybe for the Greens - but right through this debate, every vote was conducted entirely on party lines. LibDems in wards threatened by proposed sales still voted for it; Tories and Labour in wards that could only gain voted against. The usual disciplined tribal voting patterns, in fact.
Why this 'default' of routine voting as a block? Don't parties trust their own councillors to make their own judgements?
I put in a Public Forum statement to the same full council meeting to suggest that where a whip is in force, speakers should say so, and say why. I explained that "If an election or manifesto promise is involved, or some intrinsic party values, then a whip is understandable; but for the majority of council decisions (for instance the motion to be heard later about the funding for the Area Green Space Plans) it is very hard to find any rational difference between the parties."
The statement's been referred to the respective party whips. So far, only Labour has responded; I'll come back to this when I hear more.
As a footnote, it's worth noting that Alex Woodman and his fellow Cabot councillor Mark Wright (defender of Green Belt except when it involves a stadium) have put out a 'Cabot E-News', acknowledging that "that there is opposition to the sale of some of the sites (around 15 of the 60 proposed)". It turns out that the 15 are not actually sites, they're protest groups, while the 60 are proposed sale sites - so it's grossly misleading. It's still not been corrected though.
Meanwhile my own Freedom of Information request for the officers' assessments of the various suggested disposal sites remains unacknowledged, a couple of weeks after the statutory date for a full answer. With decisions imminent, you have to wonder why such a delay.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Council's "TV, not Parks" plans challenged
As the Evening Post series explores the city's open spaces and looks at what's gained and lost by the different plans (today revealing that the some of the profit from parkland sales in Stockwood could help pay for a giant TV screen in the Bear Pit) - Friends of Stockwood Open Spaces have sent in their own verdict on the plans.
They conclude that it's time to trigger that part of the Parks Strategy that provides "should there be insufficient 'low value' marginal land available.... the council will review the ambitions of the strategy and consider alternative funding sources."
[Added] FoI Request
Meanwhile, an FoI request has gone in to try to get to the bottom of why all these sites were selected. Has their attractiveness to developers been a factor? The answer will be too late to inform any consultation responses, but it might still help influence the actual decisions. The FoI request is Bristol-wide, and should put all the answers in the public domain via the "What do they Know" web site.
They conclude that it's time to trigger that part of the Parks Strategy that provides "should there be insufficient 'low value' marginal land available.... the council will review the ambitions of the strategy and consider alternative funding sources."
[Added] FoI Request
Meanwhile, an FoI request has gone in to try to get to the bottom of why all these sites were selected. Has their attractiveness to developers been a factor? The answer will be too late to inform any consultation responses, but it might still help influence the actual decisions. The FoI request is Bristol-wide, and should put all the answers in the public domain via the "What do they Know" web site.
Saturday, 23 October 2010
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Q Why not just sell off brown field sites instead of building on green spaces?
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?
Q What happens when the consultation comes to an end?
[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?
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!)
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Another stone from the blue glass house
Stockwood's Cllr Jay Jethwa has tabled some party-politicking questions for next Tuesday's council meeting. They suggest that the LibDem administration has gone out of its way to protect its own council wards, when choosing which open green spaces to put up for sale to fund the Parks and Green Space Strategy.
If true, that would be very serious malpractice. But it looks much more like Jay's convenient political interpretation of what some of us had forecast long since. Wasn't it inevitable that sites for sale would be identified in outer, poorer, areas, to fund a strategy that largely benefits the wealthier wards of the city - which do tend to elect LibDem, or Tory, councillors? Jay and her fellow Tories chose to ignore that obvious fact when they welcomed the PGSS strategy a couple of years ago, so it's a bit late to play party games with it now. She also conveniently ignores wards like our neighbours in LibDem-held Hengrove, which is every bit as threatened by land sales as we are in Stockwood.
So try again, Jay. But remember that blue glass house that you're in. Remember how your minority group held the Labour group to ransom a couple of years ago (same time as you approved the land sale policy in the PGSS)? Your blessing for their entire city budget was conditional on including £215K on play parks - exclusively in Tory wards. That really set the standard for party self-interest.
[Good grief! That's the second time I've defended the LibDems against Tory attack! Why don't they do it themselves?]
If true, that would be very serious malpractice. But it looks much more like Jay's convenient political interpretation of what some of us had forecast long since. Wasn't it inevitable that sites for sale would be identified in outer, poorer, areas, to fund a strategy that largely benefits the wealthier wards of the city - which do tend to elect LibDem, or Tory, councillors? Jay and her fellow Tories chose to ignore that obvious fact when they welcomed the PGSS strategy a couple of years ago, so it's a bit late to play party games with it now. She also conveniently ignores wards like our neighbours in LibDem-held Hengrove, which is every bit as threatened by land sales as we are in Stockwood.
So try again, Jay. But remember that blue glass house that you're in. Remember how your minority group held the Labour group to ransom a couple of years ago (same time as you approved the land sale policy in the PGSS)? Your blessing for their entire city budget was conditional on including £215K on play parks - exclusively in Tory wards. That really set the standard for party self-interest.
[Good grief! That's the second time I've defended the LibDems against Tory attack! Why don't they do it themselves?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)