1. home and garden

4.
REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS
[30 Minutes]
(A)
PETITIONS
Name
Subject
P01
Charlotte Leslie
Stop Gordon's Garden Grab
P02
John Norris
Low Flying Circuit Trainer Aircraft
(B)
STATEMENTS
NAME
SUBJECT
S01
Sue Flint
South Purdown
S02
Patrick Kearon
Severn Barrage
S03
J E Byles
Severn Barrage
S04
John Roberts
Garden Grab
S05
Arthur Giddings
Garden Grab
S06
Vera Giddings
Garden Grab
S07
David Trivitt
Garden Grab
S08
Carla Contractor
Garden Grab
S09
Shirley Phillips [Henleaze Society]
Garden Grab
S10
Charlotte Leslie
Garden Grab
S11
Susan Mayer
Garden Grab
S12
Hilary Long [Westbury-on-Trym Society]
Garden Grab
S13
T R Wallis [Sea Mills Combe Dingle
Community Trust]
Garden Grab
S14
Mr M Bradley
Eastville Club
S15
Sam Townend
Section 106 - Memorial Stadium
S16
Martyn Williams (Horfield ROSE)
Section 106 - Memorial Stadium
S17
Charlotte Leslie
SEN Reorganisation
S18
Dave Redgewell, Transport 2000
Campaign for better Transport
S19
Jonathan Bliss
Seven Beach Railway
S20
Jon Norris
Low Flying Circuit Trainer Aircraft
Petitions, Statements and Questions - 16 October 2007
(C)
QUESTIONS
From
RQ1
Mr T D Hawkins
To
Councillor Bradshaw
Subject
Previously Developed Land
Petitions, Statements and Questions - 16 October 2007
PLEASE NOTE:
Some of the following Appendices are unavailable electronically and have therefore
been scanned onto the system. If you require a hard copy of any of these
documents please contact the Democratic Services Officer whose telephone
number is displayed on the agenda front sheet.
S01
Statement for Full Council Meeting on 16th October 2007
On behalf of Friends of South Purdown
Seventy years ago the City Corporation sought permission to borrow money to
purchase land at South Purdown on the understanding that it would make the land
into a public pleasure ground. So far, seventy years later, just one plank of wood
perched on a couple of logs has been provided.
Now the Council wishes to prevail on that broken agreement to deny Town Green
status to the land in order to develop the land destructively. Those plans were
opposed by nearly 2000 petitioners and many letter writers.
FOSP wish to make it plain that they are not opposed to use of the land by
children. On the contrary they wish to see the land remain open for the use of all
children of all ages and would welcome non-destructive and non-restrictive
educational and play uses.
The Town Green application was supported by a further petition of nearly 400
people and by witness statements from 200 local residents.
There was one Objector, the Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services,
who now appears to know nothing about it!
FOSP wish to know what communication there was between the sole Objector
and the Council’s solicitor representing her Objection. FOSP ask that the Objector
now withdraw the Objection she seems not to know she had made.
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Ms S Flint
C/O12 Tackley Road
Eastville
BRISTOL
Cllr D Pickup
9222879
9222090
Derek. Pickup@ Brist01.G0v.UK
26'h November 2007
Dear Ms Flint
YOUR STATEMENT AT FULL COUNCIL ON 1 6 ' ~ OCTOBER
I refer to your statement made at the full council meeting on 1 6 October.
~ ~
The application submitted to create a Town Green on part of the South Purdown site has
been properly considered by the Public Rights of Way and Greens Committee and
rejected.
I note that you have been supplied with ,the information that you have requested direct
from the Freedom of lnformation Officer. If there is any further information that you
require please contact the Freedom of lnformation Officer.
Yours sincerely
i
1
Councillor Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Childrens Services
The Council House
College Green
Bristol BSI 5TR
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city,gw.uk
Contact
Telephone
fax
email
Date
Mr Norris
89 Brentry Lane
Brentry
Bristol
B S l O 6RH
Councillor Judith Price
(01 17) 9222 879
(01 17) 9222 090
1 5 t h November 2007
Dear Mr Norris
Petition: Noisy Low Flying Circuit Trainer Aircraft using Filton Airfield
Thank you for the petition you presented to the Council meeting on 16
October 2007 on behalf of many other local residents. As Executive Member
for Neighbourhoods the petition has been referred t o me t o respond for the
Council.
I understand that you have been in correspondence with Tim Clarke,
Pollution Control Manager, for the City Council. You will appreciate that the
Council does not have any statutory powers to control noise from flying
a.i rcraft.
However you will also be aware that the above-named officer, together with
local Bristol ward councillors, represent the Council and i t s residents on the
Filton Airfield Consultative Croup. This Croup considers operational aspects
of the airfield, including noise and safety, and makes recommendations to
the Airfield Manager on the way in which the airfield's business i s conducted.
The Bristol representatives continue to negotiate within the framework of the
Consultative Croup with a view to reducing the noise impacts t o Bristol
residents t o an acceptable level. The next meeting of the Filton Airfield
Consultative Croup takes place on 7 November 2007 and I understand that
the receipt of the petition, and your concerns, will be raised at that meeting.
In addition to the noise problems experienced by Bristol residents, your
petition also includes concerns about safety due to occurrence of flights over
residential areas, including schools, hospitals, etc. The Council will therefore
send a copy of your petition to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the UK's
specialist aviation regulator, and formally request that these matters be
investigated.
The Council House
College Green
Bristol B S 1 5TR
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city.g0v.uk
I will ensure that you are informed of the Civil Aviation Authority's response,
and I hope that you are reassured that, whilst Bristol City Council may not
have statutory powers t o deal with these issues, it will continue t o work on
behalf of its residents.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Judith Price
Executive Member for Neighbourhoods
Contact
Telephone
Fax
email
Date
Safety Regulation Group
Civil Aviation Authority
Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
West Sussex
RH6 OYR
Councillor Judith Price
(01 17) 922 2879
(01 17) 922
1 3th November 2007
Dear Sirs
Petition: Noisy Low Flying Circuit Trainer Aircraft, Filton Airfield, Bristol
Please find enclosed a copy of a petition presented to the full Council
meeting of Bristol City Council on 16th October 2007.
This petition was signed by 305 residents mainly from Bristol with some from
the neighbouring authority of South Cloucestershire Council. You will
appreciate, from the number of signatories and the content of the attached
statement, that there is considerable strength of feeling regarding noise and
safety issues from the operation of these training flights over densely
populated residential areas, which incorporate many schools, two hospitals
and a hospice.
You will also understand that this Council does not have any statutory
powers to control these activities. However the Council, through i t s
representation and participation at both ward member and officer level on
the Filton Airfield Consultative Croup, continues to negotiate with the Airfield
Manager with a view to addressing these issues. Whilst these negotiations
have led to some changes in training circuit operations, you will gather from
the enclosed documents that there is widespread public feeling that these
changes are not achieving adequate mitigation of noise, and that low flying
over the residential areas is contrary to DfT/CAA guidance and compromising
safety.
Under the circumstances I consider that an independent investigation of the
operations i s needed in order to address these concerns. As you are the
appropriate regulatory body I am formally requesting on behalf o f the city's
residents and its Council that you undertake the necessary investigation.
The Council House
Colfege Green
Bristol BS15TR
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city.gov.u k
I woc~ldbe grateful i f you could advise me of your intentions in this matter.
Yours sincerely
<
-J
(j.&&L
?, PLiiP
Councillor Judith Price
Executive Member for Neighbourhoods
S02
REPRESENTATION TO BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2007
No one is more conscious of the importance of securing a
sustainable source of energy than the port with the Company
having recently switched on its three wind turbines designed to
satisfy some 75% of the port’s energy requirements (equivalent to
the consumption of 4,700 homes). Indeed the Company continue
to explore further opportunities for wind power within its estate.
Avonmouth and Royal Portbury Docks represent one of the most
farsighted investments made by the City Fathers in the 19th and
20th centuries. The docks have maintained the city’s maritime
heritage and today Bristol Port is the main port and gateway to the
South West Region. In order that it can maintain this national and
regional role, and in recognition of changes in the shipping
industry, its geographic location in the UK, and the tidal regime in
the Estuary, the Port Company is pursing the development of a
modern deep-sea container terminal in the Estuary which can
receive up to 4 ultra large container carriers with a draught of up to
16m. This terminal will be lock-free and capable of taking the
largest container ships currently being built.
We note the Council is being invited to express its support for the
feasibility study into the Severn Barrage but would invite it to be
cautious at this stage to further commitment until that feasibility
study is complete.
We say this because the Sustainable Development Commission
Review of the Severn Barrage Proposals, published last month,
itself identifies a number of uncertainties that potentially will arise
with the construction of a barrage across the mouth of the Estuary.
These include:
• The need for lock gates to accommodate very large new
ships. Effectively reintroducing locks and negating one of the
main reasons for the construction of the new terminal in the
Estuary.
• The safety of navigation during construction of any barrage.
Pattick Kearon
The Bristol Part Company
St Andrews House
St Andrews Road
Avonmouth
Bristol
BSI 1 9DQ
Ye~:!t tc,
.1elepl.rc;~e
"a];
E-mai;
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
01179222879
01179222090
[email protected]
SD-82
15 November 2007
Dear Patrick
Representation to Bristol City Council Meeting 16'" October 2007: Severn Barrage
I refer to your statement to the Council highlightingthe potential impacts on the Port
Company's operations and its potentialfor future development, as presented to the
above meeting.
As you may be aware, later in the meeting the Council debated a motion relating to the
proposed feasibility study announced by the Secretary of state for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform on 28" September. Following an amendment to the tabled
motion, the Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your concerns:
"That Council welcomes the announcement by the Secretary of state for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform of a t k s h feasibility study into the building of a
Sevem Barrage and no*
the SustainableDevelopment report on Tidal Power in
the UtC
Council believes that the possibility of producing up to 5% of the nation's
electricity from this renewable energy soutce must be fully e x p l o ~ .
Council acknowlec&es that any truly comprehensivestudy must also consider the
wider implications of any barrage, such as the risks of displaced flooding, the loss
of a unique eco-system, potential commercial impact on the Port of Bristol and
other estuaryports and the pmpect of a mom cost-effectiwe mturn from
alternativemnewable fechnologies."
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member -Access & Environment
• The impact on the water levels; effectively taking the top of
the tides and constraining ship movements.
• Effecting the flow speeds and with it the seabed morphology
and siltation; potentially necessitating extensive dredging to
keep open a deep-water channel enabling existing and future
shipping to use the port.
The uncertainty inherent in such factors has the potential to
seriously undermine not only the future development and
expansion of the port but also its entire existence.
The motion draws attention to the potential creation of some
35,000 jobs over a seven year period and the benefits to the
economy of the region. But let us not forget the 7,500 permanent
jobs associated directly with Bristol port alone and its related
activities, plus the employment created by the knock-on effects of
the port economy, as well as the many thousands of other jobs
associated with ports on the other side of the estuary. The new
container port will create additional jobs in itself as well as
enhancing the overall prospects of economy of the greater Bristol
region. This, in a part of the City which has witnessed the loss of
thousands of jobs in recent years.
The Bristol Port Company would invite you at this stage to reserve
any further comments and/or support of the Severn Barrage until
the wider economic and environmental balances can be fully
understood.
Patrick Kearon
Statement to BCC meeting 16/10/07 re Severn Barrage motion
S03
Bristol Friends of the Earth
Statement to Bristol City Council meeting, Tuesday, 16 October, with respect to the
motion in support of the Severn Barrage feasibility study.
Objection to the Severn Barrage Feasibility Study
Bristol Friends of the Earth objects to Bristol City Council’s motion
to endorse the feasibility study into the Severn Barrage proposal.
Bristol Friends of the Earth rejects the Sustainable Development
Commission’s recommendation that a feasibility study should be
focused on the Severn Barrage proposal and strongly urges Bristol
City Council not to endorse the new feasibility study into the
building of a Severn Barrage.
The Commission is saying that the Severn Barrage would be a
flagship project, leading the UK’s investment in renewable energy.
Yet to cause serious environmental damage to an internationally
important wildlife site in order to generate a small fraction of the
UK’s energy consumption is not the way to lead the world in
sustainable development.
The UK urgently needs to promote renewable energy initiatives but
they need to be the right ones. A combination of a smaller barrage
and tidal lagoons would produce better value for money: more
energy with more flexibility, lower costs and would cause far less
environmental damage.
Bristol Friends of the Earth is deeply concerned about the proSevern Barrage recommendations published by the Commission.
The Commission has dismissed the alternative options for tidal
power generation without providing a rigorous and thorough
justification.
1
J.E Bytes
Friends of the Earth
10-12 P i i n Street
Montpelier
Bristol
BS6 5QA
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
0117 92 22879
0117 9222090
[email protected]
SD-82
15 November 2007
Dear Sir,
Representation to Bristol City Council Meeting 16'hOctober 2007: Sevem Barrage
I refer to your statement to the Council highlighting your concerns regarding the need to
consider alternatives to the main barrage proposal (Brean to Lavernock), as presented to
the above meeting.
As you may be aware, later in the meeting the Council debated a motion relating to the
proposed feasibility study announced by the Secretary of state for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform on 28" September. Following an amendment to the tabled
motion, the Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your concerns:
"That Council welcomes the announcement by the Secretary of state fior Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory R b r m of a h h hsibility study into the building of a
Sevem Barrage and notes the Sustainable Development report on Tidal Power in
the UK
Council believes that the possibility of producing up to 5% of the nation's
electticity from this renewable enetgysoutce must be fully explorred.
Council a c k n o w l ~ e that
s any tmly comprehensive study must also consider the
wider implications of any barrage, such as the rlsks of displaced flooding, the loss
of a unique ecwystem, potential commercial impact on the Port of Blistol and
o&er estuaryports and the prospect of a mom cost-elkctive return from
alkrnative renewable fechnologies."
Continued .........
In relation to your concerns, you may wish to note that, at a meeting of the Sevem
Estuary Partnership held on 8" November, a presentationwas given by oflicers of the
Dept. of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform regarding the proposals for
conducting the proposed feasibility study. This included a commitment $0indude
consideration of lagoon solutions and alternative sitings of a barrage.
Yours faithfully
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member - Access & Environment
Statement to BCC meeting 16/10/07 re Severn Barrage motion
Bristol Friends of the Earth is calling for a comprehensive study of
tidal lagoons and a smaller barrage on the Severn (Shoots
Barrage) to provide a viable and more cost effective alternative
tidal power generation system.
Bristol Friends of the Earth has identified seven main reasons why
tidal lagoons should be the preferred option for tidal power
generation in the Severn Estuary:
1. Lagoons are far more efficient - they could produce up to
60% more energy than the Severn Barrage proposal
2. Lagoons are much cheaper - they would generate electricity
at about half the cost of the barrage proposal (3 p/kWh
versus 6 p/kWh)
3. Lagoons would not impede navigation - unlike the Severn
Barrage proposal, which could significantly reduce freight
trade entering the UK via the Severn ports, Avonmouth and
Portbury. This would have adverse knock-on effects on
Bristol, and strain capacity and transport links at other UK
ports
4. Lagoons would not destroy an internationally important
habitat - unlike the Severn Barrage proposal, which would
destroy the feeding grounds of tens of thousands of birds
and damage the legally protected Severn Estuary
5. Lagoons would integrate well with other renewable energy
schemes - unlike the Severn Barrage proposal, which would
need expensive stand-by capacity to cope with the huge
twice daily surges of power that would not synchronise with
the daily variations in grid demand
6. Lagoons would be compatible with a Shoots barrage near
the Second Severn Crossing, which could provide flood
defence and a strategic rail link from London to South Wales,
avoiding the ageing Severn tunnel
2
Statement to BCC meeting 16/10/07 re Severn Barrage motion
7. The Severn Barrage proposal would generate just 4.3 per
cent of the UK’s electricity supply, which is just 0.85 per cent
percent of the UK’s overall energy consumption.
Bristol Friends of the Earth strongly urges the Council to amend
the motion and to recommend that a comprehensive study into the
feasibility of tidal lagoons and a smaller barrage must be included
in any further study of tidal power generation in the Severn
Estuary.
Yours faithfully,
J.E. Byles
On behalf of Bristol Friends of the Earth
10-12 Picton Street
Montpelier
Bristol
BS6 5QA
3
14th October 2007
To: Bristol City Council
John Roberts
3 Weston Close
Sea Mills
Bristol
BS9 2JG
Tel.: 0117 373 7904
e-mail: [email protected]
Statement in SUPPORT of Cllr. Goulandris's Motion on Garden Grabbing
The Council has aspirations to make Bristol the "green" capital of the country and yet it allows both
"Garden Grabbing" and the building over of many of our allotments. The two are not compatible. If
Bristol is to be a green capital, the first thing it should do is to resist such reduction of our green
environment. And it should make a stand against government policies that appear to encourage this.
As the motion says, the designation in PPS3 is misleading and this planning loophole needs to be firmly
closed so that only genuine brownfield sites can be built over, not gardens or allotments.
'The loophole particularly affects our suburbs whose essential green character is being so rapidly eroded.
The character of suburbs is becoming more urbanised and less distinctive, reducing choice for people
who want to live in a greener environment.
I ask the Council to please support Cllr. Goulandris's Motion.
John Roberts
Mr John Roberts
3 Weston Close
Sea Mills
BRISTOL
BS9 2JC
Replv tc
I ekphone
~Cinicorn
Fax
Ema!
O u r Ref
Your Ref
Date
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 1 7 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
16 November 2007
Dear Mr Roberts
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
Iwrite in response to your statement in support of Cllr Coulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
'That the Council i s concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPC3)' which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly d t e d high density
developments in or on /arge gardens and urban green spaces.
zCO"-zVIU
5~3nor,nsPszi=
9 1 1 3,
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
'......... land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
-The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Coulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\PTSD MgmtUane H\Executive Member Correspondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions + Council Questions\response to statements on Garden
space.doc
Mr A J Giddings
23 Woodland Grove
Stoke Bishop
BRISTOL
BS9 2BD
Reply t o
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
I ~ ~ i o c h o v e01 17 922 2879
k41n1co1~
Fax
01 17 922 2090
Email
[email protected]
Our Ret
MB/LD
Your Ref
Date
16 November 2007
Dear Mr Ciddings
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
"That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPG3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
.
I
-
>cob 75 15
P umo;t?$ l e u , + 5,
$1
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
I.......
.. land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 19th October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Goulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\lTSD MgrntUane H\Executive Member CorrespondenceiPublic Form Statements and Petitions + Council Questions\response to statements on Garden
space.doc
23 Woodland Grove
Bristol
BS9 2BD
~ a ~ & @ . ~ MEETING
. ~ .
- MONDAY lsm OCTOBER, 2007
RE: GARDEN GRABBING
We are facing the kind of national scandal that ordinarily creeps by unnoticed - that
of property developers snapping up urban and suburban gardens.
20 000 new homes are built every year in back gardens taken over by developers. Put
another way, the equivalent of 3 000 Wembley pitches will be concreted over in the
next ten years at the current rate - unless someone intervenes.
This wicked land grab exploits a loophole in the current law that classes private
gardens as brownfield or previously developed land - attractive to greedy developers,
because, unlike former industrial sites, they don't need decontaminating.
Our gardening heritage should be universally celebrated and cherished. For millions
of people gardening is the most popular pastime and enriches all of our lives.
We read of nearby towns where 84% new build is on gardens - much of it should
never have got planning permission.
The problem here in Bristol is becoming more and more acute. Greedy developers are
bombarding people with offers to buy their green spaces, pitting neighbour against
neighbour.
In BS9 we thankfully have gained the support of the Government Inspectorate in
several application~passedby our Junior ~lannerjandoverturned appeals by greedy
developers.
We must recognise the need for gardens and green spaces and not allow developments
whose architecture look more like town centres than suburbs.
Bristol City Council and especially its Planning Deparhnent must consider the impact
of any proposal on the surrounding area, environmental considerations, highway and
parking issues, privacy and overlooking.
Our increasingly lardy offspring desperately need their outside spaces to bum off their
burgers!
Yours faithfully
Vera Giddings
Reoly to
Telel~iiorie
P81nicom
Fax
Emall
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
Mrs V A Giddings
23 Woodland Grove
Stoke Bishop
BRISTOL
BS9 2BD
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
16 Nowrnber 2007
Dear Mrs Giddings
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
1 write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
"That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or perrr~itted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPG3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively p ~ t vital
s
parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful t o know that there have been no recent changes to the
4
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly perm~ttedhigh density
7055-z~j;
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
7ci,nzc.,- a i ~ i e l
t~.23:.i,
..
,
.
$_
i(
y.p~?p$>, 2 , q , : ~ ; z q ~ T 7 7 ~ : m 7 v T T ~ z q ~ ~ : ~ , ;:<*,
,,:.
'+!!b&$p->,
:;y:;,+;,J, .,-:::.!q:p
[,: :',.>:,.-&':,.,
r,.
>2~-,.z.:c,:
%!,
!+>!:x 5&,,*
-.*,<,7
-
..
a
. . , ..
. ,.: .
,
, ,.
...........
.,..
.,:,
i...;,
,
,, , ,
.I...
. ,..
:
, .
'
.
. .
?(?35~:<.C:
-.
,:2;s;,,:. ;1
.
-7e
< ^
~-7 . 3 2 j / i
G=?,.ias
2C07~2LiiF
. .-
;.
..
,,
.+.
, >,.:
. . .. .. . 3
. !,,: - . . . ~.:
CC./.
~
r < ,,+
-.
Z?ii"i:i'(?:
.,,<
<?
, .,:\:.
.
1;
.
- .. -........
,% !
2..
.,,
.
_ -:,
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
land i s that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
I.........
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Coulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\PTSD MgmtUane H\Executive Member Correspondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions + Council Questions\response to statements on Garden
space.doc
SAVE SEA MILLS GARDEN SUBURB
Chairman: David Trivitt
41 Sunny Hill, Sea Mills, Bristol BS9 2NG.
Phone: 01 17 987 7963, e-mail: [email protected]
Statement in SUPPORT of Cllr. Goulandris's motion on Garden Grabbing.
In Sea Mills, we are faced with the imminent threat not just of losing many of our gardens, but our
Garden Suburb, too.
Its very simple. Gardens define what Garden Suburbs are. Building over our gardens threatens the
very characteristic that categorically defines a Garden Suburb.
Sea Mills was designated a Conservation Area for the very purpose of preserving its distinctive
Garden Suburb. Losing a single garden threatens its essential character. Losing many of them
threatens its very existence as a Garden Suburb.
Yet this is just what the Council's own planning consultants are suggesting. In their newly
published Draft Planning Brief for Sea Mills, they recommend not just building over many of our
gardens, but a number of our allotments and open spaces too.
The original Garden Suburb was designed to be sustainable, with gardens large enough to be worth
cultivating for food. The whole layout was designed to create a healthy, open, fresh environment
for working class families and their children. Prior to this they had lived in cramped, high density
slums with little or no gardens.
It is ironic that the very gardens and allotments originally designed by this Council for a healthy
and sustainable community, are to be built over by this same Council for higher density houses
and flats in the name of sustainability!
O u r Garden Suburb is already sustainable. It has proved its sustainability for more than 80 years.
We have a friendly, mixed, stable community. Many people have lived happily here for decades
and want to continue to do so. But sustainability is fragile. Get it wrong and its gone.
Garden grabbing does not just affect wealthy people with detached houses in very large gardens, it
affects ordinary people too.
I beg you to support this important motion.
David Trivitt,
Chairman - Save Sea Mills Garden Suburb
Mr David Trivitt
Chairman - Save Sea Mills Garden Suburb
41 Sunny Hill
Sea Mills
BRISTOL
BS9 2NG
Reply t~
Telephone
Minicom
Fax
Email
OurRef
Your Ref
Date
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
16 November 2007
Dear Mr Trivitt
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
"That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPG3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been a r e c e n t changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
.
...- .....
. ? ~ n ; 3 i ; r.i;iiei
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces. .
,,,,,,,; j E ~ 0 2 $ ' ! .
-nr,q-ii~
,
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
I.........
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Goulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\PTSD MgmtUane H\Executive Member Conespondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions + Council Questions\response to statements on Garden
space.doc
Reply to
Carla Contractor
41 Shirehampton Road
Sea Mills
BRISTOL
BS9 2DN
elephone
ltiinicorn
ax
Email
Our- Ref
Your Ref
Date
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
16 November 2007
Dear Ms Contractor
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
That the Council i s concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPG3)' which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have bee
ecent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
?Gc5'.2UC;
.2Ci:5-2LL'C7
R-cvr...r.,~;n~-;:~!
::,,;a:
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
'......... land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Coulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\PTSO MgmtUane H\Executlve Member Correspondence\Public Farm Statements and Petitions
space.doc
+ Council Questions\response to statements on Garden
S09
THE HENLEAZE SOCIETY
Registered Charity No. 269072
Chairman Mrs Valerie Bishop
37A Grange Court Road
Westbury on Trym
Bristol BS9 4DR
16 October 2007
Dear Mr Jones,
I am writing on behalf of the Henleaze Society, to support the motion of
Councillor John Goulandris to Council, calling on the Government to
exempt gardens from brownfield status and asking all of the City's MPs
to support the Conservative sponsored Private Member's Bill on land use
(garden protection). This proposed legislation seeks to close the "garden
grabbing" planning loophole currently being exploited by unscrupulous
developers.
The Henleaze Society strongly believes that the gardens in this suburb are
extremely important, because they are part of the character and amenity
of the area. They provide open-air play and leisure areas, which can be
closely supervised by parents. Elderly residents, who are not able to walk
to The Downs, get fresh air and pleasure from their gardens. The
summary draft of “Bristol’s Parks and Green Space Strategy” includes
mapping of publicly accessible green spaces. Henleaze has only two
small spaces, less than other areas, except for Avonmouth. Any reduction
of the green garden spaces, will have an adverse impact on wild-life and
ecosystems in Henleaze.
Yours sincerely,
Shirley Phillips
Hon. Secretary
Repiy to
Ms Shirley Phillips
Hon. Secretary - The Henleaze Society
37a Grange Court Road
Westbury-on-Trym
BRiSTOL
BS9 4DR
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
i'elcpIic.!-~~01 17 922 2879
Iainicorn
fax
01 17 922 2090
Emad
Our Ref
[email protected]
MB/LD
Your Ref
Date
16 November 2007
Dear Ms Phillips
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerris:
"That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Covernment planning
guidelines (PPC3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Covernment to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
-a,
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
2005-~c05
'c, ,,,mc
,7--,ar E5t c l ,
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
I......... land i s that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Goulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\FlSD Mgmtvane H\Executive Member Correspondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions
s~ace.doc
+ Council Questions\response to statements an Garden
S10
Statement by Charlotte Leslie to the meeting of Full Council,
Tuesday, 16th October 2007
PROTECTION OF SUBURBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS FROM
OVERDEVELOPMENT
The Conservative motion you are to debate later today concerns
an issue of fundamental concern which is affecting many
communities right across the city.
I am sure all Members have casework or will have been lobbied in
recent years by angry and frustrated constituents who feel they are
completely powerless to oppose inappropriate over-intensive
planning applications which threat to destroy the character and
public amenity of their neighbourhood.
Those Members who serve on the Council's various Planning
Committees will be only too well aware of the damaging effect
caused by the Government's redesignation of residential gardens
and urban green spaces as 'previously developed' or Brownfield
land. (For the purposes of national planning guidelines in 2000)
Two other factors also contribute to the problem: An obsession
with centrally imposed building targets and Whitehall’s changing of
the rules governing the permitted density of dwellings per hectare.
These have combined to encourage developers to cram-in as
many flats as possible onto parcels of land or in the redevelopment
of former large family homes. This is taking place irrespective of
the strength of local opposition, the views of elected councillors or
the effect a particular planning application has on the immediate
streetscape or infrastructure.
In short, our current planning regulations have led to some quite
disastrous consequences especially for the city's suburban areas.
Providing more affordable housing is essential, but saturating
existing communities with housing beyond that which the
infrastructure can sustain, which is inappropriate for the area, is
surely not the way to do it.
The Private Member's Bill which you are being asked to support
aims to sensibly tackle
these anomalies. It is intended to
preserve residential back gardens and vital green spaces - wildlife
havens and corridors - for future generations, and give back to
local people the ability to determine whether or where
redevelopment should take place.
For these reasons, I don't believe you should treat this call for
action as a Party-political matter but as the first practical steps
towards enabling your constituents a say in the shape of Bristol to
come.
Accordingly, I hope that it will command your overwhelming
support.
Charlotte Leslie
Freepost (SWB176)
BRISTOL
BS6 6BR
Reply to
Telephone
Min~corn
'ax
Emarl
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
16 November 2007
Dear Ms Leslie
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
'That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPG3),which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
.,.-developments in or on larie gardens and urban green spaces.
qeiral Fcual::.
7
"p-,c
:,~..".-L>o
r?,,31~3:i,7o
.
..
-. . .
.
2:>OS-Zu^:;
;~?!;7:;,,,.-,
:,+ <,.~#>$.:;,
:<
.. ,. ';.
. . ,,;. : : , ~ ' ~ ~ ! : . ? S ~ , ~ ~ , J ~ ~ ! = ~ ,..>.~, r~ ~\W1.
,., ~ , c; , ~ ;
.'.'..
..::.
!
83C'.';-,;z
:
I
'
...
.
.
-,
. . .
-.
.',
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and e n c o u r a g ,
d
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition o f p r e v i o u s l y
developed land:
-
'......... land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructureWhilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
-
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
I
and traffic irripact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and 1 have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Coulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
s:\~sD
MgmtUane H\Executive Member Correrpondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions + C O U ~QC~~e S
~ t i o n s \ r e S p ~ nto~ e
Statements on Garden
space.doc
.
S11
Statement to be presented to Full Council - 16th October 2007.
Garden Grab
There are endless claims of land shortages in the media and yet
throughout the U.K., developers secretly hoard huge parcels of
prime development land to maximise profits. This ploy creates the
illusion of a housing shortage that in turn justifies the explosion of
high-density affordable housing we see ‘squeezed’ onto any
available space.
Unfortunately, these uninspiring homes often end up as costly buyto-let, leaving the low paid and first time buyer with little choice but
to rent. (40% on Bradley Stoke).
In this City alone, thousands of empty homes and true ‘Brownfield’
sites have languished in squalor over many years, with little or no
intervention from the planning authority. Yet, it would take just one,
or two, high profile compulsory purchase orders against absentee
owners to kick start regeneration where it is actually needed and in
doing so relieve the growing pressure to build on gardens in
neighbouring suburbs.
We need a planning policy that is unambiguous and less open to
challenge that can and should support communities where
‘‘Garden Grabbing’ is on the increase, particularly where housing
density guidelines have been openly flouted for personal gain.
I accept the need for some additional housing locally but it should
not be at the expense of the natural environment or existing
communities.
Mrs. Susan Mayer,
Brockfields,
68a, Coombe Lane,
Bristol
BS9 2AY
Mrs Susan Mayer
Brockfields
68a Coombe Lane
BRISTOL
BS9 2AY
Reply !o
Teiepilone
Minicom
Fax
Email
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
Our Ref
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
Your Ref
Date
16 November 2007
Dear Mrs Mayer
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response t o your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 16th October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to yollr
concerns:
'That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPC3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exerrlpt gardens from Brownfield
status."
-
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
2US5-20"5
--.
-,c. -.orrrr, .?acia/ cwsl,!i.
-
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
land i s that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
I.........
Whilst it i s acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
Government to express Co~~ncil
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
'Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Goulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
5:\mSD MgmtUane H\Executive Member Correspondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions
s~ace.doc
+ Council Questions\response t o statements on Garden
S12
STATEMENT TO FULL COUNCIL – 16 OCTOBER 2007
Garden Grab
In the last 15years we have lost a rugby football ground, a cricket
ground (given to the village by Mr Wills Gunn but sold by the
Merchant Venturers, for housing), half of our allotments in the
centre of the village (for a new health centre) set up with a
covenant to stop them being built upon, the estate of Holmwood
House, planted by Dr Badock of City fame (for 'executive
housing'), and a large, viable and well built 1930's art deco house(demolished for the building of an unsightly and inappropriately
designed block of small apartments that keep changing hands)
right opposite the Blaise estate.
We have lost our family silver! Short of building on the last public
open space at Canford Park or on the grounds of our Primary
School, we are at a loss to know where the Council can give
permission for the building of more flats unless it is by the further
reduction of garden space.
We are opposed to the sale of properties with gardens to
developers or to the use of any further green space for housing in
this area because: We believe the health and quality of life of all
our citizens will be affected by the urbanisation and over crowding
of the outer city areas.
Children and young people need more facilities for recreation and
sport near to their homes not fewer! The established landscapes
of many areas will be spoiled for future generations and they will
be will be denied the freedom to cultivate and enjoy decently sized
family spaces. Those with the aspiration to own a good sized
garden or live in a semi rural suburb for a later part of their lives,
will be forced to flee the city boundaries to rural areas, so creating
more commuter bands and hectic traffic around cities. Wild life
habitats will continue to be reduced
1
Gardens are the glory of Britain-famed around the world for their
trees and flowers-they need preservation not destruction. As long
as this 'Brownfield' designation for suburban gardens continues,
developers will take the cheaper and easier option of building on
pristine land.
They must be forced to reclaim industrial sites and clean up the
derelict land in cities before any further incursion in to green
suburbs is allowed.
Hilary Long
Chairman
Wesbury-on-Trym Society
2
Ms Hilary Long
Chairman
Wesbury on Trym society
By Email - [email protected]
Reply t o
-
I elel-)hone
Minicorn
Fax
Email
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
CIIr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MBjLD
16 November 2007
Dear Ms Long
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 16th October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
''That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPC3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly permitted high density
developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
>Md-2GD.E
I
_
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
'......... land i s that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr John Goulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\PTSD MgmtUane H\Executive Member Canespandence\Public Form Statements and Petitions + Council Questlons\response to statements on Garden
space-doc
Statement to Bristol City Council at their meeting of 16th October 2007
T H E S E A M I L L S & C O O M B ED I N G L EC O M M U N I T PYR O J E C TI S A
Company limited by guarantee, consisting of volunteers working to improve, among other
aspects, the environmental quality of its area. It contacts its listed membership of some
150 local people, plus the approx 2400 families in the area, via regdar community meetings,
a periodic newsletter and announcements to members where appropriate. Thus it seeks to
be as representative of local community views as is possible where more detailed methods
such as door-to-door surveys or formal voting procedures are not necessarily indicated.
With this in mind I have been asked to make the following statement on behalf of the
Directors of the Project:
We are concerned that Britain's gardens are under increasing threat of destruction arising
from inappropriate and unpopular development and that local opinion is being disregarded,
and communities left powerless to prevent the i n . of green spaces.
We are particularly aware of this national problem as the Sea Mills Garden Suburb itself
is under threat of redevelopment by the Neighbourhood 63 Housing Department which would
strip much of our garden land. Not only is this short-sighted in face of the need to maintain
local garden areas for cultivation to reduce food miles and improve community and individual health, but it makes a nonsense in a n area that was purposely and with great foresight
designed as a Garden Suburb allowing working class families to grow their own food.
We call on the Council to lobby the Government to return our garden spaces to 'greenfield'
status, to halt damaging and ugly 'urban d e n s $ c a t t i and to take notice of the view of local
Councils and local people. I n this connexwn we endorse the following statement by the CPRE:
"Local planning authorities already have powers to control and prevent inappropriate
development, including development in gardens - though they do not always use them
as effectively as they should. C P R E believes they should wake full use of these. Councils
often believe that they cannot resist such developments because of planning guidance in
Policy Planning Guidance Note 3 and its successor, draft Planning Policy Statement 3.
Environmental quality and character, however, are important considerations which can
be used to turn down planning applications where these would be compromised. Moreouer, councils can and should draw up policies and Supplementary Planning Documents
to support their approach and make decisions less open to challenge."
We also request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation
to give stronger protection to gardens in planning law, and to allow elected local councillors to
have greater discretion to protect local neighbourhoods.
T R Wallis
for the Directors of the Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle Community Project
Pleuse reply to 13 St Edy-h's Rd Sea Mills Bristol Bs9 2EP
0117 9682236
[email protected]
Mr T R Wallis
Sea Mills & Coombe Dinge Community Project
1 3 St Edyths Road
Sea Mills
BRlSTOL
BS9 2EP
Reply to
Telephone
Minicorn
Fax
Email
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
Cllr. Mark Bradshaw
01 17 922 2879
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
MB/LD
16 November 2007
Dear Mr Wallis
Private Members Bill - Land Use (Garden Protection)
I write in response to your statement in support of Cllr Goulandris's Motion on the
development of large gardens and green open spaces.
As you may know, the matter was debated at Full Council on 1 6 t h October and the
debate demonstrated concern for the future of such open space.
In consequence, Council passed the following resolution, which responds to your
concerns:
"That the Council is concerned over the damaging impact on residential areas
caused by changes to the planning rules, which have encouraged or permitted
high-density developments in or on large gardens and urban green spaces.
Council regrets the misleading designation given in Government planning
guidelines (PPG3), which treats gardens as previously developed, or 'Brownfield'
sites. This classification effectively puts vital parcels of green land on an equal
footing in planning terms to derelict factories or gasworks.
Council therefore calls on the Government to exempt gardens from Brownfield
status."
You may find it helpful to know that there have been no recent changes to the
planning rules which have encouraged or explicitly p G i t t e d high density
developments in or on large gardens a d urban green spaces.
..,..
a,:
.
:
'
2025.5:. C?
?,-?n~c:i.?? ,Ea7,2jTbuz,,l..
20CS LOG7
c-2,?,:f:;.-..,:z .:e :,; >,-,
s , . .2g;'T
f
lli'
,
\YC. *no+
,,
,
.~
?:~.
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing was published in 2000 and encouraged
the re-use of previously used land at that time. Planning Policy Statement 3,
Housing, which replaced it in 2006 provides the following definition of previously
developed land:
'....... .. land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.'
Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 would therefore allow for the development of
gardens in appropriate locations, it does not provide 'carte blanche' for the
development of all gardens. Other development plan and material considerations,
including those relating to design, local context, the impact of increased density
and traffic impact would also be powerful and relevant.
The Leader of the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government to express Council concern on 1 9 t h October 2007 and I have attached
this for your information.
Yours sincerely
Cllr Mark Bradshaw.
Executive Member for Access and Environment
Enc
cc
Cllr Jot~n
Goulandris
Cllr Steve Comer
S:\FTSD MgmtWane H\Executive Member Conespondence\Public Form Statements and Petitions + Council Questions\response to statements on Garden
space.doc
S15
Statement on Park and Ride and the proposed Planning Gain Agreement in
connection with the expansion of the Memorial Stadium by Sam Townend,
Labour’s Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Bristol North West
The Portway Park and Ride has generally been seen to be a
success. We now have a Park and Ride facility for three corners of
the City (North West, South West (Long Ashton) and South East
(Brislington)) and it is now surely time to consider one for the North
East of the City and, in particular, one that will both service Cabot
Circus when it opens next year as well as the new Memorial Stadium
in Horfield.
This is timely as the Council’s planning department is presently in
negotiations for the Section 106 planning gain agreement in
connection with the expansion of the Memorial Stadium. A Park and
Ride scheme which delivers to the new Stadium will fit with the
aspirations of Bristol Rovers FC, Bristol RU FC and their fans and
give them better transport options and to discourage car use to the
immediate area of the Stadium and would be part of the package to
ensure that local residents too get a fair deal.
The Section 106 planning gain process could and should be part of
the process by which local residents, the Club and the Council get
together to ensure that the best arrangements can be made for all
involved. So far, I have to tell you, from speaking with residents this
does not seem to be the case.
A significant part of the problem may be with the way in which the
planning department has historically engaged in public consultation.
You may recall that in 2006 the Council, under the previous
Administration, was the only authority in the country to have its
Statement of Community Involvement, a local planning guidance
document, to be rejected by the Planning Inspectorate. More recently
and specifically in relation to the expansion of the Memorial Stadium,
I have been told that planning officers, when formulating the draft
planning gain agreement, have failed to meet with residents groups.
The Football Club also does not appear to be engaging as it should
with local residents. I have had complaints that the Stadium
Monitoring Group, for example, does not include any local residents
that were dissenters to the Club’s scheme. Excluding one group of
local residents cannot be part of the good neighbourly approach
which the Club profess to wish to achieve.
I welcome the fact that the Executive Member responsible, Mark
Bradshaw, has agreed to meet with residents groups. I urge Council
to ensure that:
1.
Planners immediately and frequently meet with local residents
groups to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are met as
part of the planning gain process.
2.
Urge the Club to ensure that the Stadium Monitoring Group
contains local residents properly reflecting the range of different
views that there are.
3.
Take the positive opportunities presented by both the imminent
Section 106 Agreement and the opening of Cabot Circus next
year to ensure that the promise of a Park and Ride facility for
the North East of the City is lived up to, a location identified and
work on it started to help to alleviate the congestion and parking
problems generally in the City and in the Horfield and
Lockleaze area specifically which always accompany a match
day.
*
%
Sam Townend
Flat 2
39 Henleaze Road
Bristol
BS9 4EY
'
.
\
!
3;.,.- !
I- . 5 ,\.I
..
: .
Mark Bradshaw
01 17 353 31 60
01 17 922 3854
01 17 922 2090
[email protected]
3ate
22 November 2007
-I-!
.
ci-;-..-.q.,
1
.
.
t, ~ i17
h .,5r-., .-
Statement to Full Council Meetinq 16 October 2007 - Redevelopment of the Memorial
Stadium
I refer to your Statement made to the Council meeting on the above date. In summary,
there were two elements in your statement, one relating to the Memorial Stadium
redevelopment specifically and more generally to Park and Ride in the north east of the
city. Iwill respond to each element in turn.
Starting with the Memorial Stadium redevelopment, the position is that the period to sign
the Section 106 Agreement has been extended to 26 November, following the resolution
of the Committee in January 2007. This will have the effect of granting the planning
permission, and triggering the various commitments which are contained within the
Agreement.
Once the Agreement is complete officers will make it available on the Internet, but in the
interim I have appended extracts from the committee decision on 17January which sets
out the 'Heads of Terms' of the agreement, and can tell you that there are commitments
regarding a Park and Ride service which you can see as identified as item 2.
I accept that the Club as far as I know have not been proactively pursuing delivering this
commitment, but this may not be unreasonable in advance of the Section 106
Agreement being completed.
Your statement makes reference to officers not meeting with resident groups, I think
there may be some misunderstandirlg, in that what officers are currently doing is
formalising the decision of the Planning Committee into a legal document. As and when
commitments from the Section 106 Agreement, or indeed details to satisfy some of the
planning conditions are submitted, the Council will to undertake appropriate
consultation with local residents.
Continued.. .....
You have also made a reference to the Club who as you say do not appear to be
engaging as it should be with local residents, and you refer to complaints that you had
that the Stadium Monitoring Croup does not include any local residents that were
opposed to the planning application.
The Stadium Monitoring Croup is also one of the Section 106 commitments and it is
found in section nine of the attached document. As above, our first task was to put this
agreement into a legal document which we are doing, and our next task will be to ensure
the commitment is delivered. To this end, and although the Clubs could have decided
that they did not want to engage in this process at the moment, there have been some
very preliminary discussions on what the Stadium Monitoring Croup would look like, and
the club have agreed that the SMC should be in operation as of May 2008 (to link in with
the start of works on site).
You will see that this well in advance time specified in the planning committee
resolution. No decisions have been taken on who might be in the SMC and no decisions
have been taken to exclude local residents who are opposed to the planning application,
My view on this, is that the Stadium Monitoring Croup needs to cover as wide a range of
views as is possible, and m y officers are supporting work to ensure that the Stadium
Monitoring Croup is representative of local views. My own preference is that it should
4
have a fully independent chair.
-
The next stage in this process will be for the Clubs to put something on paper in terms
of the Draft Constitution for this Stadium Monitoring Croup which will then be subject to
local consultation.
Turning to the more general question about Park and Ride.in the North East of the city,
the joint Local Transport Plan identified the need for park and ride sites to be established
on key traffic routes into the city centre. We are therefore investigating potential sites
within the M32, and preferably within the Bristol city administrative boundary, with a
view to identifying a specific site in the new year.
I hope the information provided in this letter is helpful, if you do need any further
information, please can you let me know.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member - Access & Environment
Encs
Statement to Full Council 1 6 October
~ ~
2007
On behalf of Horfield ROSE (www. horfieldrose.org.uk)
Statement to be read by a member of HorfieldROSE committee
Members were kind enough to let one of our committee address you before, on Sept 1 I&,
on the subject of the S106 agreements with respect to the Memorial Ground development.
Horfield ROSE is grateful to be given this opportunity to submit another statement to
Members
Residents in Horfield and Bishopston are increasingly concerned and angry about the
continuing lack of credible community involvement and information on these issues.
Bristol Rovers have circulated a highly misleading so-calIed newsletter, in which they
claim, as they always have, to be a 'good neighbour' and to be consulting with local
people. Nothing could be further from the truth. There has been no meaningful
consultation of any sort... .before, during or after the application was lodged.
You will of course be aware that this is contrary to the aims and intentions as laid out
in government planning policy.
In view of the huge impact that this development will have on the' daily lives of people
living up to a kilometre around the ground, it is totally unacceptable that there has been
no consultation that we are aware of on the Residents Parking zone or the Stadium
Monitoring Group.
Having brought this to your attention a month ago, nothing has changed. Officers of this
council and the developers are making recommendations and decisions that appear to be
wholly in the interest of the developers, and of which the residents are not consulted or
even informed.
If this City Council is remotely sincere in its public pronouncements to be fully paid up to
open consultation, and to be inclusive in its dealings ,it should insist that residents are
fully consulted on these matters. The Residents Parking Zone, at present is only planned
to cover the roads immediately adjacent to the stadium to reduce parking problems during
games ,yet roads at least a kilometre away are equally affected.
Bear in mind, if it has slipped your memories, that the Memorial Stadium is SHARED, so
for instance only 2 weeks ago, residents had to put up with three well-attended matches
in one week, as usual, driveways were blocked, cars were parked illegally on corners and
junctions, on yellow lines and on Horfield Common.
All were totally ignored by parking services and police.
Ask yourselves honestly... .would you like to live among such activities, and how would
you feel about the prospect of having this impact more than doubled?
Then remember, if you will, that the original groundshare was NEVER subjected to
public scrutiny or a planning application, and that residents have no right of appeal
against the approval of these latest expansion plans.
Only then will you begin to understand our anger and frustration at this Council's
apparent lack of will to enforce the mitigating measures.
By now, officers should have insisted that the developers at least hold public meetings on
the question of the RPZ, and the many other aspects of the development. Residents living
around the ground are concerned that financial considerations and the continuing
contemptuous attitude on the part of the developers leads residents to fear that no
effective RPZ will ever materialise at all let alone be extended.
Councillors should also remember that residents only yards away will suffer 2417 misery
from the enabling development, parking by students, and greatly increased match day
attendances. No one believes the parking ban on students can be enforced. Our
community is convinced that students will bring their cars.
We are asking that this council commits itself at the eleventh hour to ensure that a
meaningful and timely consultation takes place with those affected by this proposed
development. More than 600 people in North Bristol believe that you have made a huge
mistake in rubber-stamping such a shoddy, second-rate application in January. You will
be shown to have let down your own citizens in the interests of big business, thinly
disguised as sport.
There is still time to restore our faith in the democratic process by insisting that the
planning conditions and S106 obligations are adhered to in full, and that specifically
residents' voices are not ignored.
Thank you
Martyn Williams
Chairman Horfield ROSE
33 Cherrington Road
West bury-on-Trym
Bristol
BS105BL
!?epiy TO Mark Bradshaw
-'-elephoi~e01 17 922 2879
iiAiricor~: 01 17 922 3854
Fax
01 17 922 2090
E-mail
[email protected]
Our ref
MM/LD
Your ref
Date
1 5 November 2007
Dear Mr Williams
Statement to Full Council Meetina 16 October 2007
Thank you for the statement you made on behalf of ROSE to Council meeting in October.
In summary in the Statement you are critical about what you say is the 'continuing lack
of credible community involvement' in connection with the proposed Memorial Ground
development, you refer to Bristol Rovers circulating what you describe as "a highly
misleading so-called newsletter", and say it is totally unacceptable that there has been
no consultation on the residents parking zone or the Stadium Monitoring Croup.
You conclude on tlpris part of your statement by saying that "officers of this council and
the developers are making recommendation and decisions that appear to be wholly in
the interest of the developers, and of which the residents are not consulted or even
informed".
In response to the points made in the Statement, I need to be clear and say that officers
are not as you say making recommendations and decisions in respect of this proposed
development, as the current stage in the process is that of completing the Section 106
Agreement. It is not the case that officers are deciding what goes in such an Agreement,
as this has already been established by the resolution of the Committee on 1 7 January
2007. What officers are doing in ensuring that the terms of the resolution are embodied
appropriately in the Section 106 Agreement.
With regard to the two principle issues you have raised, I am be aware that officers have
responded to ROSE in respect of the residents parking zone (RPZ) on other occasions,
and that this is also covered in my letter to Jane Ghosh of ROSE dated 15 November
2007. To summarise the position, the RPZ is only being delivered as part of the
proposed redevelopment, and the commitment is to have it in place before the first
event at the stadium, there will be consultation with local residents, and that
consultation will be taking place in early 2008.
Continued.. ....
In respect of the Stadium Monitoring Croup, this is a commitment that needs to be acted
upon prior to the first game at the new stadium. However, I can tell you that it has been
agreed by the club that the SMC will be up and running by May 2008, timed to coincide
with the start of work on site. To date there have been informal discussions about what
the group might look like and who might constitute the membership of the group, but
there have been no recommendations and no decisions made.
You also made three other points. First about the ground being shared with two clubs,
and comment that the original ground share was never subject to public scrutiny or a
planning application, second about that the students accommodation that you say will
result in extra cars in the area, and thirdly about the lack of any right of appeal for
residents.
Starting with the ground share, we are of course aware that the ground is shared by both
the football club and the rugby club, and it is correct to say that there was no planning
application made or required for the two clubs to share the ground.
In respect of the student accommodation, your view is that you do not believe that
students can be stopped from bringing their cars to the local streets. Whilst I note your
comments, this is something that was considered when the North Development Control
committee made their decision in January 2007, and will be covered in the Section 106
Agreement.
Finally, I also agree that residents have no right of appeal against the approval of the
current application, but need to point out that this is a matter of national planning law
and not the result of any local decision.
In conclusion I have no hesitation in agreeing that the applicants should be adhering to
both the Section 106 Agreement commitments and to the planning conditions in full,
and this is the approach officers have taken in discussions on completing the Section
106 Agreement..
-
I hope in this letter I have responded to the points you have raised, and what I intend to
do over the next six months or so, is to ask officers for regular briefings on how matters
are progressing.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member - Access & Environment
S17
Statement about SEN reorganisations in Bristol
From Charlotte Leslie, Conservative Parliamentary Candidate,
Bristol North West
I would like to draw the Council’s attention to the reorganisation of Bristol’s
special schools due to take place over the coming year. A reorganisation of
Special Educational Needs provision in Bristol is long over due and I
welcome any effort to make statementing and placements of children with
SEN more efficient and more effective.
However, I am concerned that a reorganisation will really mean cuts in
provision for children with special educational needs and will be seeking
reassurance, based on evidence, that this is not the case.
I would like to draw Council’s attention to the fact that since 1997, the
number of statements maintained for Bristol children has dropped by around
one third;
Parents are not happy with these reductions. According to figures from
SENDIST, the SEN tribunal, to which parents appeal if they are unhappy
with the statementing or placement of their child, Bristol has one of the
highest rates of complaint to SENIST of all local authorities outside London.
I would also like to point out to Council, that whilst the number of maintained
special schools has fallen since 1997 in Bristol, the number of independent
special schools has increased. That shows the need for special school
provision in Bristol that is not being met by the maintained sector. I would
also like to point out that more control can be exercised over cost of
maintained special schools, than over their independent counterparts.
I realise that the Local Authority is under pressure from Central Government
to reduce statementing, and to close special schools. I also recognise that
inclusion in mainstream schools, where appropriate can be a more costeffective way of educating children with SEN. But I share the concerns of
parents of children with SEN that inclusion is often being used as a cost
cutting mechanism at the expense of our most vulnerable children’s welfare.
May I therefore request that as Council looks at SEN reorganisation over the
months to come, it takes note of the concerns that parents have lodged with
me and
-
Ensures that reduced statementing is not used as a means to
strangulate special schools to the point of closure.
-
Ensures that any reorganisation of special school places does not
mean cuts in special school provision.
-
Ensures that any decision preserves flexibility for future requirements
for SEN and that Bristol City Council does not permanently jettison
sites and resources it will later need.
-
Ensures that any reorganisation recognises the distinct needs of
children with varying types of SEN, for example, the necessity of
keeping children with Autism separate from those with EBD or ADD.
-
Ensures that all decisions are transparent, and that parents and the
public have access to all the evidence and expert’s reports behind any
decisions that may be taken.
-
Protects those involved: So that parents are given time to understand
exactly what is going on, and to have their say. And to ensure that any
reorganisation is not rushed through, and that all children involved
have sufficient time to be reassessed and given appropriate new
placements if new placements are decided upon.
Thank you.
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
C Leslie
FREEPOST
(SWB 176)
Bristol
BS6 6BR
Cllr D Pickup
9222879
9222090
Derek. Pickup@ Bristol.Gov.UK
2 1st November 2007
Dear Ms Leslie
SEN Reorganisation
Bristol City Council's plans for its provision for children with special educational needs are
covered by the SEN Provision Strategy which can be access via the intranet at
intranet.bristol-cyps.org.uk~services/pdf/sen-provision-strategy.pdf.
This sets out plans for meeting the changing needs of children with SEN by the better use
of existing resources. It is not a reduction of resources but a strategy to ensure that the
services provided by the Local Authority are better able to meet the developing profile of
need. This will enable reduced use of non-maintained independent provision in future.
Any specific proposals relating to re-designation or closure will be subject to the
necessary formal consultation processes. The strategy itself was drawn up with extensive
involvement from stakeholders.
Bristol, like all local authorities, has reduced its level of Statements but they have reduced
at a slower rate than the England average. The city therefore continues to have a high
number of Statements compared to other authorities of a similar nature. As indicated in
the stategy the Local Authority will be developing ways to reduce the need for Statements
to be produced to enable schools to access resources to support children in mainstream
provision.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Derek Pickup
Executive Member for Childrens Services
The Council House
College Green
Bristol B S 1 5TR
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city.gov.uk
S18
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Committee
"KEITH WILTSHIRE" <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
16/10/2007 17:02:17
Statement to Full Council & Physical Environment Scrutiny
From Campaign for Better Transport/RMT/TravelwatchSW/RailFuture
(This statement was hand-delivered to the Council last Monday but has
apparently been misplaced)
1. Concerns re. IstGreat Western & Dept. of Transport lack of
rolling-stock for theDec.'07 Timetable: What action has Bristol City
Council & its Greater Bristol partners, taken to make sure the appropriate
leases are signed on replacement rolling-stock for the 158 Units (Express
Sprinters) which are being transferred by the Government to Northern Rail &
the PTE group of authorities: Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool??
2. What is the City Council doing, in partnership with DFT (Rail) & the
Gov. office for the SW to make sure that Bristol & the SouthWest is not
stuck with 12 142 30-year-old rail buses until the end of the 1stGreat
Western franchise in 9 years time, & to make sure that suitable replacement
rolling-stock is available for the Severn Beach Line & the crtoss city line
(Parkway-Weston super Mare, serving local stations in Bristol)?
3. Is Cuncil aware that the Cardiff-Portsmouth route through Bristol will
also be short of rolling-stock from December? Is Council, tne SW Assembly &
Welsh Asembly RDA discusssing this with MPs & the RailMinister, Tom Harris
via the West of England partnership & Greater Bristol Authorities.
4. In view of th importanc of rail & the cross-city route (WSM - Yate), &
improvements to track & signalling at WSM, Worle, & Yate turnback, what
action is being taken about shelters & CCTV at Parson St., Bedminster,
Lawreence Hil & Stapleton Rd.?
5. In view of the Council's support for the Transport Authority for Greater
Bristol, which we fully support, what discussion about rail franchising
powers are taking place with Wiltshire, Glos., & Swindon Borough Councils
in view of the fact that services will terminate at Swindon,Cheltenham,
Warminster, Westbury, Taunton, Cheltenham, Cardiff & Severn Beach?
6. Ix Council also, from Christmas, taking action with MPs re. the
withdrawal of the 14 Atalante Units & Buffet services between Bristol
London & Wston Super Mare? What discussions are taking place with MPs & the
Rail Minister concerning these decisions?
7. Re. the importance of bus/rail information, what action is being taken
to ensure that bus stops contain train information & train stations dsiplay
bus information?
8. We are concerned that there seems no progress re a rail station at
Portway Park & Ride at Shirehampton.
9. Is Council aware of the following concerns from passenger organisations
in Greater BristoL? wHAT ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE
THE NEW uwe BUS SERVICE? What arrangements are being made for the
cleanliness of trains & buses? - Inspection & management cannot be done by
CCTV alone.
(Sent on behalf of Dave Redgewell, Transport 2000)
Keith Wiltshire
[email protected]
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
01 17 92 22879
01179222090
[email protected]
November 2007
Dear Mr Wiltshire,
Statement to Council on 16" October 2007
Thank you for your statement which was presented to this meeting about various transport
issues on behalf of the Campaign for Better Transport/RMTlTravelwatchSWlRailFuture.
My responses are as follows, using your numbering system.
1. Concerns over rolling stock
First Great Western continues to assure the West of England Partnership that it has
sufficient and appropriate rolling stock to deliver the December 2007 timetable in the West
of England area. Although there may be sufficient sets to meet 'the timetable we are
concerned that the capacity of some trains will be inadequate to meet the passenger
demand. The Department for T r a n s p o r t 9 b e e n requested to clarify rolling stock
numbers.
2. 30 year old rolling stock
First Great Western has assured the West of England Partnership that the Class 142s will
be operating in Devon, thus releasing Class 150 and 158 units for use in the West of
England area. However, the Severn Beach Line may be operated by class 1421143 units.
3. Cardiff to Portsmouth Route
A new working group involving local authorities along the Cardiff to Portsmouth route,
First Great Western, Network Rail, the Severnside Community Rail Partnership and rail
user groups has just been set up (October 2007). Rolling stock will be one of the key
issues the group focuses on.
4. Local Station Improvements
Agreement has been reached with FGW and funding is available from the Council to
provided new shelters at Parson Street station. I am presently waiting for FGW to
implement the scheme. The shelters at Bedminster were funded by the Council and
it is not currently planned to provide any more. Discussions are on-going concerning
the provision of CCTV and real time passenger information at the Bristol suburban
stations.
5. Transport Authority
Regular officer meetings are held with the neighbouring local authorities beyond the
Joint Local Transport Plan area on cross boundary transport issues. No specific
discussions have yet taken place on rail franchising for a Strategic Transport
Authority in this wider area because this would be premature in advance of the
publication of the Local Transport Bill and discussions within the West of England
area.
6. Withdrawal of Adelante units and buffet services
The issue of the removal of buffet services on London to Bristol services has been
raised before. First Great Western maintains that there are performance benefits in
terms of journey time and fuel consumption from removing the buffet carriage and
many passengers prefer a trolley service.
The Adelante units are comiqg to the end of their current lease. First Great Western
and other train operating companies have stated that .theAdelantes are expensive to
lease and run and have relatively poor reliability. Few currently operate to Bristol and
their capacity at 284 is considerably less than the 510 of the HSTs which will replace
them.
7. Buslrail information
The importance of improving buslrail interchange, including information, is
recognised. Local bus information is to be provided at railway stations and directions
to rail stations provided at bus stops in their vicinity.
8. Portway Park & Ride railway station
The provision of a railway station at the Porhnray Park & Ride site has always been
dependent on a significant improvement to the frequency of the train service. To be
attractive for Park & Ride use it is considered that the train service needs to be at
least every 30 minutes in each direction. The current planning application to expand
the site retains the option to provide a station and the potential will be kept under
review.
9. UWE bus servicelcleanliness of trains and buses
The UWE bus services are provided by Wessex Connect on contract to UWE. The
public use of these services is a matter for the parties to the contract although the
Council would welcome such a development.
Where services are provided on contract to the Council we will raise issues of poor
cleanliness with the contractor. Reports of poor cleanliness can be received from the
public or may be directly observed by the Council's inspectors.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member for Access and Environment
r,
DU
C
4
-
e
-4
P
A
-
h&
,
L
-
THIS PETITION IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE MAYOR AND BRISTOL CITY
COUNCILLORS DUE TO THE HIGH LEVEL. AND EVER INCREASING NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS, AND THE EXCEPTIONAL NUMBER OF LETTERS TO LOCAL
NEWSPAPERS, FROM THE RESIDENTS OF BRISTOL. CONCERNING NOISY LOW
FLYING CIRCUIT TRAINER AIRCRAFT USING FILTON AIRFIELD. /&&
d:
IT IS BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF RESIDENTS, HOW A SMALL PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, IN SOUTH GLOUCESTESHIRE, CAN BLIGHT THE LIVES OF
THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OVER SUCH A LARGE AREA OF NORTH
BRISTOL.
30s
4.
TWO INEXPERIENCED PILOTS FLYING OVERHEAD EVERY 3 MINUTES, ARE CAUSING
ALMOST TOTAL CONTINOUS NOISE, AND CAN FLY EVERY WEEKDAY FOR 13 HOURS AND
TOTALLY UNLIMITED WEEKEND FLYING FOR 8 HOURS-THE8 BANK HOLIDAYS BEING
THE ONLY EXCEPTION GIVING THEM 348 UNRESTRICTED FLYING DAYS A YEAR.
THE MANY RESIDENTS THAT ARE AFFECTED ARE ASKING FOR ONLY ONE THING, TO
SPEND TIME IN PEACE IN THEIR HOMES AND GARDENS AND THAT SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO CHILDREN, SICK AND THE ELDERL,Y IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES.
A FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY RECOGMSED FILTON AIRFIELD SURRONDING LOCATION AS
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA. THE C
AUTHORITY AND
~4
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CLEARLY STATE
AVOIDING FLYING OVER THE SENSITIVE 24 SCHOOLS, 2 MAJOR HOSPITALS AND ST.
PETERS HOSPICE, FOR THE OBVIOUS REASONS.
NO WHERE ELSE IN THE U.K. EXCEPT BRISTOL, ARE INEXPERIENCED PILOTS IN TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
AREA. COMBIN€
CRASHES IN THE U.K., 10 IN 5 WEEKS, 4 IN 1 1 DAYS ,ONE AS CLOSE AS PORTBURY. IT IS
THE DUTY OF ALL HERE TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN, THE SICK AND
RESIDEN- UNDER THE FLIGHT PATH OF THESE AIRCRAFT
rs
IN 2004 BECAUSE OF A FEW C O M P L q T $ FROM SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE RESIDENTS,
IN BRISTOL, OR ANY REPRESENTATION
ON FILTON AIRPORT CONSLtTATION GROUP. IT WAS DECIDED IN THEIR ABSENCE, THAT
TRAINER AIRCRAFT WOULD FLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT FLIGHTS OVER
BRISTOL, AT THIS POINT IN TIME BRISTOL STILL HAVE A MINIMAL REPRESENTATION ON
THIS GROUP, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AFFECTED FAR MORE THAN SOUTH
GLOUCESTERSHIRE ON ALL FLIGHTS.
AND WITHOUT ANY CONSULTATION m
ONE
DR DOUG NAYSMITH M.P. HAS WRITTEN REPEATEDLY "THAT THIS ISSUE MUST BE
RESOLVED" AND THE EXECUTIVE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
WROTE "BRISTOL CITY COLNCIL IS DETERMINED TO PROTECT THE PLBLIC FROM
EXCESS NOISE THAT CAN HAVE AN ENORMOUS IMPACT ON RESIDENTS QUALITY OF
LIFE".
TRAINING FLIGHTS MUST BE STOPPED FROM CIRCUIT FLYING OVER BRISTOL, AS THEY
HAVE BEEN ALREADY AT KEMBLE RLRAL AIRFIELD, DUE TO NOISE AND THE SAFETY
FACTOR AND TO END THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT OF THIS ACTIVITY ON
BRISTOL RESIDENTS.THIS IS A FURTHER INTOLERABLE IMPOSITION ON THE QUALITY OF
LIFE REASONABLY ABLE TO BE RIGHTFULLY ENJOYED BY PERSONS
Agenda Item
4(c)
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2007
QUESTIONS ASKED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
FOR WRITTEN REPLY (CPR10)
RQ1
MR T D DAWKINS TO ASK COUNCILLOR M
BRADSHAW, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR ACCESS
AND ENVIRONMENT
‘Previously Developed Land’
The Planning Policy Statement on Housing (PPS3)
issued by Whitehall in November 2006 equates
‘Previously Developed Land’ with ‘Brownfield Land.’
To define sites such as Bristol Zoological Gardens,
Wills Hall and its grounds and every house and garden
in the country as ‘Brownfield’ can be politely described
as misleading spin.
Q1
Can the Executive Member confirm that, until this
definition is changed, he will not be party to such
spin and will always make clear in any document or
statement the amount of ‘Previously Developed
Land’ that is genuine Brownfield (defined to be
industrial or commercial property or run-down or
derelict residential property) and how much is
habitable houses and/or their gardens?
A1
Previously developed land is formally defined in PPS3
as follows:
‘Previously developed land is that which is or was
occupied by a permanent structure, including the
cartilage of the developed land and any associated
fixed surface infrastructure.
Representations from Local Residents
Full Council – 16th October 2007
1
The definition makes no reference to ‘brownfield land’.
The Council is required to report the amount of
development undertaken on previously developed land
as defined by PPS3 in an annual return to the
Department of Communities & Local Government using
this definition. The annual return (BV106) is formally
audited. It is not broken down by categories of
previous use.
Q2
In particular, can the Executive Member give a
breakdown of the 2,017 dwellings described (in the
Bristol Residential Survey 2006) as built on
‘Previously Developed Land’ in terms of those built
on genuine Brownfield sites (as defined above) and
those built on sites of habitable houses and/or
their garden?
A2
The annual survey does record the number of new
homes developed on previously developed land as
defined by PPS3 but not broken down further by the
nature of the previous use.
With regard to the definition of the Bristol Zoological
Gardens and Wills Hall as previously developed land,
the unique circumstances of both these settings would
protect them from inappropriate development.
Representations from Local Residents
Full Council – 16th October 2007
2