Bristol residents tell city council to keep it simple over park improvements
Consultation results on Bristol City Council's plan to sell off parks across the city show the majority of residents think the simplest and potentially cheapest improvements are the most important.
The council has always argued selling off up to 64 green areas was essential to fund an £87-million investment in many of the other parks across the city.
-
When the council began the consultation process in June it released lengthy documents that included dozens of potential options, from simply maintaining what is there to building new children's play areas.
But according to the results of the 20-week consultation carried out last year, the public does not favour elaborate schemes for their parks.
Instead, ideas such as "regular maintenance", "upgrade footpaths" and "more dog bins" are repeatedly made first choice.
The council has not released estimated costs of any of the improvements, despite requests.
But some of the potentially more expensive ideas and attempts to "formalise" green spaces consistently come bottom of local people's wish lists.
The council released more than 1,000 pages of detailed documents showing the public's views before a final decision was made by cabinet in December. This included breakdowns of feedback on 155 green spaces that could be upgraded.
Residents were asked to fill in questionnaires saying which of their parks were most important to invest in and which investments in each park they wanted most.
The five options were "very important"; "important"; "moderately important"; "of little importance" and "not important".
The Evening Post has produced a list of the improvements that generated the most positive responses from the 1,676 people that returned the questionnaires.
Repeatedly, residents put some of the simplest ideas as either "very important" or "important".
For example for St James' Barton roundabout in the city centre people put "new low-level planting with all-year-round interest and colour" as their first choice while a proposal for a big screen TV came bottom.
In Eastville Park, residents most want the council to "plant wild flowers" while in Mina Road park people want "trees and shrubs maintained to a high standard". In every case where part of the site was put under threat of sale, partial disposal came bottom of the list.
New children's play areas are put as first choice in a number of areas, including High Kingsdown and Gill Avenue, although the latter is still under threat of sale to developers.
But play areas were bottom of the list in other areas, such as Maynward Road and Molesworth Drive.
Executive member for the scheme Councillor Gary Hopkins said: "With such a large amount of green space in the city – 1,500 hectares – it is clear we will need considerable amounts of money over the next 20 years to help transform spaces that have for years been neglected of any sustained funding. The extra income that can be generated by disposing of a very small part of the city's 1,500 hectares of open space therefore makes good sense.
"It has been evident all along that section 106 money would not be enough.
"Also it is important to remember that as a result of the strategy we will in fact be acquiring new land, but this will of course cost money which we will need to fund."
Mr Hopkins said Neighbourhood Partnerships would help determine which improvements get the go-ahead.
5 Comments
by The Hedgehog, Horfield
Thursday, January 06 2011, 6:07PM
“A typical vanity scheme in which OUR money, raised by selling off OUR green spaces goes to promote councillors' egos (apart from the 30% that goes into their pockets).
These schemes are unwanted and unnecessary - just like the Museum of Bristol, another daft prestige scheme.
Rip up this nonsense immediately and leave us our green spaces. Now, when's the next Council election?”
by Kate, Fishponds
Thursday, January 06 2011, 12:25PM
“Anthony, you are exactly right. Speaking as a member of Friends of Eastville park, the feeling is very much, let us help with improvements and dont sell off land. We know things are tight and are prepared and would like to help. So far the parks dept has made this very difficult. THier idea of community involvment is to allow us to litter pick at weekends. THey do not seem interested in the skills and knowledge that us 'friends' have and will not enter in disucussion with us in any sensible way. We have bought this up at our local Neighbourhood partnership, but seem to banging our heads! I am also very worried about the unspent 106 money, much of which we will lose if we dont spend it by April!”
by David, The Real World
Thursday, January 06 2011, 11:04AM
“"Mr Hopkins said Neighbourhood Partnerships would help determine which improvements get the go-ahead."
I think that Mr Hopkins is trying to avoid some of the responsibility at this late stage.
Perhaps the Neighbourhood Partnerships should have previously been told, "If you want improvements to some of your green spaces you need to sell something to pay for it."
The other side of this equasion is "If you don't want to loose any green space you will have to put up with no improvements for the time being." I know a lot of residents who would have taken this option.
As usual this is a half-baked scheme which is being used to generate money for the council who has only ever promised to re-invest 70% back into green spaces.
The public is being misled by the Council, and Neighbourhood Partnerships are being CONsulted far too late in the process.
The council/ Mr Hopkins will cream-off 30% of the funds generated for 'other purposes', money made from the sale of green spaces in one NP will be used on green spaces in other parts of the city, and the NPs can then scrabble for the rest.
Disgraceful!”
by David, Fishponds
Thursday, January 06 2011, 10:23AM
“"Mr Hopkins said Neighbourhood Partnerships would help determine which improvements get the go-ahead."
I think that Mr Hopkins is trying to avoid some of the responsibility at this late stage.
Perhaps the Neighbourhood Partnerships should have previously been told, "If you want improvements to some of your green spaces you need to sell something to pay for it."
The other side of this equasion is "If you don't want to loose any green space you will have to put up with no improvements for the time being." I know a lot of residents who would have taken this option.
As usual this is a half-baked scheme which is being used to generate money for the council who have only ever promised to re-invest 70% back into green spaces.
The public is being mislead by the Council, and Neighbourhood Partnerships are being CONsulted far too late in the process.
The council/ Mr Hopkins will cream-of 30% of the funds generated for 'other purposes', money made from the sale of green spaces in one NP will be used on green spaces in other parts of the city, and the NPs can then scrabble for the rest.
Disgraceful!”
by Anthony Butcher, Long Ashton
Thursday, January 06 2011, 10:20AM
“Perhaps the council could try to encourage the formation of local resident groups to assist with some of the maintenance work for these green areas rather than simply selling them. That would surely be the Big Society approach?
Also, if the Council can't afford to maintain the existing green spaces, why are they buying more with the money from selling others?”