WE write to clarify our position concerning the area green space plan (AGSP). Councillor Havvock and I support the AGSP.

That is, we agree with the proposal that "low value" land across the city should be sold off to help fund improvements in our parks. However, our disagreement is with the council's definition of what constitutes low value land.

There are three pieces of land in our ward that are contained within the list of sites put forward by council officers (note officers, not councillors).

This land is situated on the Bath Road, Higham Street and in front of the old YMCA building in Totterdown. While we are not opposed to the Bath Road site being sold, to raise funds to improve our parks, we certainly do not regard the other two sites as low value. This is why we have strenuously defended, along with many local residents, these sites throughout the consultation period.

We informed residents about the AGSP by delivering nearly 6,000 leaflets to every home in our ward, setting out our support for the AGSP, but also highlighting our opposition to the sell-off of the land in Totterdown.

To date not one of the people whom we represent has suggested to us that we are wrong to support the AGSP, although many are concerned about the inclusion of the Totterdown sites. We therefore find the accusation of hypocrisy for sticking to our stated position (when faced with an opportunistic opposition motion at full council) to be absurd.

We are baffled equally by the charge that we should abandon the AGSP before the result of the two- month consultation is known. Are we to disregard the opinions of thousands of Bristol residents who took the time to respond to the consultation, just because the other two political parties are trying to win a few votes in next May's local election? Of course not.

The people of Bristol have made their views known through the consultation. It is now the duty of council officers to bring forward recommendations that represent these views. It is also incumbent on the Lib Dem administration to make sure that these same views are fairly represented in the AGSP when it is adopted.

We find the accusation of hypocrisy from the Labour leader, Helen Holland, to be somewhat ironic. This is the same Helen Holland who only a short while ago supported the AGSP. The same leader of the Labour Party who initiated the AGSP process when they were in power.

Helen Holland is also the leader of the party who voted for a planning application in 2004 to turn the land outside of the old YMCA into a car park, only to be stopped by our intervention. The truth of the matter is that if the Labour Party had its way in 2004, we would not even be discussing this land as it would already be covered in cars. To quote one of the Labour councillors from the minutes of this planning committee "this land is not precious".

We will leave the people of Totterdown and beyond to judge who is the real hypocrite in this sorry little saga.

Councillors Mark Bailey and Alf Havvock, Windmill Hill

I T is clear that the Evening post knows nothing about consultation.

If it had bothered to look at the consultation documents it would have seen that there were options given for residents to comment on.

One of those options was always "Do not allocate for development".

It is entirely consistent for ward councillors to look at all the options on the consultation document and, along with local residents, express their views. That is what consultation is all about.

The Evening Post is mistaking democracy for hypocrisy.

With regard to Briery Lease, Councillor Jos Clark and Councillor Sylvia Doubell have taken the stated view that until the second public hearing on the town green application is heard in February 2011, and until the decision of the government inspector has been published, the options in the green spaces strategy should not be taken into consideration.

Councillors Jos Clark and Sylvia Doubell, Hengrove

I MUST respond to the recent articles in the Post regarding the area spaces strategy

1. The strategy includes the council's acquisition of Stoke Park to prevent it falling into rack and ruin – something I help to initiate, and have worked towards for a long time.

2. The Tory motion asked us to stop a consultation before we even heard the results. Surely the Evening Post must realise how ludicrous that would be, and what a dangerous precedent it would set?

3. Some local people do want some sites developing. At the council meeting some Tory councillors claimed no sites, including all those in the site allocations strategy, should not be developed. Well, I have represented Lockleaze for ten years and am quite sure local people do want the mess on the East side of Gainsborough Square sorted!

4. I have opposed the disposal of the sites identified in the AGS strategy in Lockleaze (Lockleaze open space, Dovercourt open space and Muller Road recreation ground) because, first, they are valuable open spaces, despite what some council officers have claimed, and second, there are other sites, which I have identified, that could and should be developed first, and could make a contribution to green spaces

5. There were problems with the consultation process, particularly in submitting comments online, and the council needs to learn from that in future. I obtained assurances from a council officer that all comments will be considered and I made my own seven-page submission, a copy of which I sent to you, but you ignored.

The cabinet will respond to the consultation when the results are known, and there will be considerable opportunity for that response to be scrutinised and challenged if necessary.

Councillor Sean Emmett, Lockleaze

I F by accepting the all-party parks and green space strategy for Bristol in 2008 (not to mention a succession of prior discussions and briefings that took place before its adoption) I am told I am a hypocrite, then so be it.

If, as a councillor for Eastville Ward, I support the residents in their objections, protests, etc to safeguard their green spaces, then I am, as the Tories proclaim, a hypocrite.

I care nothing for their posturing. This is a group, which time after time for political gain, shows itself to be dishonest and dishonourable.

However, a question should be asked why the Evening Post should stoop to promote this Tory insult with such prominence in its newspaper. Do they, themselves have some ulterior motive I wonder?

Councillor Muriel Cole, Lib Dem, Eastville