“Does a comprehensive list of brown field sites in Bristol exist? Any reasonable discussion of brownfield vs greenfield sites for development surely needs a map/ list of both out on the table for all to see...”

“HELP SAVE WELLINGTON HILL PLAYING FIELD

In response to Mark, Bristol (02-Oct-2010 10:54) who stated
¿ ¿ will there be no end to this selfish Nimby nonsense?¿

I have lived within 100 yards of both Horfield Common & Wellington Hill Playing Field for the past 21 years. I can assure you Mark that the field is used both very regularly and extensively by numerous Youth Groups, albeit mostly during mid-week evenings.

My attitude is not one of Nimbyism ¿.. I have no children and am not currently associated with any of the Youth Groups involved. I also accept that many of the general dog walking, picnicking, gentle walk of jogging activity that most residents may want to do can be undertaken on the Common. I was however a member of the Scout movement in my youth, and I know how important it was to both myself and my peers in our development through childhood to young adulthood. The Groups that use that field are continuing the extra-curricula education of the young people of our area, and in most cases without any direct cost to either the Council or the Tax paying public. That is why they have my support.

It is the characteristics of Wellington Hill Playing Field which are so important to it¿s use by the Youth Groups; It is virtually enclosed, with minimal road frontage, no tarmac paths and visible from most venues where the Youth Groups operate (i.e. the Scout Hut which is sited on the field itself, and the Church Hall which backs onto it) therefore making it ideal for mixed activities involving simultaneous indoor and outdoor uses, for use of equipment from those venues and, most importantly, from supervisorory and safety aspects.
The supposed alternative space of the Common consists of fragmented areas all with long unprotected frontages onto busy roads, criss-crossed by tarmac paths and minor roads, and requiring walking along roadside pavements to access them from the Youth Group venues. The Common is also subject to restrictions and Byelaws which mean it cannot necessarily be modified and developed to overcome these issues.

Wellington Hill Playing Field is exactly that ¿ a Playing Field.
The Common isn¿t !!

Please support the multitude of Youth Groups who use Wellington Hill Playing Field by completing the Councils online Area Green Space Plan ¿ Ideas and Options questionnaire for the Horfield & Lockleaze area, ensuring you go to the section towards the end where you can object to the ¿Funding improvements through disposal sites¿ (http://www.snapsurveys.com/swh/surveylogin.asp?k=127618207182)

REMEMBER THE DEADLINE FOR THE CONSULTATION IS 29th OCTOBER”

“Even without the self inflicted cash crisis, it's Hobsons choice for each and every one of us in Southern England.

We're growing as a nation (some households with 4+ children) and common to all mankind, need to find a roof over our heads.

Governments of all stripes daren't encroach on the greenbelt so have upped the planned density of existing urban spaces. We see gardens turned into plots for single houses, we see brownfield converted at considerable cost to the homeowner into residential and we see the knock-on squeeze against transport, goverenment services and the quality of life these green spaces provide.

We either reduce net population growth to zero or somebodys green space has to get built on. The boundrys set down in the 30s have reached their limit.

Hobsons choice... I'd prefer an acre of grass in a city to an acre of grass surrounded by other acres of grass in the country, but admit bias as I'm doing what I can to flee from the high tax urban soddom that has been foisted upon us.

Accept that brownfield and infill won't meet demand and pick which verdent spaces on this green and pleasant land we wish to lose, for in a few years our burgoning school population will be needing homes and loose them we must, if we're not to destroy their future with even more outrageous housing costs.”

“A bit off topic but....

Why does BCC have a Council Leader (Janke) and also a CEO (Ormondroyd)?”

“Politicians' Dictionary, part 17.

Consult (v. intrans.) Ask opinions of the public and then totally ingnore those opinions.”

“Craig,
The remaining 30% goes to the Council for other capital schemes. The original proposal was for only 50% of the money to go to parks but we got that increased. We wanted it high enough so that there wouldn't be pressure to sell parks as a money raising scheme for other parts of the council. Many BPF members think it should be 100% but that would prevent any of the money being used to improve other community facilities.
More houses are going to be needed over the next 20 years along with more industrial buildings and more shops and offices. I agree that brown field sites should be used first, but we must also protect the green belt. So it must be right that spaces within the City are considered for housing, it is right to ask the question whether the space is really of value to the community. The important thing is that people are given a proper chance to have a say before decisions are taken and that those views are properly taken into account.”

“Rob, where is the other 30% of the money raised going? I would be more in favour of this kind of scheme if all the money was fed back into the community. I personally hate the idea of the remaining green spaces in Bristol being sold off for yet more housing when there are so many brown field sites around the city that should be redeveloped first!”

“As a member of the Bristol Parks Forum Committee I thought I should answer some of the points on here and particularly those from Sam.
The BPF does support the AGSP process, but it is important to realise that the public consultation is part of the process, probably the most important part. One of the reasons we supported the Parks & Green Spaces Strategy is that it stops bits of green space being sold off without consultation, as has happened before.
In my view the current use of the site is one of the least important factors and it would have been a waste of the Council's money to have surveyed every site. It is the site's potential for use in the future that is important, there are many sites that would be used more if for example they were better maintained or if they had better entrances so that were more inviting and more people knew they were there. It would be wrong to dispose of sites just because they are little used at the moment.
Looking through the statements made to the Cabinet meeting last week, there are lots of good points made that I am sure will be taken into consideration before the final list of sites for disposal is agreed. In particular they explain why Wellington Hill provides a benefit to the community (and particularly youth groups) that the rest of Horfield Common cannot because of the main roads. This is exactly the type of response that is needed and is a good example for other areas. If you can tell the Council why their assessment is wrong based on their own criteria then it will be difficult for them to argue against it. It is also inevitable with the whole City being assessed that some bits of information like the fact that the Scout Hut isn't closed will have been missed - the public consultation is a chance to tell the Council that. The BPF committee do not believe that the consultation is a sham or that decisions have already been made. I urge every one to look at www.bristol.gov.uk/agsp and make their views known not just on the disposals but also on the ideas for other sites.
The financial plan for the P&GSS adopted in Feb 2008 was based on the sale of 90 acres of land at £1m per acre, 70% of this would be spent on enhancing green spaces giving just over half of the money estimated to be needed over the next 20 years. But it says that this will be reviewed if insufficient low recreational value land is found. It seemed to me at the time that there was an attitude in some parts of the Council that there was many acres of green space around the City that could be sold to raise money and solve the shortfall in the Capital budget, a Director at the time said he thought there was about 150 acres. If the end result of this process is that we prove that there is very little 'low value' space then that's good news but it means that as Sam suggests we have to find other ways to raise funding. If there are spaces that are genuinely of 'low value' then surely it is right that they should be considered for housing or other development that would benefit the community and it is right that most of the money should then be invested back into other green spaces.
Another important factor is that if in the future some Council department or developer thinks it is a good idea to nibble away at a bit of green space for development, the adopted Area Green Space Plans will be in place to stop them.”

“QUETION: Why does Seagulls have wings.
Answer: So that they can beat Travellors to the Village Green”

“Just apply for Village Green status, then no football stadium, Oops i mean development will be allowed, it's so simple, we've done it.”