HOW SOME GREEN SPACES SURVIVED
GREENBELT land was considered for sale as part of Bristol City Council's parks sell-off plan, despite a pledge that only "low value" sites would be looked at.
The authority carried out a public consultation exercise last year on selling 62 green sites across the city in a bid to raise money to improve up to 200 more.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that the council previously looked at another 42 sites across the city for possible disposal, on top of the 62 that were consulted on last year.
Lamplighters open space in Shirehampton was one of the sites considered for sale, a move that was condemned by residents in 2009.
Other sites included part of St Annes Wood.
In most cases the reason why sites were discounted was because they could not easily be built on, rather than because of any potential objections from residents.
Although all 42 sites were rejected before the final list was produced, 14 greenbelt sites were considered in the early stages of the Area Green Space Plan.
This would appear to contradict the original intention of the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy agreed in 2008, which specifically stated only "low value" land would be looked at for potential sale.
The strategy said: "Bristol has a significant amount of poor quality informal green space which is perceived as less safe and inaccessible and consequently has low levels of use and detracts from the local area.
"In some cases such spaces which offer low value may be disposed of to invest in other services, including local parks, or changed to other types of space.
"Low value in this context does not mean financial value – it means land which has limited value assessed by a range of factors including wildlife, historical, archaeological significance, and importantly, value placed on spaces by the local community."
Greenbelt land is designated under national planning policy aimed at protecting green spaces from development and avoiding unchecked "urban sprawl".
While it does not absolutely prevent development, the legislation dictates that "greenbelts must be protected as far as can be seen ahead".
The presumption is against inappropriate development unless "exceptional circumstances" can be shown.
The greenbelt sites considered for sale included The Ridings in Withywood, Eastwood Farm Local Nature Reserve in Brislington and part of Stockwood open space.
The list of discounted sites also shows that the council considered sites that were protected by covenants, Local Historic Park designation and that are within a Conservation Area.
The council faced criticism during the public consultation for appearing to "protect" parts of the city like Clifton, Redland and Southville, as they had no green sites put forward for sale. While these will lose no green spaces they could still gain from the money raised from sites sold in other parts of Bristol like Knowle and Hartcliffe.
The list of rejected sites suggests that the council never considered selling off sites in these four neighbourhood partnership areas – Clifton and Cabot; Southville and Bedminster; Henleaze Westbury-on-Trym and Stoke Bishop; and Bishopston – as none were included even at an early stage.
All 42 of the extra disposals were in parts of the city already being targeted, and so would have been hit even harder with losses.
Pigeonhouse Stream in Hartcliffe, for example, would have suffered the loss of two more sites in addition to the two the council has decided to sell.
The council cabinet agreed the sale of more than 40 sites in December, which will be disposed over the course of the 20 year parks strategy in a bid to fund improvements.
Money raised will be added to funding from developers, grants and the council's own budget and distributed to Neighbourhood Partnerships.
The council has always argued that the sale of some sites is necessary to tackle decades of under investment in parks, and the cabinet removed nine of the sites from the at-risk list after public opposition last year.
Council spokeswoman Helen Hewitt said: "When officers were first given the brief in 2008, greenbelt areas of the city were included in the strategy. Subsequently, as the Bristol Development Framework was developed the greenbelt areas were excluded.
"A number of city wards have high-density housing or limited access to green space so no disposals have been identified in these wards."
7 Comments
by Oh Deer, Fallow Me
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 6:39PM
“Dog Walker
It does make a difference because it explains why Green Belt land was included. At that time it was Labour Gov. policy to hand over Green Belt land for development through their RSS. The Liberal Council, supported by the Tories and, ironically, Labour, have agreed in the new Core Strategy to protect the GB which is good news.”
by PJ, Brislington
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 2:24PM
“I'm sure the Cllr will correct me if i'm wrong, but they are selling 2%, were already planning on buying 5% (mainly Stoke park up the M32) and using only 70% of the money from the sale of the 2% over the next 20 years to do up the rest of the 98%.
For me this whole process illustrates what a farce local government finance is, BCC are reliant on 75% of their funding from the government. A friend once compared this situation to giving pocket money to his child, you know that they will waste the money and you don't expect them to think about where is came from and therfore understand its value!
This situation is the root cause of the parks sell off, because the government doesn't give that much in handouts for parks and BCC have little revenue raising powers. This is one of the only options, so isn't it time this changes so BCC don't have to do short term sell offs and actually have the discretion to spend Bristols tax share in accordance with the wishes of this city?
There's a lot of talk about local government finance reform, localisation of business rates etc that will be tax neutral and remove ring fenced grants, the question is will central government give away this power and can local authorities be trusted with the responsibility.”
by Dog Walker, Bristol
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 1:10PM
“Councillor
It doesn't matter who came up with the plans initially - this is apolitical. However lets remember that the returns calculated from the sell off were vastly more when the plan was hatched than they appear likely to be now. Just because something has started it doesn't mean we have to carry on with it blindly.
Let me get this straight: by selling off 2% of the land we can buy 5% more? Sounds like pretty poor quality extra land to me.
I am ignoring the fact that some of that 2% is supposedly being used to improve the remaining 98% (or is it 103%) of land that is remaining.
Figures numbers and nonsense Dr Rogers.
I have an idea. Have a word with your mate Gary Hopkins, persuade him to knock the AV-TM BRT on the head and use the cash to improve the parks.
Win-Win-Win”
by Bristol City Council, La la land
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 12:24PM
“Quick bit of maths for you children!
Lets say you have 1000 Green Spaces.
You sell off 200 Green Spaces to your local developer mates for way under the market rate.
Do you have more or less green space?
We think you have more.”
by Paul, Bristol
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 12:20PM
“Cllr Dr Jon Rogers,
Everyone knows times are tight and cuts mist be made.
However, surely a better longer term solution would be to use money available to improve the most used green spaces or the spaces that have declined the most. When some more money becomes available some further sites and so on and so on...
Once these green sites have gone, they are gone forever. They are never going to be returned to public use.
Bristol has spent many years waiting for green spaces to be improved. A few more will not hurt .”
by Cllr Dr Jon Rogers, Ashley Ward Lib Dem Councillor
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 11:21AM
“Council spokeswoman Helen Hewitt said: "When officers were first given the brief in 2008, greenbelt areas of the city were included in the strategy"
In 2008 Labour had been the city administration, with Conservative support. It is perhaps ironic that the current Liberal Democrat administration is being criticised for REMOVING greenbelt areas from the Parks and Green Space Strategy.
The Strategy will protect 98% of publicly accessible Parks and Green Space in the city for at least 20 years. It is also supporting the purchase of an EXTRA 5% of new publicly accessible Green Space, as well as ensuring the funding is there to support, improve and maintain our existing Parks and Green Spaces.
We have listened to local residents in many areas of the city, and have ensured that further sites join the protected green space.
At the end of this process it is our intention that we have a variety of top quality parks and green space near to every resident in the city.”
by The Hedgehog, Horfield
Wednesday, February 09 2011, 10:06AM
“"A number of city wards have high-density housing or limited access to green space so no disposals have been identified in these wards."
That would be Clifton, Stoke Bishop and Redland where, by an amazing coincidence, most of the Council Cabinet live and have their seats...”