George Ferguson: Invisible threat should spur us to clean up act
L ast week a Parliamentary report highlighted the serious state of air quality in our cities, with pollution from cars being the main culprit. The real shock is that it is affecting us to the extent that it is causing widespread early death and serious illness.
Traffic fumes are a major cause of asthma, for which five million were treated by the NHS last year, and children can be the most acute victims. It is an invisible threat and should spur us to clean up our act in Bristol.
To the council's credit, it has a clear policy and planning guide in which it states that everyone has a right to a healthy environment, and an air quality impact assessment is required for all major planning applications.
It may therefore be a surprise to some, given all the hype about sustainability, that the new application by Sainsbury's for a superstore on the Ashton Gate football pitch is potentially one of the largest air polluters in the city.
The number of additional car movements that will be generated by this store and its 800-plus car parking spaces, nearly double the size of their existing Winterstoke Road store, runs into millions a year.
Given that such a store is clearly superfluous to South Bristol's retail requirements it is strange that our MP and some local councillors are giving tentative support. Are they prepared to let our children be damaged for the sake of finding a few more millions for a new football stadium?
The strange thing is that having seen off Tesco's plans, this equally devastating plan is likely to be granted planning permission against all proper planning criteria because it is argued to be "replacing" the existing store and conveniently ignoring its far greater size and traffic impact.
What is more, in spite of much weight being given to the regeneration of the existing Sainsbury's site, I see no sign of a pledge to build the housing and employment offered, just a planning application to enable it to happen. Without a legal requirement to deliver this prior to the opening of the new store, this is meaningless.
All this brings to mind last week's tragic early death of cycling campaigner Chris Hutt, known to many as the Bristol Green Blogger, who was a lifelong agitator for a greener Bristol. He had a genuine passion for the city he lived in and argued vehemently for it.
Let's hope that our politicians and planners show equal commitment to making a healthier Bristol and stand up to the powerful forces who would have it otherwise. The best memorial to Chris would be to make it known to our councillors that we are all passionate about cleaning up Bristol's act.
15 Comments
View all
by RTS, Bristol
Friday, April 02 2010, 2:36PM
“Protect Children: Don't Make Them Breathe Your Vehicle Emissions.”
by Richard Lane, Knowle
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 10:13PM
“Martin
Of course George will argue his case on environmental grounds, It's one of the few grounds left to oppose on, there are obviously some relevant points.
This is definitely a statement by him to put pressure on certain people.
That's why he mentioned the council policy, why he mentioned the death of a green campaigner(Chris Hutt R.I.P.)
It's why he mentioned the risk to children, almost like a threat to councillors and supporters of these plans.
The opposition have used the traffic survey and proposed traffic levels as the basis of their argument recently. They have used the extremes of the surveys to argue their case and express their concerns. They have ignored the proposed new link road which would remove traffic from the proximity of the store and they have also ignored the new BRT From Ashton vale to Temple meads, which has just won funding and will also take traffic off the roads in that area.
I'm not saying traffic will disappear but with these new schemes in place, they should improve the current and proposed situation and cater for any increase the store produces.
I was only highlighting the points he himself has raised in the past on certain issues.
It is definitely a case of, do as I say not as I do.”
by Mitch, Ashton Vale
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 6:58PM
“Martin, Sainsburys expect 10% increase on existing car usage to the new store. It's currently reported the existing store is 40% overused so when the new one opens, it will cater better for these and expects around 10% increase.
Basically GF is against the new store, I don't particularly care, but he should think about what he writes as a local businessman before he preaches.”
by Mark, Bristol
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 4:02PM
“Surely the population of cars and drivers in any given community has to increase in order for there to be additional pollution?
It seems to me that it is entirely likely that the same number of car drivers will make the same number of car journeys; albeit MAYBE to a different supermarket than before; so the net outcome will actually be no increase in overall pollution at all?
What Mr Ferguson fails to include is that Ashtons loss may be Bedminsters gain and as always there will be winners and losers.
Nothing in fact to worry about at all.”
by Martin, Knowle,Bristol
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 1:14PM
“Mitch.
10% of what?.Not surprised that that figure has been projected. Its speculation though, and I think a little conservative, don't you?. We are told that the present Sainsbury is at maximum capacity and new one will not be. It is however a relevant point to argue about.
You seem to have done some homework and thats great. Ferguson has done some as well and his conclusion is different. You both may be influenced or not by personal interests that aren't relevant, I don't know. Richard Long may well be able to refute the environmental basis of Feguson's argument, but he didn't , he smeared him, the person, not the argument. I would like to think that you and Ferguson are capable of changing your minds if presented with valid reasons for doing so and not be dogmatic.
In the end it all comes down to how much extra pollution we think is acceptable or not.”
by The Analyst, Bristol
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 1:02PM
“ah ha Ford has just admitted that he's someone else's puppet.....
now wait for him to say the last post was someone impersonating him”
by Mike Ford - BNP Slayer, Bristol
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 12:30PM
“I have been told not to comment on this story, so I won't.
Oops.”
by Mitch, Ashton Vale
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 12:04PM
“Martin, go do your research on the new Sainsburys. I did and asked the relevant questions and was surprised at the answers.
To answer on of your comments, there will likley be an increase of around 10% in traffic with the new Sainsburys opening....surprised?”
by Martin, Knowle, Bristol
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 11:42AM
“Richard Lane.
Are you saying that George Ferguson is wrong about his claim that this larger supermarket will cause extra pollution? Is he wrong that peoples health should be taken into account? or are your comments not relevant because you choose to make an attack on the person rather than the subject?. Although the store will surely be successful it is also surely superfluous to the local retail requirements.Theres nothing controversial about that statement.
An extra bakery? fine, thats competition at a local level, and not relevant as it doesn't come with an 800 space car park. Etc etc. Argue your case, if you have one, on environmental grounds, not because you mistrust someones motives. He may or may not gain if Sainsburys don't move there. So what?. Do you you honestly think he should only select subjects to comment on that he knows nothing about or has no interest in?
I don't have a problem in someone pointing out that he has a personal interest (we all do to a lesser or greater extent). You give me the impression, however, that because you don't trust his motives and think him hypocritical, or eccentric, or whatever ( aren't we all?) his points aren't valid. They are.”
by Marie, Bristol
Tuesday, March 30 2010, 10:15AM
“Well said Richard, couldn't agree more.”