Green spaces sell-off? Bristol City Council has no Plan B
BRISTOL City Council has never looked at ways of paying for the £87 million parks improvement plan that didn't involve selling off green spaces, it has been revealed.
The authority has always maintained that disposing of up to 64 sites across the city was the only way that enough money could be raised to pay for improvements in up to 200 others.
-
Protests followed plans to sell off parts of Bristolâs parks and green spaces as a way of raising money to improve other parks. Now it has been revealed the council had not considered other ways to raise the money first
But it turns out that in the last five years of the Parks Green Spaces Strategy (PGSS), the council has never costed or even considered a plan that doesn't involve land sales.
The original funding for the improvement plan was £41 million from land sales; £21 million of grant funding; £15 million of money from developers and £10 million from the council parks budget.
Since these 2006 estimates, the council has dropped the amount it expects to raise from selling land from £41 million to £11 million.
The council has repeatedly stated a plan based around developers' money would not be enough. But following a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the authority has been forced to admit it has never actually looked at the detail of such a plan.
The Evening Post asked: "Has the council at any point in the last five years considered or costed a plan to fund improvements to green spaces purely by section 106 money, or by funding methods that did not involve selling off green spaces? If so, can you provide details and any reports produced."
The one-word answer from head of the green spaces project Richard Fletcher – provided more than a week after the legally required deadline for such requests – was "No".
When the PGSS was agreed three years ago, it was on the condition that if improvements couldn't be funded by land sales the council should review the plan. As previously revealed in the Post the council has failed to do this.
Residents and a cross-party group of councillors have obtained around 7,000 signatures on a petition calling for a rethink on the sell-off plan, which is due to be debated at a council meeting at the end of the month.
Councillor Ron Stone (Labour, St George) said: "Falling land values have cut the expected cash revenue from land sales from £41 million to just £11 million – this means that the current parks and green spaces improvement plans are in tatters. That's why we need to call a halt and have a re-think.
Councillor Tess Green (Green Party, Southville) said: "Section 106 is unpredictable as it relies on the amount of development carried out and there is less at the moment due to the recession.
"However I agree the council should look to alternative funding for green space improvement."
Councillor Mark Weston (Conservative, Henbury) added that there are other sources of income the council could look at to fund improvements, like the New Homes Bonus.
But executive member for the scheme Councillor Gary Hopkins (Lib Dem, Knowle) argued it makes sense to sell off a relatively small amount of land to help fund the plan.
He said: "Those thinking that section 106 money could pay for all the improvements needed to transform our parks over the next 20 years are frankly living in cloud cuckoo land. If it was as simple a solution as that, then our parks would already be in tip-top condition.
"The reality all along is that this could never be the main source of funding – mainly because there are many competing demands and restrictions on this limited pot of money.
"And with such a large amount of green space in the city – 1,500 hectares – it is quite clear that we will need considerable amounts of money to help transform spaces that have for years been neglected of any sustained funding.
"It is complete nonsense to suggest that we've embarked on this strategy to raise capital funds from the 30 per cent not earmarked for parks and green spaces."
8 Comments
by James, Portishead
Wednesday, March 16 2011, 9:10AM
“Section 106 money can only be used to correct and deficiency caused by th development, for example funding extra school places because people with children will occupy the new houses.
It cannot be used as a general pot of money by the Council.
However all Councils, particularly big ones like Bristol tend to accumulate parcels of land. It makes sense to review these and see which ones are not needed, and sell off some. Which ones should depend on local opinion expressed by the local Ward Councillors.”
by John, Clifton
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 10:47PM
“Lee... this is something driven by an inability to say "we were wrong". It is clearly wrong. It is stupidly wrong. Subsequent generations will say how could anybody have allowed this to happen when these green spaces are covered with substandard little boxes (ie habitation units). All for the sake of a few bob to keep armies of useless BCC non-jobs (and their expenses, and perks and pensions) going for a few more months before these people are finally "let go". I don't care that the plans were drawn up under Labour. The LibDems are the ones that the action is sticking to. And they should realize it.”
by Lee, Bristol
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 10:26PM
“It's hilarious when people like you blame the lib dems John. This was first proposed by the Labour run council and the lib dems have simply followed through with the plans. It's actually the lib dems who are looking at all of the arguments and Labour who are playing party politics here. Under Labour there wouldn't have been any consultations, the land would have been sold off and they'd have tried to justify it, just like they've done by selling off the rest of the country and saving their friends jobs in the banks and other high places. Labour today is just a BIG con!”
by John, clifton
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 9:49PM
“I have voted LibDem in local elections for many many years. But this shameful intent shows an administration too sure of itself and out of touch with common sense. Every autocratic motion by BCC seems to have Gary Hopkins behind it. Of course the Labour majorities did everything they could to destroy Bristol in the pursuit of nasty revengeful class battles - and the main casualties were the poorer communities in the City. How ironic. The Lib Dems seem to have the same urge to destroy the city and this green space sell-off is the most stupid thing imaginable. Even the Tories retreated from selling off our forests. The LibDems aren't getting my vote this time.”
by Hedgehog, Horfield
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 3:27PM
“This would be funny if it wasn't such a disaster for Bristol.
If they haven't got a plan B, they'd better start thinking of one, because Bristolians will never accept this land grab. I will certainly never vote for them again.
My prediction is that, in ten years time, little children will be asking "Daddy, what was a Lib Dem?"”
by John, Filton
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 11:04AM
“Filton Council tried to "sell off" ours last year by allowing tonnes landfill soil to be dumped on Elm Park fields!
They couldnt care less what we thought and 200 people had to tell them at a public meeting.
The likes of Cllr Roger Hutchinson and Brian Freeguard were against all the residents...they don't listen to the public and aren't interest in the community...I say don't for them in May and show them that way!
http://www.filtonresidents.co.nr/”
by Paul, Bristol
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 10:56AM
“Not really sure they had a Plan A, let alone a Plan B!”
by Bob, The Real World
Tuesday, March 15 2011, 9:32AM
“Cllr Hopkins said, "It is complete nonsense to suggest that we've embarked on this strategy to raise capital funds from the 30 per cent not earmarked for parks and green spaces."
So what ar you going to do with 30% of our (the public's) money?
* The Lib/Dems decide to sell off Publicly-owned green space which everyone objects to.
* The Lib/Dems promise to spend the money on other green spaces but not necessarily in the same part of Bristol.
* The Lib/Dems decide to keep 30% of the revenue. What for; their pensions, custard creams, their £70k non-jobs?
The current council administration is out of control, and is not listening to the people it is supposed to serve. Cycling City, GBBN, Green Spaces, large salaries for non-jobs, "coconut-gate"!
Where will it end? Hopefully at the next local elections.”