Travellers' site cost Bristol taxpayers £425,000... so why is it empty?
THIS neglected concrete wasteland is supposed to be a gypsy camp.
Opened by Bristol City Council 10 years ago at a cost of £425,000, the site in Kingsweston Lane, Avonmouth, stands empty, rubbish-strewn and vandalised.
-
The travellers site Saint Antony's Park at Avonmouth
Today, as the council faces gathering protests against its plans to create four more camps in other parts of the city, a former city councillor says this "white elephant" is proof that official sites for gypsies and travellers do not work.
The council says 24 pitches are needed in the city to help with its stance on providing accommodation for people from all walks of life. It has earmarked sites off Begbrook Drive, in Stapleton, at the former Dunmail Primary School, in Southmead, at Woodwell Road, Avonmouth, and at a caravan storage yard near Air Balloon School, in St George West.
But Spud Murphy, who used to represent Avonmouth, told the Evening Post: "It's obvious from looking around that the site is never used."
A visit by the Evening Post this week showed that 19 toilets were either padlocked, boarded up or vandalised. Several pitches were blocked by large boulders and 20 of the water points did not work.
The council claims that the site is still open, has been used in the last decade and has paid for itself in the fight to move on illegal encampments in the area.
A council spokesman said: "Any suggestion that the transit gypsy and travellers' site at Avonmouth is closed is without foundation.
"The site has certainly been used within the last two years and is available as an emergency provision for any gypsies and travellers arriving in the city."
WHO WOULD WANT TO LIVE ON THIS WASTELAND?
IT looks like a derelict car park with no signs of life. Some rubbish has been dumped near the entrance where there are two sets of bollards and a heavy-duty yellow metal gate.
A hut nearby has been boarded up and 19 toilets on site are padlocked, boarded up or vandalised.
This is the city council's official transit camp for travellers in Kingsweston Lane, Avonmouth, which was built more than a decade ago at a cost of £425,000.
The council insists that the site is not closed.
But former Avonmouth councillor Spud Murphy claims it has not been used for nearly two years.
He has condemned the city council for creating what he describes as a costly white elephant.
He said: "It's an absolute waste of money. Travellers don't want to live on sites like this.
"It's obvious from just looking around here that the site is never used."
A site visit revealed:
● Water taps at each of the 20 pitches are not working.
● Large boulders prevent vehicle access to ten of the pitches.
● One of the nine street lamps on site has been broken.
The row over the transit camp has flared up at a time when residents in four corners of Bristol are deeply upset over plans to earmark four sites for travellers and gypsies.
These sites are off Begbrook Drive in Stapleton (up to 12 pitches); the former Dunmail Primary School site in Southmead (up to 24 pitches); Woodwell Road, Avonmouth (up to seven pitches) and a caravan yard near Air Balloon Hill Primary in St George West (up to five pitches).
The council says it needs to create 24 pitches in the city as part of its duty to provide accommodation for people from all walks of life.
But residents who live near the four sites have begun campaigns to stop travellers and gypsies living near their homes.
A council spokesman said: "Any suggestion that the transit gypsy and travellers site at Avonmouth is closed is without foundation.
"The site has certainly been used within the last two years and is available as an emergency provision for any gypsies and travellers arriving in the city.
"It is key to the city's ability to deal with illegal encampments.
For example, if the council is not able to provide a temporary pitch for gypsies and travellers arriving in the city, then the police cannot be asked to consider moving them.
"With it, we are able to act swiftly and at comparatively little cost to the taxpayer to tackle this issue. A recent illegal encampment in south Bristol was dealt with in a matter of three days through informal action and the availability of the transit site."
The council says the transit camp has already paid for itself because of the savings on clearing illegal camps.
"Since it opened, in 1999, Bristol has seen only occasional encampments and spends approximately £5,000 on dealing with these and a further £23,000 on servicing the site per annum," said the council spokesman.
"Prior to this, the cost to Bristol taxpayers of dealing with illegal encampments was £350,000 every year.
"With regards to how often this site is used, it is important to remember that it is for emergency purposes only. It is like a lifeboat.
"If you use a lifeboat for another purpose you can't use it as a lifeboat. Therefore it is usually empty and this is key to the council's ability to act promptly when unauthorised encampments occur.
"The council recognises that neither the location of the site – between a sewage works and a motorway on land prone to flooding – nor its condition is ideal and the longer term use of the site is unsustainable.
"The site fabric is already worn; increasing levels of use would put a further strain on the site and require investment which the council cannot afford currently.
"Bristol is well-regarded nationally for its gypsy and traveller work, including its management of unauthorised encampments. Government bodies and publications regularly cite Bristol as a model of best practice.
"We have a constant stream of visitors, including councillors, council leaders, senior officers and police forces from across the country coming to Bristol to see and hear first hand how we have achieved this success.
"Bristol's approach must be one of the most scrutinised in the country and has been shown to be outstandingly successful.
"Finally, this transit site is a completely separate issue from the options put forward for up to 24 permanent residential pitches on four sites which is currently out for consultation.
"The Avonmouth site would not be suitable for residential pitches for the reasons given and in any case it is already fulfilling a very important role, enabling us to deal with any unauthorised encampments quickly and at a minimal cost to the taxpayer."
40 Comments
View all
by Roger, Bristol
Wednesday, September 01 2010, 4:53PM
“An important decision will soon be discussed by Bristol City Council regarding the need for more traveller sites in Bristol following the announcement that house building targets will be determined entirely by local councils.
The Full Council meeting will begin at 6pm on 7 September. You can watch this meeting live online at www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast (the webcast will also be available in archive around 48 hours after the meeting).”
by Ron, Bristol
Friday, July 30 2010, 10:34AM
“£425,000
This is the amount we are talking about... Small fry when you consider how many billions are wasted on building roads rather than providing transport alternatives to reduce car use..
It's the tax payer who is subsidising the anarchy of car use..”
by Chris Hollis, Begbrook, Stapleton
Friday, July 30 2010, 10:22AM
“Cabot..... I take my hat off to you.
You have very simply demonstrated that this site does not work on any level and that the council spokesman's figures just don't add up.
I hope that someone in authority from the council is reading this and quickly making a decision to abandon the thought of building more gypsy sites in Bristol, particularly the one proposed here in Begbrook so we can get on with our lives in peace rather than fear and dread.”
by Cabot, Central Bristol
Friday, July 30 2010, 7:27AM
“Apols for the follow up.... Does anyone know whether the Avonmouth site is the illegal gypsy site which Bristol Council purchased from them for a reported £292,000? The site I mean is the one in 2005 or 2006 where the council then reportedly spent an additional £1.5 million of our money giving it a luxury makeover before inviting the evicted travellers back who they'd bought it from.
As one does. If you're a plank.
It's just a bit confusing, all these hundreds of thousands and millions. For instance, I found an article quoting Bristol Councillor Albert Murphy in 2008 who said he'd kept a tally of costs of the Avonmouth site. He said Avonmouth actually cost £689,000, not the reported £425,000, and the maintenance costs were £30,000 a year, not £23,000.
And if anyone from the council or BEP reads this, can they answer a question? According to local residents, in 2006 travellers completely trashed the Avonmouth site leaving it in need of 'total renovation' after its toilets were smashed, CCTV cameras stolen, and rubbish left strewn across the plot. One resident, who asked not to be named, was quoted in the article as saying: 'Living near this site has been a nightmare since day one. It gets very few travellers, but those who do stay there wreck the place or leave a trail of destruction when they go.'
I was wondering how much that renovation cost or whether it simply hadn't been done at all, but instead been passed off by the council spokesman in the article above as 'worn site fabric.'
Just curious.”
by Cabot, Central Bristol
Friday, July 30 2010, 5:51AM
“There's a few things that don't add up. The council spokesman said the site cost 23k a year to maintain but the report said the Avonmouth site is derelict and doesn't even have running water or usable toilets. Leaving aside the issue that 23k for maintaining a derelict site that hasn't been occupied for two years sounds a little like poor value, how is the Avonmouth site in any way comparable to having a lifeboat when it can't be used, and isn't usable, because it's derelict?
He goes on to say 'The site fabric is already worn; increasing levels of use would put a further strain on the site and require investment which the council cannot afford currently.' Yet how can the site fabric be worn when the site hasn't been regularly used? And if the council can't afford to bring this existing site up to scratch, how can they afford to fund four entirely new ones?
Then there's the cost. If the Avonmouth site cost 425k ten years ago, it would cost 1m in todays money for a mere 20 pitches. I don't know about anyone else but 50k per plot for a bit of hard-standing, a loo and a tap, sounds ridiculously wasteful. From the occupancy levels reported, it would have been cheaper to leave Avonmouth undeveloped and give away bundles of 50 pound notes to anyone who turned up. Sorry, I think they've actually tried that one.
Then there's the track record. Faced with such a historical and demonstrative waste of tax-payers money, are our council officials actually competent enough to develop four more sites?
Finally, the council spokesperson said 24 pitches are needed in the city to help with its 'stance on providing accommodation for people from all walks of life.' Now that's a ridiculous thing to say. If they weren't needed before, they aren't needed now. And at the sort of cost the council has demonstrated they spend on developing and maintaining these sites, this not the sort of spending we should be indulging in for the sake of a 'stance', especially if it means riding roughshod over local opinion.
I'm left wondering whether a certain department in our council feels a need to justify jobs.”