Soapbox: New roads and homes
The essentials of these regional schemes were dreamt up by the Labour Government several years ago and won't be adhered to by a probable change of party, the Conservatives, at the next General Election within the next two years. These schemes, however, transcend party politics in their scale and long-term effect where implemented for future generations.
We're all surely aware of the worldwide financial debacle that has come about recently, precipitated largely by offering mortgages to unfortunate people who were unable to fulfil their mortgage repayments for whatever reason – loss of jobs, too low a salary, etc – and had their homes repossessed.
On these grounds, such vast schemes of housing development requiring very considerable infrastructure should be shelved until once again the economy can offer sustainable mortgages – probably for a decade or two.
To implement such irretrievable scourges to the countryside and its all-important green belt areas cannot and should not be justified.
My concern was intensified having attended a public meeting in Whitchurch, which was entirely against these proposals and was informed that locally elected councillors were not given the opportunity of meetings to discuss the concerns of the constituents.
This, to me, appears to smack of trying to "steamroller" the scheme through without taking notice of the public's opinions.
Such attitudes belong to a bygone age of Barons and squired gentry.
I therefore took steps to discover just what and how the proposals would affect the area generally. I wrote to the South West Regional Assembly asking for clarification in this area, and received the totally incomprehensible details in return for the whole South West.
I again spoke to assistant director Hannah Hickman and asked for details only of Bristol, taking in the Whitchurch area and Bath and North East Somerset.
I collected from the Post Office a package, weighing some 4.25kg (well over 9lbs) containing documents covering the whole of the South West. I defy any average householder to comprehend such detail that leaves me entirely bamboozled. I challenge Hazel Blears, responsible for the introduction of the RSS, to admit to me that she has read and even partially understood these tomes that, if implemented, would simply spread the sprawl of our city and others nationwide.
T M Shore, by email.
POST readers should be made aware of three things that Councillor Adrian Inker knows – or in his position should know – but chose not to include in his comments on the South West Regional Spatial Strategy ("We've lost our home", Post, October 4).
The only people arguing about numbers of houses are politicians of all shades and levels. Going around various protest meetings on the fringes of Bristol, "ordinary people" are talking more about protecting the green belt. But politicians know that if they focus on the numbers game they can all claim some credit with voters whatever happens.
Mr Inker makes no reference at all to protecting the inner line of the green belt in Bath and North East Somerset, thereby leaving Whitchurch to be absorbed into Bristol.
The green belt is being managed by councils as an unofficial "land bank" for the benefit of speculative housing developers.
Within each local authority there are more empty dwellings than there are homeless families, but these are not being re-furbished by councils because the available government subsidy is less than for new builds. He could have used the opportunity to press for B&NES Council to address this travesty.
The government campaign for a series of new towns around the edges of Bristol will do little or nothing to help the homeless.
Similarly, because of the current economic crisis, within each local authority more newly- built homes are being mothballed by builders than there are homeless families. What an opportunity for a creative and caring Labour government to leap in, buy them up at a discount and solve the national scandal of homelessness at a stroke. But not a word from Mr Inker, while the Government continues to press for concrete to be needlessly poured over the green belt.
And before he starts shouting "nimby", we in the Shortwood Green Belt Campaign are not anti-housing. We're quite happy for the original South Gloucestershire plan for 20,000 new houses to be implemented because those houses were designated to areas where local councillors with local knowledge thought they should go, not where some unaccountable Whitehall bureaucrat dictated they have to be put, regardless of logic. We're also aware that new housing (particularly social housing to meet rural needs) is already allowed even in green belt zones, though strictly controlled – and we support this as well.
Mark and Sonia Tarr's plight deserves a positive response along these lines from their elected representatives rather than political bandwagoning.
Ron Morton, chair, Shortwood Green Belt Campaign.
WITH regard to the Post article "Moves to close gap in ring road" (October 3), the alliance against the South Bristol Ring Road has been campaigning against the road since its concept was included in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study in 2005. Our opposition – which we took to the examination in public of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy last year – has been based upon a number of key issues:
South Bristol is already being regenerated without such a road.
Its indicative route through the middle of and close to housing, particularly in Bishopsworth, will divide communities and increase air and noise pollution, both of which are injurious to health and also increase our carbon footprint.
It's a well researched fact that building roads increases traffic – the 2006 CPRE/Countryside Agency Report highlights that the A34 Newbury bypass, the A27 Polegate bypass and the M65 Southern bypass all created extra congestion on local roads.
The green belt will be damaged beyond redemption.
We've always maintained that rather than spend £140 million on a road (the 2007 indicated cost of the ring road), money should be spent on improving public transport systems, making them affordable and introducing new ones, such as light rail, as a healthier and more realistic option.
Accordingly, we welcome the statement by the Bristol City Council spokesman that options such as rapid transit routes, cycleways and pedestrian paths are being considered in connection with the South Bristol Link (A370 to Hartcliffe Roundabout) rather than a road being seen as the only solution. This approach is in accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 10.113 of the Sustainability Appraisal of the Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy which includes the following statement: "We recommend removal of specific reference to and support for orbital movement in south Bristol, except where this is to be achieved primarily through the provision of public transport and cycling provision."
So please let us hear no more about a South Bristol Ring Road/South Richard Hall, on behalf of The Alliance against the South Bristol Ring Road.
THE current consultation deadline for the Regional Spatial Strategy – which relates to the house building in and around the region, specifically effecting the green belt surrounding Bristol – is October 24 at 5pm. One would have thought that something as important as 33,000 homes invading the area over the next 20 years would have received a massive amount of coverage.
Unfortunately, since Hazel Blears' department commenced the consultation on the last sitting day of Parliament before the recess, it has somewhat affected the public's ability to consult with their MPs and for these controversial plans to receive a more thorough debate in Parliament.
It's controversial as central government wishes to add another 9,800 homes to the original 23,000 in South Gloucestershire.
That's not counting the 8,500 units on top of the 28,000 earmarked for Bristol.
As well as removing significant areas of our established green belt, there are serious flaws in relation to proposed infrastructure and funding. I urge local residents all over the areas effected to look at the details and see if they oppose or support such a development.
Personally, I oppose the idea of 23,000 units being built all over South Gloucestershire due to the problems with concerns over road congestion and the lack of public transport, the lack of proposed infrastructure, the lack of amenities (such as schools and GP surgeries) and the destruction of our very necessary green belt.
As the public herald the arrival of a shiny new retail extravagance in the glossy form of Cabot Circus – a project designed to bring investment, interest and value to the regions capital – I would simply ask this: how interesting and valuable are the green areas and the greenbelt to the public?
The surrounding greenery of Bristol is enjoyed and utilised not only by those who live within, but also by those who do not. It's free, and there are myriad pathways and cycle routes, woods and picnic areas open to all. And let's be honest, much of it can be viewed without even leaving the urban conurbation.
People new to the city and area often remark that within 10 minutes you can be out of the city and into the countryside.
If the green belt is removed and this large scale development is allowed to proceed, the urban sprawl will have a negative impact on the environment, the regions transport, local amenities, the economy and our overall quality of life.
The Labour Party may have introduced the green belt to Britain, but it doesn't give it the right to remove it.
Please consider this and participate in the consultation.
Craig Stephens, Pucklechurch.
I WRITE in support of Steve Webb MP who has a secured a debate next week on the over development of large parts of South Gloucestershire. I'm particularly concerned about the proposed housing numbers for the Catbrain Hill area and how this will affect the commercial viability of businesses that operate around the M4/M5 corridor at Aztec West.
The very character of our local towns and villages here in South Gloucestershire are under threat. So the debate is both timely and important.
I hope that the Government listens carefully to our local representations over these plans.
Local jobs and public services as well as our environment are under pressure from Labour's plans.
John Kiely, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary spokesman,
Comment on this story