It's funny how things sometimes come along in batches. I have had two phone calls in the last two days from two different partially-sighted residents in Cotham. They were both complaining about the flowering of advertising A boards on and around Whiteladies Road in recent weeks. They both find them really difficult to navigate and I've had previous complaints from wheelchair users.
They are right too! For example, the relatively new Somerfield store has a stonking four boards outside on the pavement, while a couple of shops further down have strategically arranged theirs so that pedestrians have to weave in and out of them. Further down still, there are some blocking the bus stops.
I am told (though I don't fully believe it), that there is limited legal scope for the Council to regulate A boards unless they are actually obstructing the pavement. I had the enforcement officer visit a couple of months back and remove a few, but he was happy with a number that I thought posed an obvious obstruction, especially where the pavement is narrow. To my view, you should be able to get a double buggy down a pavement as a good ready reckoner and I don't think this would hold on some bits of Whiteladies.
I have asked the enforcement person to come for another visit on the back of the current increase, but I will also be rolling this up into the work that I have just commissioned on reviewing and extending the walking strategy for the city. I will be seeing exactly what scope there is to prioritise pedestrians and especially those who have mobility and visual difficulties. A month on crutches reminded me that not everyone gets around that easily!
I understand and respect the need for businesses to advertise, especially in a recession and especially the small businesses that local people rightly prize very highly. However, we seem to be caught in a bit of an arms race at the moment, where one gets a sign, so the next place along gets a bigger one or two and so on. I don't very much like the commercialisation of public spaces, but where it becomes an impediment to people getting around, it really needs to be reined in.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Monday, 1 February 2010
Letter to Milliband about tropical biofuels
I thought people might be interested in seeing a letter sent last week from Lib Dem Council Leader Barbara Janke to Ed Milliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It concerns the Labour Government's active support for tropical biofuels through the Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) system, whereby an energy company actually gets a greater subsidy for building a biofuel plant than for a wind farm! It also asks whether it is the Government's intention that councils should not be able to factor in globalised carbon production and local climate change effects into planning decisions.To view the letter, click on the images to the right and you should get it full size. I will post up the reply when it comes in.
UPDATE : you can read the parliamentary question asked by Stephen Williams MP about biofuel ROCs and the answer from the Government.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Chilcott misses Blair's two big lies
There is a very good precis of Tony Blair's evidence yesterday to the Chilcott Inquiry on the Iraq War from Paul Reynolds at the BBC. It points out succinctly the two lies told to the British people by Blair and, by association, Gordon Brown:
Lie 1: that Iraq in 2003 had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The UN weapons inspectors were quite clear that there was no evidence before the war and none were found after the war. Yes, Saddam made the inspectors' life difficult and gave them the runaround, but this was just standard awkward behaviour. The professional opinion was that his WMD capacity was destroyed in the Gulf War in 1991. He therefore posed no threat (in this respect) to his neighbours or his own people by 2003. There is also the outstanding question of who gave him the WMD capacity in the first place... the US and UK, perhaps?
Lie 2: that Iraq, Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. There was never any evidence that Al Qaeda operated in any meaningful way in Iraq prior to the war. It is a rather ludricrous proposition given the extreme religious motivation for Al Qaeda and the rather secular form of Islam found in Iraq, as well as Saddam's intolerent attitude to dissidents of all flavours. I don't believe there has ever been any suggestion that Osama bin Laden was in Iraq prior to 2003. This was classic bogeyman stuff - "Osama is a bad man and a Muslim, Saddam is a bad man and a Muslim, so all these Muslims must be in cahoots and so it's ok to invade Muslim countries, right?" It all smacks a little too much of the Crusades for my liking.
Like Reynolds, I don't understand how Blair escaped being pushed futher on these points. He seems to have been allowed to portray himself as some sort of righteous champion, saving people's lives, beating up bad guys and making us safer. But 9:11, dreadful as it was (and nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq), claimed 3,000 lives. The Iraq War and its aftermath has claimed over 100,000 lives. How is that noble?
The Iraq War did nothing to make the UK safer either. Race relations have suffered, taking extreme form with the 7:7 bombings, which I firmly believe would not have happened if the UK had not been involved in the war. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Al Qaeda now operate in Iraq, taking advantage of the political instability, anger and loss that the war caused.
Blair and Brown's war killed more people than Al Qaeda have in total and made both Iraq and UK much less safe than they were. The increased risk of terrorism, which was relatively low prior to 2003, has also been used as a premise to restrict civil liberties and introduce some of the most draconian laws ever seen in this country.
So why did Blair get let off on his two big lies?
Lie 1: that Iraq in 2003 had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The UN weapons inspectors were quite clear that there was no evidence before the war and none were found after the war. Yes, Saddam made the inspectors' life difficult and gave them the runaround, but this was just standard awkward behaviour. The professional opinion was that his WMD capacity was destroyed in the Gulf War in 1991. He therefore posed no threat (in this respect) to his neighbours or his own people by 2003. There is also the outstanding question of who gave him the WMD capacity in the first place... the US and UK, perhaps?
Lie 2: that Iraq, Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. There was never any evidence that Al Qaeda operated in any meaningful way in Iraq prior to the war. It is a rather ludricrous proposition given the extreme religious motivation for Al Qaeda and the rather secular form of Islam found in Iraq, as well as Saddam's intolerent attitude to dissidents of all flavours. I don't believe there has ever been any suggestion that Osama bin Laden was in Iraq prior to 2003. This was classic bogeyman stuff - "Osama is a bad man and a Muslim, Saddam is a bad man and a Muslim, so all these Muslims must be in cahoots and so it's ok to invade Muslim countries, right?" It all smacks a little too much of the Crusades for my liking.
Like Reynolds, I don't understand how Blair escaped being pushed futher on these points. He seems to have been allowed to portray himself as some sort of righteous champion, saving people's lives, beating up bad guys and making us safer. But 9:11, dreadful as it was (and nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq), claimed 3,000 lives. The Iraq War and its aftermath has claimed over 100,000 lives. How is that noble?
The Iraq War did nothing to make the UK safer either. Race relations have suffered, taking extreme form with the 7:7 bombings, which I firmly believe would not have happened if the UK had not been involved in the war. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Al Qaeda now operate in Iraq, taking advantage of the political instability, anger and loss that the war caused.
Blair and Brown's war killed more people than Al Qaeda have in total and made both Iraq and UK much less safe than they were. The increased risk of terrorism, which was relatively low prior to 2003, has also been used as a premise to restrict civil liberties and introduce some of the most draconian laws ever seen in this country.
So why did Blair get let off on his two big lies?
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Victory on multiple occupancy
The Government announced today that councils are going to be given new powers in relation to 'houses in multiple occupancy' (HMOs). The guts of the change is that HMOs will be considered a different 'use class' from other residential houses, recognising their status as commercially-operated business premises. This lines them up alongside shops and offices and the like.
What this means in practice is that owners will need to apply for planning permission to create a new HMO; the situation isn't retrospective and will have no impact on existing HMOs. This will give local people the right to make comments as they do with other planning applications and for the Council to take things like the density of HMOs into account when making decisions. It's not a right of veto - just a chance to have a say. It is also a chance to ensure that things like parking, waste disposal and safety are addressed at the outset. All good news!
This is something that my Lib Dem colleagues have been campaigning for over the last four years. It will help to ensure that our communities remain mixed and sustainable and that the social and economic problems of over-concentrations of HMOs seen in some cities (like Leeds) don't arise. It's great that nationally Labour have seen the common sense in this approach - Bristol Labour (and the Green Party) opposed this approach when it was debated in the Council a couple of years ago. Well done John Healey MP!
The other component of today's announcement, which we also campaigned for, was new powers to drive up housing standards in rented accommodation. HMOs are sadly often substandard and poorly managed, but councils have historically had little ability to address this. The new powers will give better protection to tenants and allow the Council to act where properties are dangerous or otherwise substandard.
This follows hot on the heels of another great common sense announcement about local communities, giving councillors the right to comment on licensing applications and to request that problem licenses be reviewed.
What this means in practice is that owners will need to apply for planning permission to create a new HMO; the situation isn't retrospective and will have no impact on existing HMOs. This will give local people the right to make comments as they do with other planning applications and for the Council to take things like the density of HMOs into account when making decisions. It's not a right of veto - just a chance to have a say. It is also a chance to ensure that things like parking, waste disposal and safety are addressed at the outset. All good news!
This is something that my Lib Dem colleagues have been campaigning for over the last four years. It will help to ensure that our communities remain mixed and sustainable and that the social and economic problems of over-concentrations of HMOs seen in some cities (like Leeds) don't arise. It's great that nationally Labour have seen the common sense in this approach - Bristol Labour (and the Green Party) opposed this approach when it was debated in the Council a couple of years ago. Well done John Healey MP!
The other component of today's announcement, which we also campaigned for, was new powers to drive up housing standards in rented accommodation. HMOs are sadly often substandard and poorly managed, but councils have historically had little ability to address this. The new powers will give better protection to tenants and allow the Council to act where properties are dangerous or otherwise substandard.
This follows hot on the heels of another great common sense announcement about local communities, giving councillors the right to comment on licensing applications and to request that problem licenses be reviewed.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Merton Rule victory - two years late!
From 1st April 2010, large new developments in the city will have to provide 10% of their energy use from onsite renewable sources. This will primarily mean solar panels, but any renewable source will do. This type of stipulation is called a Merton Rule after the part of London where it was first used. It'll be a useful step in meeting our new 40% carbon reduction target.
This is the partial culmination of a two year campaign for me. I first proposed this idea in Autumn 2007 (shortly after getting elected) and it was accepted in principle by Council in June 2008. Since then, I have been pushing for its inclusion in the Bristol Development Framework (BDF) - the document that will be used to control new building in the city and it is prominently featured in the current version.
But the key word in the last sentence is 'will'. The BDF doesn't become 'law' until the Secretary of State signs it off and this won't be for at least another eleven months. What I finally persuaded the planning managers to agree to today was the implementation of an interim Merton Rule based on various regional and national documents. It's less ambitious than I'd like, but it's a start and we don't lose eleven months while waiting for the BDF to be approved.
Once the BDF is approved, Bristol will have (probably) the toughest Merton Rule in the country, with a requirement for a 20% carbon use reduction for all scales of development. If all goes to plan, this will be in place from December 2010 or January 2011. It is sometimes a long walk to get to where you are going! This is especially true when you look at the torturous timescales for changing planning policies.
This is the partial culmination of a two year campaign for me. I first proposed this idea in Autumn 2007 (shortly after getting elected) and it was accepted in principle by Council in June 2008. Since then, I have been pushing for its inclusion in the Bristol Development Framework (BDF) - the document that will be used to control new building in the city and it is prominently featured in the current version.
But the key word in the last sentence is 'will'. The BDF doesn't become 'law' until the Secretary of State signs it off and this won't be for at least another eleven months. What I finally persuaded the planning managers to agree to today was the implementation of an interim Merton Rule based on various regional and national documents. It's less ambitious than I'd like, but it's a start and we don't lose eleven months while waiting for the BDF to be approved.
Once the BDF is approved, Bristol will have (probably) the toughest Merton Rule in the country, with a requirement for a 20% carbon use reduction for all scales of development. If all goes to plan, this will be in place from December 2010 or January 2011. It is sometimes a long walk to get to where you are going! This is especially true when you look at the torturous timescales for changing planning policies.
Friday, 22 January 2010
What's broken most is Tory policy!
The Tories rhetoric about 'broken Britain' really is a load of baloney, isn't it? If there was anyone who broke it, it was the last Conservative government, with their emphasis on individual selfishness, intolerance and pilfering of investment in schools. Cameron's speech today is particularly unpleasant and politically craven; he seems have forgotten that bad things have been done to children and by children throughout history.So, what option are the Tories offering to fix this problem? Their main, but vague, flagship policy is a return to tax breaks for married couples, though they keep changing their mind about what this actually means. But will this actually help in any way to bring couples together or keep them this way? (Leaving aside the wider question of whether this is relevant anyway!)
The graph to the left demonstrate the baselessness of the Conservative position. It shows the marriage and divorce rates over the last 40 years, using data from the Office of National Statistics. The vertical line shows the abolition of the allowance in 1999. It's pretty clear that this had no impact on either rate. The marriage rate continued to fall in the same way that it's been doing since the 1950s, while the divorce rate has actually fallen too (this is expressed as a percentage of marriages, so it's not linked to the falling marriage rate).
Another little nugget is that over two thirds of divorces are initiated by women, predominantly on the basis of the man's adultery or behaviour. So the net effect of the Tory policy would be penalise, in the tax system, women who divorce men as a result of their actions, while (usually) leaving them with custody of the children too! That's going to fix society, I don't think.
Q: And how do Cameron's Conservatives plan to pay for this completely ineffectual policy?
A: By cutting money out of the schools budget, where it is busy helping with giving chances to young people and building social cohesion!
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Residents Parking consultation - next stage
Letters to residents were sent out yesterday marking the next stage of the consultation on Residents Parking Zones. This is the third part of the process.To remind readers: two Zones have been chosen as likely pilots based on strong majority resident support in the (albeit deeply flawed) first stage. These are in Clifton Wood and Kingsdown. Stage two of the consultation collected street level information from these areas about parking requirements and existing problems.
The letters that have gone out yesterday have a link through to the detailed street-by-street plans of where different types of line would go - e.g. where there would be pay-and-display (free for short stays) and where there will be yellow lines for safety reasons. There is also a very short response sheet asking people if they support the plans or not and giving them the chance to explain why and what they might change. This will be used to assess whether to proceed with the pilots.
From the Cotham perspective, a very small part of the ward is included in the core part Kingsdown zone - around Clare Road and Victoria Walk. A larger area north of Cotham Road is also being consulted on a possible opt-in basis. This area was ambivalent during the first consultation (which was for a very silly and draconian approach) and I have lobbied heavily that residents in this area should have a second bite of the cherry. The outline boundaries are shown in the image to the right - click to enlarge.
My personal position on the plans remains as previously - I think that local residents need to choose for themselves whether this is something that they want to pursue. I am not against residents parking zones in principle as I have seen them work well in other cities, but I am also not in favour of imposing them against the will of the majority. They have the potential to improve the area by reducing the unsustainable weight of cars and improving road safety, but there are downsides, like the extra street clutter. What I did have a hand in was ensuring that the scheme that is put before residents was a more sensible than originally proposed :
- Bizarre 24/7 scheme reduced to 9am to 5pm on weekdays only
- Acceptance that different areas could have different systems
- Improved parking enforcement in neighbouring areas
- First permit cost cut from £40 to £30, fixed for at least the first 3 years of the scheme
- Each household is eligible for 100 visitor permits per year - first 50 visitors’ permits will be free of charge, the second 50 will cost £1 each
- Residents to be given the choice of whether to have double yellow lines across their driveways or an indicative keep clear marking
- A commitment to increasing car club facilities in the area
- Clarity about the pilot nature of the scheme
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Spate of burglaries locally
Here's a quick message I've had via the local Police :
"Please be aware there has been a recent spate of evening and late night burglaries in the area. In the last 3-4 weeks there have been over 30 offences. This message is being sent to ensure that residents remain alert and report any suspicious characters or insecure premises to the police. If you think there is a crime in progress then this should be called on the emergency 999 number.
The Redland Neighbourhood Police Team are still looking to improve the security of all homes within the burglary hotspot area. This is a free service provided by the Police and Safer Bristol, it includes checking your door and window locks and installing new ones for no cost should they need upgrading . If you have not yet been visited and would like this service, please contact us on 0845 4567000 and ask for the Redland Neighbourhood Team to provide a safer homes referral. There are no catches to this, you only need to live in a residential address in Redland, Cotham or Bishopston to qualify. Please help us make it tougher on the burglar."
"Please be aware there has been a recent spate of evening and late night burglaries in the area. In the last 3-4 weeks there have been over 30 offences. This message is being sent to ensure that residents remain alert and report any suspicious characters or insecure premises to the police. If you think there is a crime in progress then this should be called on the emergency 999 number.
The Redland Neighbourhood Police Team are still looking to improve the security of all homes within the burglary hotspot area. This is a free service provided by the Police and Safer Bristol, it includes checking your door and window locks and installing new ones for no cost should they need upgrading . If you have not yet been visited and would like this service, please contact us on 0845 4567000 and ask for the Redland Neighbourhood Team to provide a safer homes referral. There are no catches to this, you only need to live in a residential address in Redland, Cotham or Bishopston to qualify. Please help us make it tougher on the burglar."
Monday, 18 January 2010
Crazy waste on planning adverts
Following a review published in December 2009, the Government has decided that it will continue to require councils to take out paid adverts in local newspapers when they get certain types of planning applications: e.g. when it's a listed building or interferes with a footpath. This is against the advice of the Planning Officers Society, who make a strong case that this is a pointless waste of money and time.
This cost Bristol City Council £47,000 last year. This is money which effectively passes straight from the taxpayer via the Council to the Evening Post. However, the research shows that an absolutely tiny proportion of people find out about applications through local newspapers. The vast majority of people find out through consultation letters, websites, organisations that are notified, word of mouth and so on.
To be clear, this isn't an inefficiency of the Council's making, but something that the Council is legally required to do. I think this is crazy. Why are we spending umpteen thousands of pounds to place adverts in newspapers that go on the pages that no-one reads anyway! There has to be cheaper and more effective ways of telling people about important planning applications than relying on paper-based media with a falling readership. A sceptic might suggest that lobbying by the producers of local newspapers had something to do with the decision...
And it isn't just planning applications! One of the greatest frustrations I have is about double yellow lines. In order for the Council to paint new ones, they have to go through a legal process which also includes advertising the changes in the London Gazette. This partly explains why they cost so much (about £5,000 a time) and why they take so long to happen.
While the other two parties are trying to out-compete each other about how much public spending they are going to slash, I hope they will pay some attention to pointless wastes of our money from a bygone era like these.
This cost Bristol City Council £47,000 last year. This is money which effectively passes straight from the taxpayer via the Council to the Evening Post. However, the research shows that an absolutely tiny proportion of people find out about applications through local newspapers. The vast majority of people find out through consultation letters, websites, organisations that are notified, word of mouth and so on.
To be clear, this isn't an inefficiency of the Council's making, but something that the Council is legally required to do. I think this is crazy. Why are we spending umpteen thousands of pounds to place adverts in newspapers that go on the pages that no-one reads anyway! There has to be cheaper and more effective ways of telling people about important planning applications than relying on paper-based media with a falling readership. A sceptic might suggest that lobbying by the producers of local newspapers had something to do with the decision...
And it isn't just planning applications! One of the greatest frustrations I have is about double yellow lines. In order for the Council to paint new ones, they have to go through a legal process which also includes advertising the changes in the London Gazette. This partly explains why they cost so much (about £5,000 a time) and why they take so long to happen.
While the other two parties are trying to out-compete each other about how much public spending they are going to slash, I hope they will pay some attention to pointless wastes of our money from a bygone era like these.
Biofuel plant - update
A quick update on the proposed tropical biofuel plant at Avonmouth. The decision has been delayed from January's planning meeting and it is now likely to be discussed on 24th February.
There is an 8 minute documentary about the proposals on BBC1 at 7.30pm this evening (Monday 18th January) as part of the Inside Out West programme. I don't know what the tenor of this is going to be and it'll be interesting to see what the media make of it.
UPDATE : The airing has been delayed until February to coincide with the planning meeting. I will post the new date once it is set.
There is a new campaign group called Action for Sustainable Energy for Bristol which has been set up and has a new website to update people on progress and encourage people to sign an e-petition.
And there is also new info from the Bristol Against Mass-Burn Incineration organisation about their objections to the new plans for incinerators in Bristol and South Gloucestershire.
UPDATE : The airing has been delayed until February to coincide with the planning meeting. I will post the new date once it is set.
There is a new campaign group called Action for Sustainable Energy for Bristol which has been set up and has a new website to update people on progress and encourage people to sign an e-petition.
And there is also new info from the Bristol Against Mass-Burn Incineration organisation about their objections to the new plans for incinerators in Bristol and South Gloucestershire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
