A quick snippet of news from Friday: the new Sainsbury's planned for Gloucester Road (on the site of the old Threshers at the junction with Zetland Road) was granted an 'off' licence. I don't have the full details yet, but I do know that they have had conditions put on the licence to try to mitigate the public nuisance angle - e.g. around street drinking. Councillor David Willingham from Bishopston Ward made a number of specific suggestions that I think we accepted, but once I have the full account, I'll post them up here. I thought it likely that they would given that the building had had a licence before, but the conditions will be useful.
(I wasn't able to be at the hearing as I was hosting/chairing a meeting about the Walking Strategy that was in the diary before the Sainsbury's case. That went very well - 30 or so people talking about the next stages in making Bristol a more pedestrian-friendly city.)
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Thursday, 22 July 2010
How can we improve Cotham Gardens?
One of the main consultations that's going on at the moment is about what improvements can be made to the various parks in the city. Cotham only really has one (plus a couple of green slivers), which is Cotham Gardens, next to Redland station. It's the purple blob in the middle at the bottom of the map (left - click to enlarge).The Council is suggesting a number of ideas for how this coud be improved in coming years. Paraphrasing from the full document, these are:
- Enhance the children’s play space with varied equipment such as external table tennis tables and natural play equipment
- Create an area of wildflower meadow or natural planting on the slope in the eastern corner
- Improved pathways with some lighting
- Provide a sheltered teen seating area
- Create a picnic and barbecue area
- Enlarge the dog free area to cover the majority of the park, leaving Lovers Walk free for dog walking
There is a page on the Council website with more information about the consultation process and how people can contribute thoughts and ideas. This also covers the other parks in our Neighbourhood Partnership area - i.e. Redland Green and St Andrew's Park.
UPDATE : I have had a small number of e-mails from residents who have misunderstood the thrust of this consultation. For clarity, the ideas listed above are just that - they are not plans, proposals or done deals. They are meant to stimulate discussion and generate new ideas. Not all (and maybe none) will be done - conversely, there may be new ideas that work better. Also, the improvement strategy is for 20 years, so there is no rush to spend money during the current period of financial constraint - this is about what might be possible if/when the money exists.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Quality of Life report
I've just been flicking through the brand new Quality of Life report from the Council. This is an annual survey of around 5,000 people that seeks to measure how they feel about the city and the neighbourhood they live in. It's a fascinating insight into what Bristolians thinks and gives the Council and councillors useful information about where things are going right or going wrong. You have have a browse through using the window below or download the full document.
I'm pleased to see that Cotham is continuing to be one of the most popular places to live in the city, with 96% of people locally saying that they are satisfied. Cotham comes our near the top in lots of measures and at the complete top for satisfaction with parks and involvement in cultural activities - we're a cosmopolitan lot, apparently!
On the less good side, satisfaction with the bus services locally is relatively poor in citywide terms. I'm also interested, and a little surprised, to see that people in Cotham are only middling in terms of feeling that they can influence local decisions. Hopefully the Neighbourhood Partnership will help to address this now that it's finding its feet, but I'll need to give some more thought as to why we don't score so highly on this scale.
Looking further afield, there are some worrying findings. For example, 32% of people in Avonmouth feel that domestic violence is a private matter - I almost can't believe that's true in this day and age. Also, only 30% of Bristolians are very concerned about climate change, though this is quite a bit higher in Cotham (43%) and neighbouring areas.
I'm pleased to see that Cotham is continuing to be one of the most popular places to live in the city, with 96% of people locally saying that they are satisfied. Cotham comes our near the top in lots of measures and at the complete top for satisfaction with parks and involvement in cultural activities - we're a cosmopolitan lot, apparently!
On the less good side, satisfaction with the bus services locally is relatively poor in citywide terms. I'm also interested, and a little surprised, to see that people in Cotham are only middling in terms of feeling that they can influence local decisions. Hopefully the Neighbourhood Partnership will help to address this now that it's finding its feet, but I'll need to give some more thought as to why we don't score so highly on this scale.
Looking further afield, there are some worrying findings. For example, 32% of people in Avonmouth feel that domestic violence is a private matter - I almost can't believe that's true in this day and age. Also, only 30% of Bristolians are very concerned about climate change, though this is quite a bit higher in Cotham (43%) and neighbouring areas.
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Ashton Gate Sainsburys and sustainability
Those of you who read this blog regularly will know that I've been being put under a degree of pressure to oppose the plans for a larger Sainsbury's supermarket at Ashton Gate, which is going to the planning committee tomorrow.
Having read through the lengthy documentation, I have now submitted a statement, which is appended at the bottom of this posting for information. I have not commented on the 'need' for a supermarket on the site as I simply don't feel qualified to do so - I don't live in the area or represent it and I frankly don't know it that well. I have focused in, instead, on the sustainability aspect.
This application raises one of those interesting dilemmas that are going to arise more and more as we focus in scientifically on climate change. It concerns how you anticipate car usage for future developments. The documentation covers a difference of opinion between the applicants and the Council as to whether this would be 10% or 20% more than the current store. The truth is (a) nobody knows, and (b) we don't know what these cars would have otherwise be doing. For example, the new store might increase traffic in the immediate vicinity, but it might do so by diverting traffic from elsewhere. It might even reduce car use overall, by providing a retail outlet closer to people - e.g. people go to the new homeware section of Sainsbury's rather than going to IKEA or Cribs Causeway or wherever. But, no-one knows, so it is right that the worst is assumed at this stage.
It is calculations like this that we, as a society, need to get better and better at doing in the coming decade. If we are to reduce carbon emissions at the scale we need to, we need to understand the ramifications of actions and try to avoid the law of unintended consequences. I am, by training and instinct, a scientist and there is limited space in positive environmentalism for gut feelings and guesswork, in my view. We need to be able to measure, understand and act.
The substance of my statement is thus that Sainsbury's need to do better than the pretty good building sustainability standards to offset the worst case carbon scenario from the traffic. What I am proposing is not cheap, but it is well within the purse of a corporation like Sainsbury's and not that significant in the scale of the project as a whole.
I am wishing to make a statement concerning the proposed new Sainsbury’s supermarket at the Ashton Gate site. I am restricting my comments to issues of energy use and carbon emissions. This should not be read to mean that I approve of other features of the application, but that I do not feel qualified to comment on them, not knowing the area well.
I recognise that the sustainability of the construction of the new building is strong, with a projected ‘Very Good’ BREEAM rating, a biomass boiler providing a renewable energy supply for heating and a range of energy saving features. The applicants are to be commended for this.
However, I also note the projected increase in road traffic that is anticipated as a result of the growth of the Sainsbury’s ‘offer’ in the Ashton Gate area. By their nature, such future predictions can be only that, but the estimate of a 20% increase would seem reasonable, as noted in the officer report.
There will be carbon emission implications from this increase in road traffic and this needs to be factored into the overall impact of the development. Whilst the limited attempts to encourage modal shift are recognised, the reality remains that the vast majority of journeys to a large supermarket are made by car to enable the goods to be transported away.
On this basis, and recognising that Sainsbury’s is a very large company who are seeking to reap extensive profits from the site, I believe that the Council’s expectations for energy use and carbon reduction need to be higher than at present. I would therefore urge the Committee to require the following additional features :
1. A requirement that the building should be constructed to a BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’. It is noted that the applicants are aspiring to this, but there is no requirement currently planned. Requiring this through condition would help to reduce the overall carbon impact further, as well as setting a positive example to other developers in the city.
2. A requirement that the roof should house a significant photovoltaic solar array. Whilst the full design has not yet been submitted, it is highly likely that it will feature large amounts of south-facing flat roofing that would be ideal for solar energy production. This would help to reduce the inward electricity draw for the building and thus also help to reduce the carbon footprint. The Council is planning for such arrays to be mounted on its building stock and the private sector should be following suit.
3. A requirement that a ‘green roof’ should be used outside those areas used for solar panels. This would help to both soften the visual impact of the building and provide a useful bio-habitat in an otherwise urban setting.
4. A requirement, through an S106 agreement, to provide a significant number of additional large trees in the immediate area. The intention to increase planting on the site itself is noted, but this is relatively limited in scale. Given the increased traffic, the provision of additional trees nearby would help to offset the carbon emissions, as well as providing useful shading. This would be in keeping with the policy to increase canopy cover in the city in the Core Strategy.
I strongly believe that if the argument that this application is an ‘enabling development’ for the stadium is to be accepted by the Committee, the Committee has a right to expect that the carbon impact on the city will be minimised. The four measures listed above would take us strongly in that direction.
Having read through the lengthy documentation, I have now submitted a statement, which is appended at the bottom of this posting for information. I have not commented on the 'need' for a supermarket on the site as I simply don't feel qualified to do so - I don't live in the area or represent it and I frankly don't know it that well. I have focused in, instead, on the sustainability aspect.
This application raises one of those interesting dilemmas that are going to arise more and more as we focus in scientifically on climate change. It concerns how you anticipate car usage for future developments. The documentation covers a difference of opinion between the applicants and the Council as to whether this would be 10% or 20% more than the current store. The truth is (a) nobody knows, and (b) we don't know what these cars would have otherwise be doing. For example, the new store might increase traffic in the immediate vicinity, but it might do so by diverting traffic from elsewhere. It might even reduce car use overall, by providing a retail outlet closer to people - e.g. people go to the new homeware section of Sainsbury's rather than going to IKEA or Cribs Causeway or wherever. But, no-one knows, so it is right that the worst is assumed at this stage.
It is calculations like this that we, as a society, need to get better and better at doing in the coming decade. If we are to reduce carbon emissions at the scale we need to, we need to understand the ramifications of actions and try to avoid the law of unintended consequences. I am, by training and instinct, a scientist and there is limited space in positive environmentalism for gut feelings and guesswork, in my view. We need to be able to measure, understand and act.
The substance of my statement is thus that Sainsbury's need to do better than the pretty good building sustainability standards to offset the worst case carbon scenario from the traffic. What I am proposing is not cheap, but it is well within the purse of a corporation like Sainsbury's and not that significant in the scale of the project as a whole.
I am wishing to make a statement concerning the proposed new Sainsbury’s supermarket at the Ashton Gate site. I am restricting my comments to issues of energy use and carbon emissions. This should not be read to mean that I approve of other features of the application, but that I do not feel qualified to comment on them, not knowing the area well.
I recognise that the sustainability of the construction of the new building is strong, with a projected ‘Very Good’ BREEAM rating, a biomass boiler providing a renewable energy supply for heating and a range of energy saving features. The applicants are to be commended for this.
However, I also note the projected increase in road traffic that is anticipated as a result of the growth of the Sainsbury’s ‘offer’ in the Ashton Gate area. By their nature, such future predictions can be only that, but the estimate of a 20% increase would seem reasonable, as noted in the officer report.
There will be carbon emission implications from this increase in road traffic and this needs to be factored into the overall impact of the development. Whilst the limited attempts to encourage modal shift are recognised, the reality remains that the vast majority of journeys to a large supermarket are made by car to enable the goods to be transported away.
On this basis, and recognising that Sainsbury’s is a very large company who are seeking to reap extensive profits from the site, I believe that the Council’s expectations for energy use and carbon reduction need to be higher than at present. I would therefore urge the Committee to require the following additional features :
1. A requirement that the building should be constructed to a BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’. It is noted that the applicants are aspiring to this, but there is no requirement currently planned. Requiring this through condition would help to reduce the overall carbon impact further, as well as setting a positive example to other developers in the city.
2. A requirement that the roof should house a significant photovoltaic solar array. Whilst the full design has not yet been submitted, it is highly likely that it will feature large amounts of south-facing flat roofing that would be ideal for solar energy production. This would help to reduce the inward electricity draw for the building and thus also help to reduce the carbon footprint. The Council is planning for such arrays to be mounted on its building stock and the private sector should be following suit.
3. A requirement that a ‘green roof’ should be used outside those areas used for solar panels. This would help to both soften the visual impact of the building and provide a useful bio-habitat in an otherwise urban setting.
4. A requirement, through an S106 agreement, to provide a significant number of additional large trees in the immediate area. The intention to increase planting on the site itself is noted, but this is relatively limited in scale. Given the increased traffic, the provision of additional trees nearby would help to offset the carbon emissions, as well as providing useful shading. This would be in keeping with the policy to increase canopy cover in the city in the Core Strategy.
I strongly believe that if the argument that this application is an ‘enabling development’ for the stadium is to be accepted by the Committee, the Committee has a right to expect that the carbon impact on the city will be minimised. The four measures listed above would take us strongly in that direction.
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Biofuels - a new hope
Council Leader Barbara Janke got a reply back this week from the new team at the Department of Energy and Climate Change concerning the future of subsidies for biofuels - click on the thumbnails to the left to make them bigger.There is a definite change of tack here from the reply from the previous government and a clear signal of an intention to reform the ROC system to include sustainability criteria. Sadly this doesn't come into effect until April 2011, but it will certainly help to kill off some of the most unsustainable and damaging tropical biofuel projects - hopefully including the one for Bristol that will soon be coming to appeal.
In particular, it is very positive in that it will consider the land use implications and particularly the previous land use, to avoid forest being cut down for short-term food production use and then shifting to biofuels; something that I am told is common. No magic bullet here, but a significant step forward with minsters showing a strong appreciation of the problem and a desire to act on it.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Where *is* Cotham?
A topic that's come up in numerous conversations recently is "Where exactly is Cotham?". The problem is that political ward boundaries don't always correspond with what areas people think they live in. And, from time to time, they move and confuse everyone even more!I understand this myself. I live just off the top of Whiteladies Road, which is within Cotham Ward. However, whenever I write my address, I always call my area Redland and I know that some of my near neighbours agree... sometimes quite fervantly!
Anyway, I thought it would be useful to post up a map (right) of Cotham Ward so that people can see exactly the area that it covers - just click on it to make it bigger. We had a particular problem recently when people living in Cotham went to the Redland Neighbourhood Forum, while no-one went to the Cotham one. The map might help a bit.
Provisional go ahead for Cotham Road crossing
A sprinkling of good news tonight - although regular commenter HarryT will probably find some negative angle on it... 9-)
The Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership voted tonight to put £5,000 towards the cost of a new pedestrian crossing on Cotham Road. Following the extension works, Cotham School is going to be using that entrance much more and one of the key drivers has been to ensure that the students have a safe place to cross.
It's useful that the crossing spans the Neighbourhood Partnership boundary as it means that both can contribute to the cost. The Bishopston, Cotham and Redland NP has already allocated £11,000, giving us the magic figure of £16,000 that's needed to make it happen. The next stage is for formal plans to be drawn up and for various agencies like the Police to be consulted. It then goes out for public consultation, hopefully in the autumn.
Quick note of thanks to Cllr Alex Woodman who put together the paper to propose the money to the meeting this evening.
The Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership voted tonight to put £5,000 towards the cost of a new pedestrian crossing on Cotham Road. Following the extension works, Cotham School is going to be using that entrance much more and one of the key drivers has been to ensure that the students have a safe place to cross.
It's useful that the crossing spans the Neighbourhood Partnership boundary as it means that both can contribute to the cost. The Bishopston, Cotham and Redland NP has already allocated £11,000, giving us the magic figure of £16,000 that's needed to make it happen. The next stage is for formal plans to be drawn up and for various agencies like the Police to be consulted. It then goes out for public consultation, hopefully in the autumn.
Quick note of thanks to Cllr Alex Woodman who put together the paper to propose the money to the meeting this evening.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
The tide continues...
In a seemingly neverending stream of applications from the food and drink industry, there are two new sets of plans for the Cotham Hill area.
The first is for a seven-day-a-week 2am license for a restaurant/bar under the Platform One nightclub - a premise that used to operate as Rumours, but which has been closed for quite a while. This is application 10/01994/PREM - closing date for representations is 29th July and you can e-mail licensing@bristol.gov.uk.
The second is a planning application to convert the old grocers' shop on Cotham Hill into a take away. This requires a change of Use Class from A1 (retail) to A3/A5 (restaurant/take away). This is application 10/02771/F - closing date for representations is 4th August and you can e-mail development.management@bristol.gov.uk.
I have already submitted objections to both, the first on the grounds of additional nusiance and crime/disorder in the Cumulative Impact Area and the second on the grounds of nuisance to local residents and loss of retail space compromising the viability of Cotham Hill as a shopping destination.
The first is for a seven-day-a-week 2am license for a restaurant/bar under the Platform One nightclub - a premise that used to operate as Rumours, but which has been closed for quite a while. This is application 10/01994/PREM - closing date for representations is 29th July and you can e-mail licensing@bristol.gov.uk.
The second is a planning application to convert the old grocers' shop on Cotham Hill into a take away. This requires a change of Use Class from A1 (retail) to A3/A5 (restaurant/take away). This is application 10/02771/F - closing date for representations is 4th August and you can e-mail development.management@bristol.gov.uk.
I have already submitted objections to both, the first on the grounds of additional nusiance and crime/disorder in the Cumulative Impact Area and the second on the grounds of nuisance to local residents and loss of retail space compromising the viability of Cotham Hill as a shopping destination.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
New design for Redland House
Back in 2008, a planning application was accepted for Redland House - the massive old Nat West office building on the edge of the Downs. At the time, I worked hard to get a better design, stop the developers annexing the pavement and get money to ameliorate parking problems.For whatever reason, these plans were never progressed and the building has remained vacant for the last two years.
New plans are now emerging, with a specific end user (Simplyhealth - a private healthcare company) in mind. This is currently in the pre-application stage before a formal planning application is submitted, so there is a chance for local residents to have an input into what is going to be proposed. Details about how to do this are on the project managers' website.
For my money, the new plans look like an improvement on what was agreed before, but, more interestingly, they are committing themselves to getting a BREEAM 'Excellent' rating for sustainability. There is no sign that I can see from the sketches so far that they intend to have lots of ugly aerials on the roof or to pinch bits of pavement! Also, they are going to be building in a shop for mobility equipment, which will help to enliven the area a little and bring it back into the public realm. All in all, a tentative thumbs up from me.
Friday, 9 July 2010
Draft Walking Strategy launch
Those of you who read this blog regularly will know that one of the things I've been working on over the last few months has been to pull together a Walking Strategy for Bristol. The aim of this is to improve things for pedestrians and make it easier to get around the city. For more details, see my post back in February.
After a couple of open meetings, the Council officers are just in the process of putting the finishing touches to an initial draft which will be made public in the next few days. I'll post a link up here once it's available.
There is an open meeting for people to discuss the draft and make suggestions on Friday 23rd July from 10am to 12 noon at the Colston Hall (Hall 2). We've invited lots of the organisations that are interested in this issue (e.g. Ramblers Association, Living Streets and so on), but it's an open meeting and anyone is welcome.
After a couple of open meetings, the Council officers are just in the process of putting the finishing touches to an initial draft which will be made public in the next few days. I'll post a link up here once it's available.
There is an open meeting for people to discuss the draft and make suggestions on Friday 23rd July from 10am to 12 noon at the Colston Hall (Hall 2). We've invited lots of the organisations that are interested in this issue (e.g. Ramblers Association, Living Streets and so on), but it's an open meeting and anyone is welcome.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Street tree downed on Westfield Park
A large and prominent street tree was removed by the Council this morning at the junction of Whiteladies Road and Westfield Park. This was a bit of a shock to local residents and people working locally and the space looks very empty now, with just a stump remaining - see pic.I understand (thanks to Clive from the Redland & Cotham Amenities Society who did the calling) that the tree had an infestation of Phytophthora which was in danger of spreading. It's always a shame when a lovely mature tree has to come down like this and it will be replaced in due course. However, in this instance, it looks as though there was no realistic option.
What this has highlighted, again, is that the Council has no duty to consult or inform residents about tree removals. Whereas 'ordinary people' have to get planning permission to remove a tree in a Conservation Area, the Council doesn't. There is now a plan to ensure that there are notifications at least and I will be pushing to make sure this is adopted as soon as possible.
HSBC application withdrawn
This is a quick snippet of old news, actually, but I've only just found out. The planning application to turn the branch of HSBC on Whiteladies Road into a bar and restaurant was withdrawn in April after the planning officer explained that he was going to refuse permission due to the impact on the area and over-intensification of this type of business in the immediate vicinity. Anthony and I, along with many residents, had objected to the application and we're glad to see it fall.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Shedding light
I've just had an interesting meeting with Council officers to kick off a discussion about whether street lights should be turned off during the wee hours.The idea of all-night lights is only a relatively new one, dating back a couple of decades when the technology made it possible to have them geared to light levels through automatic sensors. Previously someone just flipped a switch on and off, with them usually being turned off at midnight and back on at 6am.
The motivation for looking at this is around carbon reduction as the city has 34,000 street lights burning all through the night, even if there is no-one around to see them! Street lights contribute around 20% of the Council's carbon footprint and reducing the hours of use would save quite a bit. I am told that no major city does this yet, so we would be the first.
Ironically, there is little cost saving involved as night-time electricity is practically free for the Council - another example of the perversity of the energy business when looked at in environmental terms. There might be a little saving through longer lifetimes of the bulbs, but this would be marginal in the big scheme of things.
I'm quite keen to see this happen, but I think that some people might have concerns about the implications so the Council officers are working up an 'options paper' to look at whether and where we might trial this. There is already a trial for dimmed street lights going ahead in Totterdown and this might offer another approach. I think I'll be suggesting that Cotham might be a possible lights-off trial area, but I would welcome other thoughts.
Friday, 2 July 2010
Cotham parking review moving forwards
Anthony (the other Cotham councillor) and I met with traffic engineers yesterday to look at the initial draft plans for new parking restrictions in Cotham.
This is a piece of work commissioned by the Neighbourhood Partnership and designed specifically to improve road safety - for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. It will focus mainly on protecting corners and junctions with new double yellow lines, along with a couple of changes to junctions and some specific solutions outside shopping areas. For example, it will deal with the dangerous parking on the corners coming off Hampton Road, where lines of sight for everyone are compromised.
Anthony and I made some amendments to the draft, which are now being incorporated. The public consultation will start in September (avoiding the August holiday period) and all homes in Cotham will be written to, explaining what is being proposed and asking for comments and further suggestions.
This is a piece of work commissioned by the Neighbourhood Partnership and designed specifically to improve road safety - for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. It will focus mainly on protecting corners and junctions with new double yellow lines, along with a couple of changes to junctions and some specific solutions outside shopping areas. For example, it will deal with the dangerous parking on the corners coming off Hampton Road, where lines of sight for everyone are compromised.
Anthony and I made some amendments to the draft, which are now being incorporated. The public consultation will start in September (avoiding the August holiday period) and all homes in Cotham will be written to, explaining what is being proposed and asking for comments and further suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)