In this edition of the Newsletter we are highlighting the Council’s Ideas and Options paper for Henbury and Brentry’s green spaces, published on June 15th. This includes the proposals for the Crow Lane and Okebourne Road open spaces, and 6 others (as shown in summary on the Council's proposals article).
The context of the Council’s proposals is as follows. In February 2008, the Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy was adopted, describing a plan for upgrading and improving the city’s green spaces: the strategy includes improvement plans for formal parks, informal green spaces, play areas, wild spaces and nature reserves. These detailed 88 page document was put out for consultation in neighbourhood areas throughout the city. In Henbury and Brentry, consultation was organised by Heather Barham, who was appointed as the Area Green Space Plan Project Officer. Heather organised a number of well attended on-going public meetings in our area during 2008-2009, during which the Council’s document was examined in detail. Later in this process, a consultant was appointed to assist residents in making their views heard. On two separate occasions, members of the community (representing the Search and Transition groups Henbury and Brentry respectively), supported by their local councillors, made a statement to a full Council Meeting expressing their views. Apart from Brentry Hospital site, the two largest sites are Okebourne and Crow Lane. During the summer of 2009, two petitions were issued in relation to each of these two green spaces by those who support the second view below and around 1,700 signatures were collected.
During this original period of consultation, three main views were expressed in public meetings regarding the larger Crow Lane green space:
1. The space should be developed to allow for the building of residential homes or elderly people’s sheltered housing, the rest of the space to be tidied with better facilities for seating, pathways and children’s play.
Reasons for this view: Henbury needs to play its full part in the government’s housing plans, releasing space for new housing, both because funds thus raised would pay for green space improvement and because housing is urgently needed to provide homes for those without. Because we have a high percentage of elderly persons in Henbury, we especially need to provide homes for them.
2. The space should be preserved and better maintained as an informal green space and part of it developed as a nature reserve.
Reasons for this view: It is an historic site and an important wild life refuge. The lily pond and old orchard should be preserved. Because of the extreme importance and shortage of natural green areas for city dwellers we cannot afford to lose any part of that which remains, whilst the building of new homes can be achieved in several other parts of Henbury.
3. A mixture of the two – some building combined with the development of the rest of the area as a formal rather than as an informal green space.
Reasons for this view: both green spaces and new housing are vital and, because it is difficult to make a choice between these two ‘good’ outcomes, a compromise solution may be required.
On June 15th the Council published its new proposals. See last page for a summary. The Council is inviting Bristol neighbourhoods to engage in a new period of consultation. The full document can be viewed at the Library in Crow Lane or on the Council’s web site.
Because of the great importance of these proposals for the future of our community, we are urging residents to make their views known, either to our councillors or through this newsletter – some letters from residents are published in this edition.
4 comments:
Dear Fellow Residents,
I went to the Library to see the plans for the Crow Lane Open Space. I
was quite shocked by the proposals and believe that they must be
stopped.
To have plans for 161 dwellings on this thin strip on land is absurd
and impractical as well as being plain wrong. This is a poor area with
little in the way of green space for family recreation or general
public use, this open space is used by the nearby residents who live in
high rise blocks of flats. It is the only place they have to go for
fresh air or exercise.
How can it be justified to build on green open space? There will be
nothing for future generations to enjoy! There is not a lot wrong with
the space at present. It is one of the few grassy spaces where
children can play ball games in relative safety as they live locally.
Surely, other brown field spaces or existing plots could be redeveloped
such as the defunct and empty Machin House?
Also the idea that there are more elderly people needing housing in
Henbury than elsewhere is simply not credible. In fact there is a
shortage of over 50s because there are vacancies in Barlands House
which can not be filled. The lack of suitable tenants has led to the
declassification of the block to more of less anybody! You can verify
this by contacting Sarah Spicer of Bristol City Housing Department.
The plans for the development of Crow Lane Open Space will destroy any
nature or wild life in the area. By the time they have dug up the land
to put in sewers, electricity and other services the green space and
Hazel brook will be destroyed forever! Also the access to the proposed
sites apart from being a nuisance to local residents will cause traffic
bottle necks in the small cul de sacs that border the green space.
Again, a poorly thought out idea! How on earth will emergency
services attend such an inaccessible space?
These are a few of the reasons why I oppose the plans to develop the
green open space which is a community resource not an asset to
finance the destruction of nature for whatever reason.
A resident of Barlands House.
Henbury
Further to Richard Pyle's missive (Vol 3, Issue 11), I disagree totally with the theorisations made.
Firstly, it is stated that "there is a proven need for additional housing in Henbury and Brentry with 389 people on the Council Waiting list". So, where is the proof? I have not the slightest doubt that every area has a waiting list - most greater than this one. Morever, there are many areas of the city that are derelict or semi-derilict (Stokes Croft, around Temple Meads and areas around the canal basin) that are crying out for redevelopment from their current appalling states. Why not use these areas for housing?
Secondly, it is stated (without any proof being offered) that Henbury has "one of the largest elderly populations in the city". Yet, flats in Henbury specified for the over fifties cannot find tenants within this age group according to the Council. There appears to be a conflict of evidence here?
Thirdly, the previous housing development on Crow Lane Open Space was turned down by the Council on the grounds that the positioning was "isolated". Has the area suddenly become less isolated?
Fourthly, there is already a clinic and health centre which serves Henbury very well. Why spend yet more money reinventing the wheel?
Fifthly, is this the same Richard Pyle who supported the Wheels Park on Crow Lane Open Space? When this support was challenged, was it the same Richard Pyle who wrote that any noise from the Wheels Park was of no consequence as the adjacent flats were double glazed? If so, is it the case that people are not allowed to open their windows?
Sixthly, and lastly, the reality is that there will soon be no Open Space in Crow Lane with the planned supermarket destined to be there. This is undoubtedly going to cause severe traffic congestion - despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.
I trust this letter will get the same publication rights as those accorded to an alderman of the city? It would appear to me that unequal space is given to those supporting the decimation of Crow Lane Open Space on the basis of evidence that has not been presented and which, by any objective measure, does not exist.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Evans - Resident overlooking Crow Lane.
Green Space Strategy - It should be called Sell Off Assets Strategy or as the Lib Dem council put it, a transfer of revenue.
The money raised from the disposal will be 70% for improvements to remaining parks (as agreed with the parks forum) and 30% pure profit for the councils coffers which will obviously help offset their bad investment in the Iceland Bank fiasco. And further more there are still large amounts of money sat in Section 102 where it gains modest interest and is not being spent, its on hold until a decision has been made regarding the Green space strategy.
There is a need for affordable housing within our city so let it be on brown field sites, derelict land or maybe more affluent parts of the city that seem to have escaped disposal sites.
This really would be prime sites and sure to raise more money for council and developers. Win Win! But too many Lib Dem councillors represent these wards WE HAVE Leader of Lib Dem Barbara Janke Clifton, Deputy Lead Lib Dem Simon Cook Clifton East and look closer you will see a pattern of safe areas from Lib Dem‘s. If you look at the green space strategy areas you will see no sell off of land below only improvements, at the tragic cost of less affluent areas.
Look improvements only :-
Cabot, Clifton, Clifton east which includes areas Hotwells stokes Croft, Harbourside and City centre, Brandon Hill, Castle Pk, Queens Square,St James Barton, The Downs, Victoria Park. No disposal of land
Bishopston, Cotham, Redland which includes improvements to Cotham Gardens, Redland Green, St Andews Park. No disposal of land
Henleaze, Stoke Bishop, Westbury on Trym which includes improvements to Avon Gorge, Badocks Wood, Canford Park, Old Quarry Park, The Downs. No disposal of land.
And No I don’t advocate any green space being sold no matter what area. I would like to remind the Lib Dems that they were elected into office by us and we the voters will remember this when the next elections come round. So do the right thing and stop the disposal of green space.
There are no longer targets from the central government to build houses, only incentives, for each and every house built the council tax will be matched for 6 years, oh and if its affordable houses an extra 25% will go in the pot too, the developers also put into the pot with their donation which is called section 102 money and is paid upfront before building takes place.
This is the real reason they are hell bent on disposal of green space they say its about the need of affordable housing, protecting and enhancing parks, parks forum headed it “saving our parks” Who‘s park is being saved!
So its down to local councils to decide on number of affordable homes built and where. Perhaps Barbara Janke is a NIMBY or the real reason for buying St Ursula School was to retain some land with a school building and then dispose of the 8 acre site to build new homes and protect other communities green space. Now that could be worth looking at Barbara! That would be a prime site for developers! A good earner for the council . Lovely Jubbly! But that land would be classed as brown field and the developers would have to pay vat.
The consultation process will be closed 29th October, a decision will be made sometime in December 2010, I wonder when they will let the public know, will it be after May 2011 when some wards are up for election?
Ali Brentry
Green Space Strategy - It should be called Sell Off Assets Strategy or as the Lib Dem council put it, a transfer of revenue.
The money raised from the disposal will be 70% for improvements to remaining parks (as agreed with the parks forum) and 30% pure profit for the councils coffers which will obviously help offset their bad investment in the Iceland Bank fiasco. And further more there are still large amounts of money sat in Section 102 where it gains modest interest and is not being spent, its on hold until a decision has been made regarding the Green space strategy.
There is a need for affordable housing within our city so let it be on brown field sites, derelict land or maybe more affluent parts of the city that seem to have escaped disposal sites.
This really would be prime sites and sure to raise more money for council and developers. Win Win! But too many Lib Dem councillors represent these wards WE HAVE Leader of Lib Dem Barbara Janke Clifton, Deputy Lead Lib Dem Simon Cook Clifton East and look closer you will see a pattern of safe areas from Lib Dem‘s. If you look at the green space strategy areas you will see no sell off of land below only improvements, at the tragic cost of less affluent areas.
Look improvements only :-
Cabot, Clifton, Clifton east which includes areas Hotwells stokes Croft, Harbourside and City centre, Brandon Hill, Castle Pk, Queens Square,St James Barton, The Downs, Victoria Park. No disposal of land
Bishopston, Cotham, Redland which includes improvements to Cotham Gardens, Redland Green, St Andews Park. No disposal of land
Henleaze, Stoke Bishop, Westbury on Trym which includes improvements to Avon Gorge, Badocks Wood, Canford Park, Old Quarry Park, The Downs. No disposal of land.
And No I don’t advocate any green space being sold no matter what area. I would like to remind the Lib Dems that they were elected into office by us and we the voters will remember this when the next elections come round. So do the right thing and stop the disposal of green space.
There are no longer targets from the central government to build houses, only incentives, for each and every house built the council tax will be matched for 6 years, oh and if its affordable houses an extra 25% will go in the pot too, the developers also put into the pot with their donation which is called section 102 money and is paid upfront before building takes place.
This is the real reason they are hell bent on disposal of green space they say its about the need of affordable housing, protecting and enhancing parks, parks forum headed it “saving our parks” Who‘s park is being saved!
So its down to local councils to decide on number of affordable homes built and where. Perhaps Barbara Janke is a NIMBY or the real reason for buying St Ursula School was to retain some land with a school building and then dispose of the 8 acre site to build new homes and protect other communities green space. Now that could be worth looking at Barbara! That would be a prime site for developers! A good earner for the council . Lovely Jubbly! But that land would be classed as brown field and the developers would have to pay vat.
The consultation process will be closed 29th October, a decision will be made sometime in December 2010, I wonder when they will let the public know, will it be after May 2011 when some wards are up for election?
Ali Brentry
Post a Comment