Help Save Faithspace

 

 

 

Southville’s two Green councillors will today call on the mayor and the council to pledge support for a well-loved community venue in Southville.

 

Faithspace is a former Methodist church on Stackpool Road in Southville, which has been used for community activities for many years. The venue was closed down a year ago and is now boarded up and starting to deteriorate. The Methodists intend to sell the building while the local community are campaigning for it to be retained for local community use, rather than just sold to the highest bidder.

Southville’s Green councillor Stephen Clarke has submitted a question to the Full Council meeting on 15^th December to ask the mayor for support in the campaign to keep Faithspace as a community venue. He said:

“We are really short of community venues in Southville. We already have a high density of housing, and more houses are planned as the population in the ward continues to increase. That’s why we need to keep what community venues we have to ensure that Southville remains the vibrant and attractive community it currently is.”

Southville’s other Green councillor, Charlie Bolton has also submitted a statement to the council meeting, stressing the importance of Faithspace for the local community.

The meeting follows a ‘love-bombing’ event of Faithspace at the weekend – where nearly 100 local people came to express their support for the former church by attaching hearts to it, explaining why they think it is important.

Greens have been lobbying for the building to be retained for community use for many months. Councillor Bolton submitted statements of support last winter, and he and Councillor Clarke have lobbied the mayor, assistant mayor and officers to take all possible steps to support the community in their campaign to save this community space.

 

 

STATEMENT FROM December 2015: FaithSpace building (Southville Methodist Church)

Faithspace is a much loved part of the Southville community scene.

As local councillors for the ward of Southville, we would like to congratulate the significant numbers of people who turned up on a December Sunday afternoon to express their support for Faithspace. Local people of all ages expressed their support for the venue by leaving messages of support in the shape of hearts on the building. They have made it very apparent how important the building is to the local community.

Residents have made it clear that they want to see the building retained for community use. Local councillors also want the building retained for community use.

It has been a struggle to get the Methodist church to engage with the local community locally, and it seems clear that they intend to sell the building to the highest bidder. This is a real pity.

We therefore ask the mayor to take what steps he can to support the community of Southville, including talking to the recently formed campaign – and help us save Faithspace for community use.

 

 

STATEMENT FROM December 2014

 

 

Faithspace, Stackpool Road, Southville

As Labour and Green Party councillors for Southville, we jointly submit the following statement.

Faithspace is the former Methodist Church on Stackpool Road. It lies between the Southville Centre and Southville Primary School.

 

It has been a community venue for as long as people can remember. Users, however, have recently been stopped from using it, and the venue has recently been boarded up.

There has been a significant increase in the population of the Southville ward over recent years. This has resulted in an increase in the pressure on local resources and infrastructure. For example, there is a serious shortage in nursery provision in the area.

There is significant local concern over the closure of Faithspace. It has been registered as a 'Asset of Community Value'. There is a local petition in support of its retention as a community venue.

We have no knowledge of plans for its future. However, there has to be a possibility that it will lost as a community venue.  We believe we simply cannot afford to lose community venues in our local area. We urge the council and the mayor to take whatever actions it can to help ensure it remains as a venue for the benefit of the community of Southville as a whole. In particular, we ask that the council do all it can to protect its current planning use

 

Sean Beynon (Labour Party Councillor, Southville)

Charlie Bolton (Green Party Councillor, Southville)

Letter to the Post on TTIP

Dear Sir

 

I was puzzled to see the letter from Hadleigh Roberts – who as vice chair of Bristol Labour Party – wrote to support TTIP (Post, letters, 19^th November). He also pointed out the local Labour MEP’s support for it.

 

I say this because it seems to the complete opposite of the position of Labour councillor Sue Milestone who submitted a motion to Bristol City Council calling on the council to ‘publicise the council’s concerns about TTIP’ and ‘join with other local authorities which are opposed to TTIP’.

 

Greens have consistently opposed this damaging, secretive and undemocratic trade treaty. The TTIp treaty threatens to hand power to multinationals, wipe out our social and environmental standards in the name of ‘harmonisation,’ undermine local power to run our own services. So I was extremely pleased with Ms Milestones motion – which was very similar to a similar one from our own Councillor Anna McMullen.

 

Sadly, it seems the Labour Party may not be quite as ‘Corbyn’ as we’d hoped. Hey ho.

 

 

Objecting to possible merger/take-over of Fire Authority by Policy Authority

There is a government consultation on closer working between 'blue light' services

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/enabling-closer-working-between-the-emergency-services

 

Contained within it is the possibility that the Police and Crime commissioner takes over the Avon Fire Service. 

This is the response from myself and Gus Hoyt..... 

This response comes from Councillors Charlie Bolton and Gus Hoyt, serving as Green Party members on the Avon Fire Authority, and also as councillors on Bristol City Council.

 

 

As Greens we are appalled at the cuts which have been and are still being implemented on the Fire service. The Fire service saves lives, is highly regarded and we believe has been under sustained, ideologically motivated attack. We believe that the government should commit now to halting cuts to this valued and vital service. We further believe that the Fire Service, along with Police needs to be properly funded.

 

As Green Party members of the Avon Fire Authority, we register our opposition to the possibility of a merger of the authority with the Police Authority.

 

We support many of the reasons given by the Avon Fire Authority in its submission also opposing the possibility of a merger, namely:

 

• Existing governance arrangements work well
• Boundaries between the authorities do not match
• There will be difficulties aligning council tax amounts
• There are differing electoral arrangements in place over the area
• There is already some effective collaborative working between authorities, however the proposal will make it harder to form other working partnerships
• Practical issues merging back office functions which are in different arrangements (ie outsourced or not) with different contractual arrangements
• Practical staffing issues re TUPE

 

In addition to these, we believe that combining the authorities would also require a significant beefing up of scrutiny functions to meet any new organisation (unless the intention is to dispense with such democratic oversite).

 

We further draw to the your attention to the fact that there are many examples of attempts to merge systems, computerised or other – which intend  to make economies of scale – end up either failing completely, or result in a more complex (and costly) solution. We further point out to those suggesting ‘private sector management methods’ that HBOS and RBS were private  businesses, using such techniques -   who failed in spectacular fashion.  In other words, there are big dangers as well as opportunities.

 

We point out that merging organisations can frequently lead to additional bureaucracy, and which in itself leads to inefficiencies. One of the benefits of the current organisation of the Fire Authority is its relatively simple structure which allows it to concentrate on its ‘core business’ of keeping people safe and putting out fires. A merger could jeopardise this.

 

Finally, we – as Greens – support decentralisation of power to the lowest level. A merger, and in particular, a merger of the power structure represents a centralisation of power which we oppose.

 

Letter to the editor 20mph, Association of British Drivers

Dear Sir

 

I’d like to thank Bob Bull of the Alliance of British Drivers. He writes to ask for ‘driver improvement classes’ (Post letters, 8/10/15). As such, he clearly believes that numbers of drivers in this city have habits which are clearly not up to scratch.

 

Actually, personally, I think that the vast majority of motorists try to drive in a way which is considerate to other road users. Indeed I have been told that in the area that I represent, something like 85% of motorists either stick to or close to the 20mph speed limit.

 

However, Mr Bull’s idea that 20mph should only be close to schools is quite wrong. First off, the vast majority of accidents to children take place away from  the area around a school.  Secondly, children – with their parents walk – or cycle – to school and back home.

 

If we wish to protect children, we must surely protect them everywhere. That means significant areas of slower, safer speeds in a wide area around schools, in residential areas and on walking routes. That’s just one of the reasons why a widespread 20mph area is so important. And of course, as Public Health England tell us ‘physical inactivity is  the 4th largest cause of disease in the UK’.

 

Finally, can I just urge your readers to sign the petition in support of 20mph (Link: http://epetitions.bristol.gov.uk/epetition_core/community/petition/3132)

 

Yours

20mph speech

I rise to speak as a strong supporter of the roll out of 20mph speed limits in Bristol.

As such, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Liberal Democrats for being the first to agree the roll out of 20mph limits in Bristol, and to thank the mayor for continuing with the rollout.

The roll out of 20mph is only possible because it has gained a significant amount of funding from the LSTF programme - money awarded to Bristol with government approval. This means two things - on e is that those who say ‘why not spend the money on this  or that’ well, the argument simply does not work. We only have the moneyBut it also means that the rollout its only going ahead because the Tories approved the cash in the first place. I given them credit, therefore, for their part in this excellent initiative.

I’d also like to congratulate the organisors of the anti-20mph petition. I have seen the leaflets - this is clearly a well-orchestrated, and well funded campaign. I will leave it to others to say whether the fact that 3,000 of the 8,000 who signed who don’t live in Bristol at all is a good thing or a bad thing. I also congratulate the organisors of the pro-20mph petition - who despite starting much later than anti’s - have gained well over 2300 signatures - it would not surprise me at all if they went on to push this number of the 3,500 limit and therefore force what would be the 4th debate on the subject in about a year.

Looking in more detail at the petitions, I observe that – despite starting a pro-petition four and a half months later,  there are already more supporters of 20mph in the wards of Ashley, Bishopston, Cabot, Cotham, Easton, Redland, Southville and Windmill Hill – all areas with 20mph. When you get it, it seems you like it.

What interest me more, however, is the reasoning that some of those living locally to me give for supporting the anti-20mph petition.

Some just want it gone. However, there are others who have told me either that they support having 20mph to within half a mile or a mile of locals schools. Or they support it in residential areas.

I have to say, if you apply that rationale to the Greater Bedminster area – well, it covers the whole area. I suspect it pretty much covers the whole of the city

The argument – if there is one – is about one or two major streets. And I observe that the 20mph rollout is not ‘blanket’. Many of the major roads in the city remain at 30mph or higher.

One of the arguments against 20mph is that it causes pollution. It isn’t true. There is a study covering central London – by Imperial College – that’s peer reviewed science – which concludes:

‘It is concluded that it would be incorrect to assume a 20mph speed restriction would be

detrimental to ambient local air quality, as the effects on vehicle emissions are mixed’

It goes on to say

‘At lower speed limits, it is expected that changes in average speed and accelerating and decelerating behaviours will reduce transient demand for power. This in turn is expected to be beneficial to non-tailpipe emissions of particular matter.’

‘It was therefore concluded that air quality is unlikely to be made worse as a result of 20mph speed limits on streets in London’

I would add that this conclusion was borne out by the council’s air quality experts at a meeting of the Place scrutiny commission last week. Many of us are aware that it is down to how you drive – how often you change gear and how much you accelerate or decelerate – which is a major determinant of fuel efficiency and therefore air quality.

The anti-petition mentions retaining 20mph outside school and hospitals. Well, I have been told that upto 80% of accidents to children take place away from schools. Surely, surely – if it is right to protect our children, it is right to protect them everywhere? We therefore surely therefore – go back to extensive 20mph areas.

And of course, I know – having recently left a cycling charity after 8 years – that a major reason people give for not cycling – is the speed of vehicles on the road. Slow down the cars, and you encourage alternative forms of travel.

We also all know that the slower the speed, the better the chance of survival in an accident.

To sum up. to those people who have signed this petition on the basis of changes to one or two major roads, then I say, ok, lets have that debate. Although I believe the case for slower speed is likely to be strong.

To those who want 20mph gone, be clear – even if you can find a mayoral candidate foolish enough to support your cause, be clear, we will fight you all the way.

I sincerely believe that in years to come, we will look back and regard it as anachronistic that anyone doubted the merits of slower speeds in our cities.  20mph is good for the young, good for the old, good for communities and deserves our fullest support.

Henbury loop analysis (well, moan....)

I have started to get a bit annoyed at the unscientific way in which the case for the Henbury spur has been dealt with, so I thought I'd blog about it, and the lack of science used in calculating the results


http://www.westofenglandlep.co.uk/meetings/joint-scrutiny-committee

 

The papers recommend:

 

Recommendations

 

1) To endorse the Preliminary Business Case and the progressing of Option 1A

 

(Henbury Spur plus Yate Turn-back), without Constable Road Station, to the

Outline Business Case (Programme Entry).

 

 

 

Essentially, the report uses something called a GRIP2 (or it might have been a GRIP4) analysis of information to come up with a benefit:cost ratio of the Spur v the loop.

 

I don't intend to go in to the detail but at a basic level:

 

• To produce a benefit cost ratio of take up of particular service will involve a large number of factors. Populations, catchment areas, policy decisions, growth rates in train usage, variations in such take up by location etc etc
• Each factor will have a level of accuracy (or inaccuracy) associated with it 
• The accumulation of all these factors will result in a large error
• The analysis is apparently done over a 60 year period. This will exacerbate the problem significantly.

  

From my memories of doing science (ok, a long time ago....), you would calculate an error to a 95%confidence limit.




This means you are 95% confident that your answer is correct between (Your value minus the error limit) to (Your value plus the error limit). Each value in that range is equally likely.

 

Hence a BCR of 2 with an error of 1 means the value is somewhere between one and three, you can not say with any more accuracy than that.

 

The values for the loop are 'BCR with WBS' = 1.35.


If the error margin is 0.7, it gives you a range of 0.65 to 2.05 (which is significant because a 'BCR' of 2 is required to qualify as a scheme.


Likewise, the BCR for the spur with WBS is 2.46. If it had an error margin of 0.7, the range would be 1.76 to 3.16. You'll note that some of these values are lower than some of those above. Given that each value in either range is equally likely, then you simply cannot say that one scheme is better than the other.


The obvious question to ask then - is what error margins/confidence limits did those advocating the Henbury spur come up with?


Answer: they didn't calculate one.

 

Henbury loop speech

This is the speech I made on the Henbutry loop to yesterdays council meeting.

Henbury loop

Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a city where we had a public transport network we can be proud of. Don’t you just want to be able to get on a train or bus near to where you live and actually have a decent chance of getting close to most of the major sites in Bristol? For most of the day? Without having to wait for too long?

I’d like to speak in favour of having the Henbury loop rather than having a Henbury Spur.

In my opinion the proposals to go for a Henbury spur rather than a loop sum up  just what is wrong with transport decisions made in this city. It reminds me very much of Bus Rapid Transit – a scheme determined by the funding available rather than the right scheme.

I don’t particularly blame the authors of the report  for doing this.  In some ways, getting anything at all is a bonus. But what sticks in the craw is the sheer lack of ambition – and indeed the sheer lack of control over how we run ‘our patch’.

The benefit of the Henbury loop can be summed up as follows. It forms the basis of a local rail network within the northern part of Bristol. 

It is the hub from which most other local rail projects in that area flow. It enables a passenger route around Bristol. It shows that we are serious about local rail. It shows we are serious about sustainable transport. It shows we are prepared to make a commitment to a sustainable future. It addresses climate change. It addresses congestion. It addresses air quality.

If you look at the 2011 census figures, it suggests that something like 2% of the population commuted by train, while 50% commute by car. It must be obvious to everyone that we need to be adopting an ambitious strategy  to change this. We need at least five times as many rail passengers. We need to maximise the numbers who walk, cycle or take the bus as well.

If you drill down into the detail of what the report into the viability of the Henbury loop – then consider this:

The report suggests and additional 13 passengers a day on the loop. The report suggests that there would be 4.4 passengers per day between Henbury and Avonmouth. The much slower bus has about 12 passengers per journey between the same destinations. Does anyone seriously believe these projections?

There is no reference to the expansion of Cribbs Causeway. Has the potential for employment in Severnside been taken into account? Is RPS taken into account? I’m told not. Growth rates of passenger take-up are suspiciously low. How have the serious levels of congestion in the Northern fringe been taken into account? There are a series of questions which can be asked about the scheme

This is why it is so frustrating to have to say - again and again and again – we need a world class local rail network. We need trains which are sufficiently frequent so as not to need a timetable. We need the choice. We need the flexibility. Above all, we need the Henbury loop.

The choice we are given in the report is to either accept the decision – or to object and refer it back. I will be voting to refer it back on the grounds of lack of ambition and a suspicion that the business case for the Henbury loop has been woefully under-estimated. I hope others agree with me.