A quick moan about SocITM. It feels like every other time I go to the Bristol Council web-site I get this wretched pop-up:

I've answered the damn questionnaire once (and it's very long). Unfortunately there is no "Enough Already" option to make it go away permanently.

Anyhow, apparently I contributed to an online discussion on Climate Change at AskBristol, but I'm damned if I can remember what I said. I received the attached today:

Dear Colleague

You may recall that a few months ago you contributed to an online discussion on Climate Change via the AskBristol website (Bristol City Council). The site had a dedicated space to support the work of the Climate Change Select Committee. The site is available here: http://www.bristol-climatechange.public-i.tv/site/

As part of the evaluation of the site we are asking all those who contributed to the on line discussion a few questions and would be grateful if you would spend a few moments answering the following questions:

1. Would you describe yourself as democratically active?
2. What other community or democratic activities do you take part in?
3. What was your primary purpose in using the site?
4. Has it been a useful resource to achieve this purpose?
5. Which parts of the site did you find particularly useful (or not useful!)?
6. Have you any suggestions for improving the site?
7. Do you think this would be a useful resource for other topics areas?

Please provide your answers as a reply to this email. All your answers will be treated in confidence and you will not be identified in any reporting.

For your information the report from the Climate Change Select Committee is available here: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/item/committeecontent/?ref=sc&code=sc019&year=2008&month=05&day=06&hour=14&minute=00

Please get in touch if you have any questions.
Best wishes
Mike

Michael Brewin
Consultation and e-Participation Officer
Corporate Consultation Team
Corporate Communications
Bristol City Council
Telephone: (0117) 922 4644
Fax: (0117) 922 2948

Other Consultations

Dog Wardens

If you've got the time and inclination, you can respond to a number of current consultations, including a customer satisfaction survey about the Dog Warden service. (I didn't know there was a Dog warden service).

Rape & Sexual Assault Strategy

The consultation has just finished on Bristol's Strategy to tackle Rape & Sexual Assault 2008-11 (why are these strategies always "tackling"?). The aim of the strategy:

• Raise awareness of sexual violence and the harm it causes.
• Take action to challenge social acceptance of sexual violence.
• Champion the challenging of harmful myths, stereotypes and pervasive representations of women or men that can contribute to a culture that is accepting of sexual violence.
• Prevent and reduce the harm caused by sexual violence.
• Develop a range of flexible and effective services which meet the needs of the victims of sexual violence.
• Bring more offenders to justice.

I look at these and struggle to think of anywhere in our society where there exists "social acceptance of sexual violence". Is this really a problem that wouldn't be better solved by putting more effort into street patrolling and locking up rapists? (See Exhibit 'A' below)

I'm usually pretty dismissive of the template Equalities Impact Assessment attached to all council documents, but this one contains some interesting points:

Women from BME communities

It can be more difficult for Black and Minority Ethnic women from some communities to
report rape or sexual assault for fear of bringing dishonour on themselves and/or their
family, or because they fear it will reflect badly on their community. There can also be
distrust of the police and fears of unfair or discriminatory police practice. Women who
fear deportation are unlikely to report to the Police. At the same time, Black and Minority
Ethnic women need to have the same rights to support, advocacy and counselling as
white majority women, and specialist services may need to be offered within the overall
provision. This would include ensuring that workers reflect the diverse BME groups in
Bristol and are culturally competent as well as providing translation services.

This would seem to be the area where some further investigation is needed; to resolve this distrust of the Police and the ridiculous contention that sexual assault implies dishonour to a family.

There is also a companion document which attempts to answer a previous criticism I have made - why there are both Rape Crisis Centres and Sexual Assault Referral Centres - which seems to boil down to "because we do". There's a lot of talk about joined-up thinking in government, but it often seems that policy is more driven by the maintenance of personal fiefdoms and "me-too" interventions rather than spending the money where it can achieve the most effect.

Here are the rest of the consultations:

Back at the end of last year, I had a quick look through Bristol's proposed budget for 2008/09.

These were the main figures for the proposed budget, and this year's increase in the authority's precept of the council tax (4.85%) was calculated from that figure. These were the headline figures (Click here if you're a feed subscriber):

Now, finally, the Budget Book for 2008/2009 is available. And the figures are dramatically different:

Now if you look at the final line, you'll see that the amount of money required in Council Tax is unchanged. But, the actual revenue budget of the council has increased by 7.8% from £327,865,000 to £353,128,000

You may be wondering how it's possible that the council had decided it needs an extra £25 million quid and yet has decided not to raise council tax. Well that's easy. It's a six stage process:

1. Flog off the family silver (£9.6 million)
2. Spend anything leftover from last year (£3.6m on the pie charts, £2.6m on the spreadsheets)
3. Check down the back of the sofa for any loose change (£13 grand)
4. Borrow from the bank
5. Cut your contingency budget and hope nothing goes wrong (£1.2 million)
6. Get London to bail you out with grants (paid for by central taxation and central borrowing)

More research is needed to understand the grant funding changes, but there's one thing that really stands out: every single council department increased their requirements between the Draft proposals in December and the final Budget. Every single one. Putting aside all the financial jiggery-pokery, £49 million was added to the budget between December and May. The Chief Executive's department alone increased the proposed spend by practically 50% from £14m to £20m.

More to follow, but for the moment consider this. Every single Bristolian - man, woman and child - now has a debt hanging around their neck of £964.40 due to local authority borrowing.

I was not aware of this until a few minutes ago, but Leader of Bristol City Council Helen Holland has her own website and even a blog of sorts.

Here's the latest happenings from the local political scene:

Helen Holland is leading Labour's campaign against the Lib Dem plan to sell off the city's home care service.

"Hartcliffe will be hit really hard if this privatisation goes ahead", Helen explains.

"I'm determined to stand up for the many local residents who've contacted me over this issue. Those who depend on the service, as well as those who have worked hard - often over many years - to help our older and disabled neighbours deserve our support".

As Labour News goes to press, Helen has succeeded in forcing the Lib Dems to think again - but it remains to be seen whether they will actually listen to reason.

Right...Seems to be a bit of a lag on the server. I'd say it's about 18 months out of date.

At the recent Cabinet meeting of the City of Bristol, long-time campaigner Bernard Cooke of KeepParkingFree.org made a public forum statement opposing Bristol's Residents Parking Scheme (blogged here). Here's a video of his statement: (Supporting documents here Pgs 17-19)

A very concise lists of the twelve key arguments against the CPZ is available from the campaign website. The key one:

1. There would be absolutely no guarantee of finding a space. Your street may lose a few ‘commuters’ during the day but, if there are not enough spaces for residents now, there wouldn’t be enough with a residents’ parking scheme either.

Mr Cooke and his compatriats are veterans of numerous battles against the council on this subject, but I hadn't realised quite how many until I started looking through the archives.

Controlled Parking Zone Attempt #1 (1999-2000)

Back in September 1999, the CPZ Action Group hosted a streetside meeting to highlight the impact of a Controlled Parking Zone of traders Whiteladies Road. The guests of honour at that event were Bristol City Council's transport committee chief Helen Holland and then Member of Parliament Valerie Davey (Lab). Interestingly, the proposed charges for the CPZ back then were between £60 and £100 a year for residents' permits and 350 for businesses, as opposed to £40 a pop on the current plan.

Later that same year, the Evening Post reported that a local councillor had ruled out holding a referendum to gauge the public's views on the proposed controlled parking zone. See if you can guess who?

Councillor Helen Holland chair of the planning, transport and development committee, was asked whether she would agree to a local referendum to see whether the scheme would be welcomed by the affected communities of Hotwells, Cotham, Clifton and Kingsdown.

But she replied that a referendum would be a blunt instrument. She said: "A referendum is a useful tool when the issue involved is straightforward and lends itself to a simple 'yes/no' answer. However, a CPZ is not a straightforward matter."

An opinion poll did take place, however, and the overwhelming majority of Bristol wards voted against the proposals. Apart from one:

Planning leader Councillor Helen Holland said: "The results of the first consultation showed a clear majority of residents in the High Kingsdown and Lower Kingsdown areas want a CPZ.

"In these areas that were so positive about the tangible benefits this will bring to their lives, the next stage is to work with people to refine the scheme so it is sensitive to local circumstances.

"Where there was a clear majority against - as we promised - we have listened and acted. [T] hose proposals have been dropped."

Son of CPZ - The Kingsdown Controlled Parking Zone (2001-02)

Early in 2001, another CPZ consultation was organised. The Evening Post reported:

Cabinet Councillor Helen Holland decided to go ahead with consultations yesterday - despite controversy surrounding the scheme.

Once the draft proposals are published, people will have six weeks to put forward their comments.

A final decision will not be taken until the results of the consultation are brought back before Councillor Holland, the executive member in charge of the council's Environment, Transport and Leisure Department.

She said: "I don't think there is anyone that doesn't accept that something needs to be done about the parking problems in Kingsdown.

"If we were to carry on until we had 100 per cent support, we would have to wait a very long time - in the meantime, the parking problems would continue.

"If we were to stop at this stage, it would just lead to a great deal more uncertainty."

Around this time, I first recall hearing the name "Bernard Cooke", when I read a letter he sent to the Evening Post (July 19th, 2002). I managed to find the text via LexisNexis:

FORMER council leader George Micklewright hit the nail on the head when he complained (Insight, July 3) about Bristol City Council's consultation failings.

Two years ago the council consulted on its plan for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in an enlarged Kingsdown area, stretching from Whiteladies Road across to Stokes Croft.

Forty-five per cent of respondents said "No", 10 per cent said "Yes", and the remainder made other comments.

The result? The council said that 55 per cent of people had either supported the plan, or not objected to it, so it should proceed to the next stage.

They certainly deserve a prize for something!

For six weeks from September 2 this year the council is to carry out "statutory consultation" on the scheme, with a view to it starting on April 1, 2003.

Now, there are a lot of students and other university people in Kingsdown, and the council says it wants to include them in its consultation. But the university year only starts on September 30 and there will be few students and staff who have time in the first two weeks of term to think about paying to park in six months' time.

Despite this, Executive Member Helen Holland has categorically refused to alter the timetable. Could it be she thinks students and other university folk might not wish to pay to park outside their homes?

In addition, if a CPZ were introduced in Kingsdown the knock-on effect would be felt in Clifton, Cotham, Redland, Montpelier and St Pauls. Yet people here are not being consulted about the plans.

Again, could it be that Councillor Holland is worried they might say "No"?

Councillor Holland has even refused to publish the results of the forthcoming consultation, in direct contravention of the council's own consultation strategy, presumably just in case the result doesn't go her way.

Consultation failure, George? You bet!

B Cooke, Kensington Place, Clifton.

CPZ REDUX (2006)

Around 2006, the Liberal Democrats decided that a CPZ was worth a punt. From the Feb 17th Evening Post:

A CITY councillor is calling for a controversial parking scheme to be resurrected in Kingsdown - more than three years after it was abandoned following a residents' revolt.

Mark Wright, whose Cabot ward includes Kingsdown, says he believes the parking problem in the area has become so bad that lives are at risk.

The Liberal Democrat councillor has renewed his campaign to bring in a controlled parking zone (CPZ) for the area - in which parking is restricted to permit-holding residents only - after the Evening Post highlighted problems that firefighters had tackling a blaze in Somerset Street on Tuesday.

[...] The most recent attempt by the city council to introduce a CPZ in Kingsdown was dropped in 2002 after consultations showed most residents opposed the idea.

But last October the city council's ruling Lib Dem cabinet said the idea was one of several options being considered as part of a city-wide overhaul of parking policy.

[...] Bernard Cooke, a transport campaigner who opposed a previous scheme to create residents parking in Kingsdown, said the council only wanted to introduce CPZs to raise money and believes it is wrong to suggest it is an issue of saving lives.

Mr Cooke, of Clifton, said: "If people are parking and causing an obstruction, that is an offence and they do not need any more rules to deal with that. I see the introduction of a CPZ as an entirely separate issue. It is not the right way to deal with the problem."

CPZ - The Next Generation (2007-08)

Which brings us up to the present day. I first noticed Cabinet proposals relating to Controlled Parking Zones, specifically this document: EXPANSION OF THE CENTRAL CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES AND INTRODUCTION OF RESIDENTS PARKING ZONES, at the November 15th 2007 Cabinet meeting.

Here's Councillor Mark Bradshaw introducing the proposals:

The decision made at that Cabinet meeting was as follows:

Declarations of Interest :

Cllr Judith Price declared a personal interest relating to the fact that a member of her family is employed by the City Council as a parking attendant.

(e) Decision :
1. That approval be given to introduce an inner and outer ring of residents parking zones in accordance with figure 1 and appendix 6 of the report (subject to the consultation below).
2. That a strategic project management approach (the Bristol Residents Parking Project) be adopted to the comprehensive implementation of residents parking zones within the inner and outer rings over the next 4 years, subject to the necessary forward funding being approved.
3. That an informal consultation exercise be undertaken, involving the Citizens Panel and the areas potentially affected, upon the operational principles set out in appendix 6 of the report, and to establish those areas where the greatest support for residents parking zones exists for possible early adoption, bearing in mind the Council's overall responsibilities as traffic authority for its area.
4. That consultation on the intention to extend the existing central controlled parking zones, as shown coloured dark yellow in figure 1 of the report, should proceed, and that the operational hours of the existing central controlled parking zones be extended to cover 24 hours per day and 7 days per week to reflect the growth of the 24 hour economy.

Several Public Forum responses were made, including Cllr Dennis Brown (LD), Joshua Hart of the "Car Free" Blog, and Richard Eddy, Leader of the Conservative Group.

What next?

Based on past form, the CPZ will keep getting pushed by Helen Holland and company, despite headlines in the newspaper like "Hundreds sign up to oppose Bristol parking zone plan". But they're not going to get an easy fight.

Via the BBC: Concern over scrub clearance work

Scrub clearance work on Bristol Downs has raised concerns among some gay men who use the area for sex, the city council has said.

A meeting of the Bristol Downs Committee on Monday was told: "Concerns were expressed by the city council's lesbian, gay and bisexual group that this action was potentially discriminating against gay and bisexual men whose activities on this part of the Downs were objected to by other members of the local community and Downs users."

Seriously, are you kidding me? When did "provision of a wooded area for public sex" become a fundamental human right?

No doubt money is tight in the LGB (and don't forget the T) community due to the credit crunch and the generally shoddy state of the British Economy, but guys: get a room! A quick check at LateRooms.com suggests you can find hotel accomodation in the BS8 vicinity for as little as £60 at the Days Inn, or only £65 for Channings which is practically next to the Downs.

The contentious issue of charging Bristolians for on-street parking has been enough to drag the mysterious Bristol Blogger out of retirement. And with good reason: £40 quid a year per vehicle plus the hassle of having to arrange permits for visitors and tradesmen, and no guarantee that you'll be giving permission by the council to park a second car. If this were declared as an increase in council tax, it would be equivalent to a minimum of 3% on every Band D household.

As a local car owner, I don't like this policy, both because I'm already paying more tax than I want to, and because I don't believe that stringent council-led ticketing and control is the right way to solve the problem (although is it a problem? see below). My preference would be a wholesale mutualisation of non-trunk roads, to let individual home owners form friendly associations to manage their street, their approach to parking control and how much to spend on up-keep. Wearing my small business hat, I'm already investigating the purchase price of high-density, small-footprint urban parking structures, which could be a potential area of growth regardless of how we choose to respond to parking.

The trouble is that if just one area of the city did decide to go down the route of Parking Control, then the knock on effect would be to increase parking in neighbouring areas. This results in a city-wide version of The Prisoner's Dilemma.

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies ("defects") for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence.

If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

If all areas of the city vote against Parking controls, then everybody get's a good result. But if only one area votes in favour whilst their neighbours take the opposing view, then that dissenting area will displace cars into the neighbouring areas. Therefore even those who are against the scheme have an incentive to vote in favour.

Redefining the problem

If we define the problem to be "too many cars on the road", the general consensus amongst drivers seems to be that the solution is better public transportation systems for other drivers. But very few people have any desire to make the "modal shift" themselves.

But if one defines the problem as excess demand at peak times - outside the rush hour, there's plenty of roadspace and traffic moves freely - then perhaps we should try to do a bit more to incentivise road use outside peak times. How about something simple, which requires no capital investment, no new staff, no consultations, no free "Our City" newsletters, no focus groups and no extra money from car drivers or council tax payers: Let's switch traffic lights to flashing amber outside busy hours. This would improve traffic flow on major roads and might persuade commuters to change their daily pattern. Simple, cheap and easy to test.

Who Watches the Watchman?

In late news, the council are running a further consultation on "the possible introduction of state-of-the-art safety measures aimed at reducing dangerous driving and protecting lives in two areas of the city."

Bristol City Council is proposing the introduction of comprehensive Watchman Safety Schemes at Long Cross in Kings Weston - between the junctions with Kings Weston Rd and Stile Acres - and at Whiteladies Road in Clifton, between the junctions with Lower Redland Road and West Park.

Both roads have relatively high accident rates. There were 63 reported accidents on Whiteladies Road in total between January 2005 and December last year - with two people killed and nine seriously injured. At Long Cross there were 27 reported accidents during the same period, with six people being seriously injured. Speed was an issue in a large number of the accidents at both locations.

If the new Watchman schemes get the go ahead, safety cameras would be installed in both directions on the two roads. They would be switched on around the clock and would record the number plates of any vehicles breaking the speed limit. Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) would also be installed in advance of the cameras to warn motorists where they are exceeding the speed limit - and there would be clear signs to advise road users when they are entering the zones.

Fines would not be issued instantly, as with most other speed cameras, but police would be able to follow up any driving above the speed limit captured on film and consider prosecution.

A similar scheme has been in operation at Allison Road, Brislington for the past year and over that time traffic speeds have dramatically decreased and no new personal injury accidents have been recorded.

I wonder whether the Allison Road scheme will continue to deliver such benefits? The key phrase for consideration is "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc", with extra credit for a study of "Regression toward the Mean".