Southville Speaks

Momentum is gathering fast against the SBLN proposals

Almost exactly a year after East Bristolians were uncomfortably awoken to the fact Bristol City Council (BCC) was serious about implementing a policy that was to make their lives considerably less ‘liveable’ through the Orwellian-esquely named East Bristol ‘liveable neighbourhood’, large-scale dissent has also kicked off in the South.

In this post I will highlight just a few of the voices speaking up powerfully against the council’s ‘proposals’ for the SBLN. I will also have a look at how BCC has responded so far, and how clearly this indicates the use of psychological manipulation of the public to achieve its aims.

As I write, there are two ‘liveable neighbourhood’ consultations concurrently live: the utterly unfit for purpose EBLN trial survey I have written about here, and the ‘public engagement’ on the SBLN ‘proposals’. The latter has generated a petition of over 2000 signatures calling for an immediate halt to the plans, one hundred questions submitted to last week’s West of England Combined Authority (WECA) Joint Committee Meeting, and nearly fifty statements of objection and 25 questions for the Transport & Connectivity Committee Meeting today (along with a fair number on the EBLN and a lot of noise about Residents’ Parking Zones).

When councillors claim there is an equal number of people supporting and objecting to these schemes, they will be hard put to display the evidence for it. If they then attempt (once more) to suggest that it only looks like the majority are against them, because people aren’t vocal if they are happy with something, then they are clearly being disingenuous. Even if just a few were objecting, where fundamental changes in the way we live are being mooted the quality of objections is of at least equal importance to the quantity. This is the nature and importance of feedback. We ignore it at our peril.

If, on the other hand, it were indeed true that many people support the implementation of these road blocks, councillors would also need to think long and hard about their responsibility for causing drastic community division and polarisation in pushing such controversial policies. As Andy McGrain says in Question Number 8 submitted to WECA mayor Helen Godwin last week:

My community in South Bristol is being increasingly riven with divisive argument around the proposed SB Liveable Neighbourhood Plan. Thousands are arrayed in both pro and anti camps, and I grow increasingly worried that the Consultation being run is not robust enough or democratic enough to prevent very long term social problems at this juncture whatever the outcome, without refinement of methodology.

---

Today’s Transport and Connectivity Committee Meeting

The Southville petition will be debated today in City Hall (the T&C Committee Meeting starts shortly after I am publishing this, at 5pm), following a last minute U-turn by the council. Originally the petition’s initiators had been informed there was no time at this meeting and it would therefore have to wait until December. The strength of public feeling on the issue appears to have forced Council Leader Tony Dyer, himself a representative of the Southville ward, to override Windmill Hill (also in the SBLN area) councillor and Chair of the Transport Committee Ed Plowden. It’s getting a little theatrical.

Tony and fellow Southville councillor Christine Townsend have fascinatingly added their own statement to those from the public for today’s meeting. It’s the last one, number 66. I wonder if they got it in before the deadline that everyone else is beholden to?

The statement includes this:

The predictability of this diverse ranges [sic] of opinions was evident to anyone who has ever consulted with 1000’s of people on any subject which potentially involves substantial changes. With such a wide variety of views, opinions and likely impacts, the eventual landing place will always be somewhere in the middle that allows for the main aims of a scheme to be achieved whilst recognising that mitigations will be needed for sensible reasons within that scheme, as well as for individual households whose needs may need to be met with reasonable adjustments.

Here Tony and Christine are saying that it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks - the ‘main aims’ of their scheme will be achieved regardless. Yet if these aims are as advertised, i.e. everyone ‘breathing clean air’, no more traffic accidents, and everyone living ‘greener and more pleasant’ lives, these are extremely unlikely to be met by repeating the East Bristol pilot with a few ‘mitigations’ to the south of the Avon. Whichever way you look at it, more traffic will be pushed onto fewer roads, residents will have to make much longer car journeys to go about their daily lives, and local businesses will suffer. Plus the damage to community cohesion has already been done through yet another example of politicians meddling by offering an artificial binary choice to solve a problem that, if it existed at all, was never as urgent as so many other issues facing the council.

It is was always clear, that the initial proposals were unlikely to be what would be implemented – they represented a starting point based on initial stakeholder engagement and subject to further review by those affected beyond that initial group. When the initial proposals were presented to the ward councillors it was evident this would be the case, and the feedback reinforces that view because it is now incorporating the real world experience of living and moving in Southville, not only that of ourselves as councillors but also of our residents.

Tony and Christine here are basically admitting that BCC has used the ‘door-in-the-face’ strategy to get their plans accepted by the public.

According to Wikihow:

You can read all about it here, where it is also described as a ‘compliance strategy’ [my emphasis].

Just take a moment to think about how this maps on to what is occurring with the SBLN. You may even be able to apply this to how you yourself are reacting if you live there.

---

What Southville is saying…

So now for just a few sample quotations from the questions and statements on the SBLN that have been submitted for today’s Transport Committee meeting. They need no embellishment on my part.

Alice Fewtrell in Statement 4:

Why do these schemes always make life harder for older people, disabled/less fit or mobile people, families, women and poorer people who can’t drive into the CAZ? Why not target people with multiple cars or who have those massive dangerous SUVS or huge campervans that take up more than their fair share of space and tend to favoured by the affluent to store their surfboards in? (I’d love one but it is hardly essential transport) .

People say kids will be able to play in the streets- a) why would they want to play in what will still be a car park when we have 2 brilliant parks within a few mins walk? b) how is it actually safe when more cars/ vans etc will be squeezed into narrower streets/ reversing and getting stuck.

Where are the buses to make essential journeys possible? Where is a North street to Temple Meads bus as a very basic example? I actually walk to Temple Meads but many people can’t.

Emergency services - I get that they will technically be able to get to us - but I can’t see how the narrow steep roads and detours will be as fast as going a wider more direct route - not reassuring if you’re having a heart attack.

We drive as little as possible and considerately. Our car journeys are essential (eg to visit elderly parents) as there are no other options.

For me personally it will mean driving further and via a more difficult/ narrow and dangerous route...how is that helping the environment? I won’t be able to get to the garage down the road Beauley Motors ( 1 min drive) without doing a 15+ min journey and paying £9 for the CAZ - it will be easier for me to drive to a garage in Hartcliffe - how is this helping the environment or local businesses?

We take our kids to wholesome outdoor activities and sports clubs a few times a week picking up teammates along the way - difficulty and time constraints may make this impossible- so more cars will be needed. How is this better for children/ the environment?

There are vocal people on both sides of this debate but honestly the vast majority of people in the area don’t appear to understand the need for or want this scheme. Local businesses are against it (including Rare)… even lovely progressive Southville School is against it. If there is a good argument for it then you have not made it in a convincing way.

I could go on … there are so many good ways to spend money on making the streets safer and greener - please explain why this over complicated proposal is one of them.

From Statement Number 5, from David Griffiths:

As residents of Howard Road we have serious concerns about the South Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood proposals. The premise that the proposals seem to rest on - that we are currently subject to lots of through traffic - is largely wrong. If there is an issue in the area in general, it is the amount of traffic and lack of crossing points on Coronation Road and to a lesser extent North Street. There were a few good things mentioned in the online survey about this, but it appears that ultimately the funding for the scheme hangs on ONE THING only - there being many modal filters (ie road blocks to traffic) rather than the other things mentioned (greenery, crossings, cycle lanes etc etc). This is a tragedy of inflexibility and seems to fly in the face of designing a neighbourhood WITH its residents input rather than imposing a formula.

Statement Number 9, from Mark Anslow:

South Bristol - and Southville in particular - is already one of the most vibrant, diverse and ‘liveable’ environments in the city. This has arisen organically, as a result of active, involved communities, local business and public organisations. The Council’s plans to make the environment more ‘liveable’ will do nothing to improve this; quite the contrary. They will force traffice out on to two already highly polluted roads - Coronation Road and North Street - and make the navigation of our narrow, Victorian streets considerably more difficult. They will do nothing to tackle to the real problems that the community experiences - fly tipping, homelessless and poor public transport - but instead divert millions from an already cash-strapped public sector.

This is not NIMBYism - we are people who genuinely care about our local area and its place within the city. I urge you - passionately - to listen to the local committee destined to be on the receiving end of your proposals and to take what they are saying seriously.

Statement Number 17 from Catherine Barwell:

The policy is designed to benefit only those who are already privelleged and can work from home or who have flexible working. The policy will negatively impact women. If there are children, one parent will have to do drop off and the proposals will make traffic worse getting out of BEDMINSTER impacting start time at work. I am a solo parent and have to be at work at 8. If I do drop off at 7.30 I am already cutting it tight, if you make traffic worse then I could lose my job or be forced to go more part time and limit my career progression. The only people who will be ok will be those in two parent households with flexible working and working from home. The idea that people can cycle is a joke - many jobs require you to take equipment to and from work eg teachers and cycling with a baby in tow plus equipment is a non starter. The idea of using public transport to commute - great! But we have no connection to temple meads from BEDMINSTER other than the airport bus which costs £15 return?!!! These proposals are going to negatively impact the most in need. Residents parking is definitely needed but these road blockages are seriously detrimental to those who are already struggling.

And finally from Statement 18, by Paul Swanton:

I run a small property maintenance business in Bristol, and find that a large percentage of my work is in BS3. If the proposed road closures are introduced, it will double my carbon footprint and time spent driving around BS3 trying to reach various addresses which may be almost neighbours, and be back and forth to suppliers etc. The proposed road changes are not required. We are living in a major city, busy roads are an inevitable feature of a densely occupied major city; why are people trying to pretend we live in a quiet village where children can play in the roads? Roads are for access to homes and provision of vital services, ambulances, electricians, plumbers. Let’s not waste more tax payers’ money causing difficulties for many, for the benefit of the few. Even those proponents of the changes may think twice when they can’t get a plumber to attend a leak, an electrician to get the power back on, or they discover their ambulance is stuck in a blocked one way system.

---

Just like Alice in her statement, I feel I could go on, endlessly quoting from the hundreds of questions and statements being submitted to both the council and WECA. They are all pertinent, logical, and based on lived experience. You can find today’s all here should you wish to continue reading.

How will BCC deal with this forceful and eloquent expression of dissent, all the while still refusing to listen to the continuing angry voices from the East, where the road blocks have clearly been a failure in attaining the authorities’ own aims? Will they once more double down on the strategies they have employed thus far: refusing to listen, turning their backs, insisting they know better than the people whose lives are being materially altered for the worse, manipulating them into accepting some kind of ‘compromise’, talking about how great it will be to finally meet the neighbours from across the road and sit down with them in the middle of it for a coffee while little children play happily on the tarmac - and implementing this paradise on earth in the dead of night accompanied by a huge police and security force?

Let’s hear what is said this evening and find out.