Tag Archives: Planning application

ECO-CON FIRM’S SLOPE STUDY SHAM

Bristol City Council’s house building company, Goram Homes, have binned plans for housing on the council-owned section of Western Slopes. However, corporate developer Lovells still have a planning application outstanding on the privately-owned section of the land. This application includes an ecological report prepared by Bath’s Ethos Environmental Planning.

Ethos describe themselves – in purest word salad -,as a “multi-disciplinary environmental planning consultancy providing specialist advice to inform decision making for planning and development”. So does it come as any surprise that Ethos ecologist, Jim Phillips, who’s produced a helpful ecological assessment for Lovell’s at Western Slopes, was found to have breached CIEEM’s (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management) Code of Professional Conduct?

This was in relation to an ecological assessment he did for a planning application in Crewkerne, Somerset. Phillips, bearing an uncanny resemblance to a useless partially sighted illiterate, only managed to survey a portion of the Crewkerne site. The bit, coincidentally, that’s not registered as a local wildlife site by Somerset Wildlife Trust. He also forgot to take into account the badger population in the area and didn’t notice a number of ponds and hedgerows on the site.

Now, not dissimilar concerns regarding the quality of Phillips’ efforts for Lovells at Western Slopes are emerging from local campaigners, Bristol Tree Forum and Manor Woods Valley Group.

Of course, any claim that there’s a network of bent ecological consultancies prepared to work for the benefit of corporate property developers with deep pockets would be conspiratorial nonsense wouldn’t it?

Wouldn’t it?

THAT RARE BEAST … An informed comment on the Evening Post website!

Leave a reply

In response to claims that Cineworld at Hengrove isn’t viable and “the cinemas for years have been dead”:

RARaspberryEgg17 HRS AGOReply to AwrightMeBabberz

You are wrong on this one.

At the current time, Cineworld charge £6 a ticket.

Around 400 of us have the Cineworld “Unlimited” Card, where, for a fixed monthly fee, you can watch as many films as you want (I know the numbers because Cineworld set up an unlimited group on Facebook for each cinema)

Cineworld themselves haven’t helped with their scheduling :

The Sopranos spin off, “The Many Saints of Newark” was released yesterday. Hengrove gets just one showing per day, at 4.40 PM, not great when you factor in people’s working commitments.

In the Cineworld App, both Yate and Weston have two showings per day, at 5.40 PM and 8.30 PM. Further afield, Cineworld cinemas in Newport, Cheltenham, Gloucester and Swindon have four showings per day, and this scenario is repeated for other films.

Prior to Covid, Hengrove was designated by Cineworld as an “International Film Cinema”, showing many Polish and Bollywood films, with Poles and Asians coming from as far as Thornbury, Newport, Cardiff, and Gloucester, to watch films in their native language (with English subtitles) that they could not watch nearer home. Since Hengrove re-opened, precious few foreign films have been shown

As a benefit of having an unlimited card, we had regular early preview showings of films, before they went on general release. Outside the screen, there was usually a table set up for us, offering free film posters, badges, water bottles, etc, and occasionally a tub of sweets or a drink. Again, this has all stopped.

Those of us with unlimited cards have long suspected that Cineworld themselves have wanted to close Hengrove, irrespective of any housing development.

Worse still, Cineworld are just silent when we ask questions via their social media channels….

VICTORIA PARK PLANNING: FUNNY BUSINESS

1 Reply

Dick Ed: road builder-in-chief

There’s some FUNNY BUSINESS going on with the Bristol City Council’s planning application to itself to build an inane cycle superhighway through Victoria Park.

The application appears to be a joint effort between Sustrans and the council’s Sustainable Transport Team headed up by “DICK” Ed Plowden, a career civil servant. Although many of us struggle to tell the difference between the local civil engineering outfit for cycling and Dick Ed’s department.

When Dick Ed’s minions originally uploaded the planning documents for their road on 28 November for comment by the public prior to a planning decision later this month, there were NO REPORTS relating to the impact on the ecology or biodiversity of Victoria Park. However, this was rectified last Thursday when these documents miraculously appeared.

Even more miraculously, the date listed for the uploading of these the documents that only appeared on 6 January was November 28. Creating the impression that the documents had been available to the public for SIX WEEKS when they hadn’t. How has this sleight-of-hand been allowed to happen and who authorised MISLEADING THE PUBLIC and a quasi-statutory planning committee in this way?

Naturally Bristol Sutrancity Council responded ‘NO‘ to “Section 13 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” on their application form as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of [biodiversity] being affected adversely. Although, due to some CONVENIENT OVERSIGHTS, this isn’t really borne out by their limited (and late) report.

Hall: long term prat

“Dick” Ed Plowden the man responsible for making this application arrived in Bristol as a lower middle manager for John Prescott’s HOPELESS Government Office of the South West (GOSW). A bizarre provincial civil service outpost based at Temple Quay that mainly served as a repository for lower ranking civil servants who couldn’t really make the grade in London. Another alumni of the department is the Green Party’s Red Trouser fan-in-chief, Darren “TAMMANY” Hall.

In those days Plowden’s specialism was in CRIME REDUCTION. Then he waltzed into a senior transport manager role at Bristol City Council, apparently thanks to his experience of making a stately cycle commute to work from his large suburban pile in Knowle every day.

Judging by his approach to planning applications, former crime fighter, Dick Ed, isn’t much interested in reducing crimes in low-level local government corruption. In fact he’s helping create it!

REMEMBER, REMEMBER 5 NOVEMBER BIOMASS, PLANNING AND LIES

1 Reply

AVONMOUTH NEEDS YOU ON THE FRONT LINE

Avonmouth councillors will be at the local NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM. We want to challenge them over there over their continued failure to represent the best interests of the residents of Avonmouth and their support of the building of the Biomass incinerator.

Venue: Avonmouth Community Centre
Time: 6.30pm

On Wednesday we need further support at Shitty Hall which is when the planning application will be heard to approve the incinerator. Lets make sure we make it a 5 November to remember!

Lets give ’em one hell of a firework display!

Photocall on the Green: 5.15 -5.30
Main Event: 6.00pm

ARE COUNCIL BOSSES BARRA MAC RUAIRI AND ANGELO CALABRESI BENT? (SLIGHT RETURN)

Leave a reply

NOW ‘ADVICE’ TO A CHAIR OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE HAS BEEN ‘DISAPPEARED’!

Until around the 20 October, Bristol City Council planning officer ANGELO “KING PRAWN” CALABRESE was set to make an unconstitutional delegated decision to give planning permission to the Nexterra/Balfour Beatty AVONMOUTH BIOMASS PLANT.

However, a major u-turn ensued after an outcry from an unholy coalition of The BRISTOLIAN, members of the public, MPs, prospective parliamentary candidates and councillors of all parties demanding that this decision went to a planning committee as the King Prawn’s OWN GUIDELINES demanded.

The BRISTOLIAN has already remarked that KING PRAWN‘s conduct and – by association – his boss BARRA MAC“ NUGGET” RUAIRI‘s conduct of this process looks extremely dubious.

So to further explore what had been going on, a Freedom of Information request was put in:

Dear Bristol City Council,

The above planning application is to be decided by officers under
delegated powers.

1. Please can you provide me with any information held in any form
by Bristol City Council as to why this application can be
considered under delegated powers.

2. Please can you provide me with any information held in any form
by Bristol City Council and provided to the chair of the relevant
planning committee, Cllr Alex Woodman, by city council officers as
to why this application can be considered under delegated powers.

Yours faithfully,

And back, in a matter of days, came a reply from someone called Steve Knight, masquerading under the minimalist job title, ‘Place’:

This application is being determined at committee level on 5^th November
2014 rather than under delegated powers. As the information is not held,
we are therefore unable to have that information communicated to you.
The application details are available via the council’s Planning online
facility
[1]http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/onl…
. The details of the committee meeting will be available a week before the
committee meeting via
[2]https://www.bristol.gov.uk/CommitteeMeet…

“The information is not held”. How strange. Because on 18 October, the chair of the planning committee, Alex Woodman, announced on Twitter:

How, one wonders, did councillor Woodman offer his opinion about something for which no information exists?

Of course this information exists. How could King Prawn have possibly formed any opinion, communicated it to a variety of third parties and got to within two days of making a decision otherwise?

So what’s happened to this information? Has it been lost? Mislaid? Shredded? Rest assured The BRISTOLIAN will be chasing this.

And we’ve said it once – and we’ll say it again – this whole planning process needs to be HALTED and Bristol City Council needs to start an immediate investigation into King Prawn and McNugget for potential breaches of THE BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION ACT.

Something doesn’t add up. There’s something rotten in Denmark.

AVONMOUTH BIO-MESS: IT’S A KNOCKOUT!

1 Reply

It isn’t, actually. But it’s a solid win on points!

News comes in that the Balfour Beatty/Nexterra BIOMASS POISON PLANT planning application for Avonmouth will now be going to a planning committee after all, rather than being decided behind closed doors by unaccountable planning bosses. This proves – yet again- that corporate-friendly city council management wankers like ANGELO “KING PRAWN” CALABRESI and BARRA MAC“ NUGGET” RUAIRI don’t like it up ‘em.

Avonmouth Tory Councillor, WAYNE “DUM” HARVEY today stepped into the planning row and agreed to “call-in” the controversial application so that it will be decided by a committee of councillors as the council’s constitution clearly requires rather than by the dodgy duo.

This is a very messily executed 180 degree U-TURN by Harvey. He originally accepted King Prawn Calabresi and MacNugget’s bullshit corporate-friendly “advice” and did not demand the application be heard by a planning committee when he had the opportunity to request this during the official ‘call-in’ period. Now the councillor has been forced to act very late – on the actual day his planning bosses’ decision was due in fact!

But why the last minute change of plan? Was it that overwhelming STENCH OF CORRUPTION emanating out of every pore of King Prawn and MacNugget’s inexplicable corporate-friendly decision? Or was it the PRICEY JUDICIAL REVIEW that would inevitably follow any secret management decision to approve planning permission for the poison plant, which would then have delayed their CORPORATE FRIENDS’ development for about a year and cost us council tax payers a packet?

Who knows? But we’ll chalk it down as a small victory. And watch out KING PRAWN and MACNUGGET … We’ve got your cards well and truly marked now you little pair of shits. And yes, it’s personal. If you wanna trash our communities then we’re gonna trash you.

Seconds out, round two …

ARE COUNCIL BOSSES BARRA MAC RUAIRI AND ANGELO CALABRESI BENT?

Leave a reply

Senior Bristol City Council planning officer ANGELO “KING PRAWN” CALABRESI along with his boss, head of planning and place, BARRA MAC “NUGGET” RUAIRI have decided that planning permission for a 10MW BIOMASS INCINERATOR in Avonmouth can be decided by themselves, behind closed doors, on Tuesday.

How have they reached this bizarre anti-democratic decision not to put this application in front of a planning committee? Their written guidance clearly states:

(a) Delegated officers must refer matters to the relevant committee as
they consider appropriate having regard to the following factors:-

i) whether the matter would have such an effect on communities, businesses or individuals such as the matter ought to be considered/determined by councillors;

How can anyone seriously believe burning 60,000 tonnes of waste wood a year near a residential area will not have an effect on “communities, businesses or individuals”?

Their decision is perverse. Moreover, why have they not attempted to publicise this application to the community? And why haven’t they displayed notices at or near the proposed site as required by law?

There’s two reasonable explanations for the pair’s conduct:

1. They’re thick and incompetent and simply do not have the basic reading and comprehension skills required to do the jobs they’re handsomely paid to do.

2. They’re bent and in the pockets of biomass corporations.

While there’s considerable circumstantial evidence – judging by his lack of performance in post over his nine months in Bristol – that BARRA MAC “NUGGET” RUAIRI is a posh, thick incompetent who ain’t up to the job, we also think other avenues need to be explored.

We therefore believe that Bristol City Council needs to start an immediate investigation into this pair for potential breaches of THE BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION ACT.

We also think the city council should inform the police with a view to having the pair’s bank accounts searched for any unusual payments.

Can’t do any harm can it?

THEY ARE SHAFTING AVONMOUTH ON TUESDAY

3 Replies

On Tuesday October 21 October, Bristol City Council planning officer, ANGELO CALABRESI will rubber stamp under delegated powers a planning application for Balfour Beatty and Nexterra Systems Corp (NXT) to build a 10MW wood burning (BIOMASS) incinerator opposite the old Phil Black Site.

This means that this application WILL NOT even go before a planning committee. Only councillors can now call this decision in to put before a planning committee.

Lib Dem councillor in Lawrence Weston, TIM LEAMAN, has been seeking the assistance of Avonmouth councillors Wayne “DEE” Harvey and Matthew “DUM” Melias. And guess what? They’re dragging their heels.

An Avonmouth resident said, “we need to make the summer protests look like a garden party. Once again we need to wake up the people who think it’s ok to play RUSSIAN ROULETTE with our health and wellbeing and that of future generations.”

The planning application is here. And you can make a comment here. Reasons to oppose the plant include:

· Carcinogenic dust hazard

The plant is stated to burn 60,000 tonnes per annum of waste wood. Boomeco, with whom this plant is stated to operate, at present exports about half this figure from Avonmouth docks. The dust created by the stacking and loading of this current quantity of waste wood already causes significant nuisance and health hazards in Avonmouth. These have already been widely reported in the Press. Wood dust is classified by the World Health Orginisation as a grade 1 carcinogen (causing cancer of the nasal passages.) The proposed handling of double the quantities of wood would continue in the open air, causing a serious, possibly illegal, health hazard.

· Toxic Wood Fuel

The Atkins EIA states (3.2) that the waste wood will not include Grade D waste categorized as hazardous waste and including all grades of wood including treated material such as fencing. Anybody who has visited Days Road or the other Council domestic wood waste reclamation sites – which will provide the fuel – can see that decking, fencing, lead-painted wood etc. containing heavy metals is a standard component. This is not separated out and thus will be included in the fuel. If burnt, these toxic materials will pass through to the ash and flue emissions of the plant. As PM2.5s and nano-particles they can disperse poison over the whole city.

· Source of Fuel too dispersed

This will be trucked from as far afield as Oxford, Wiltshire and Hereford. Wood has a low specific energy content as a fuel – it is bulky for the amount of heat delivered – So transport emissions of greenhouse gases will be high.

· Competition for waste wood Fuel

The Mayor of Bristol has proposed local district heating schemes using waste biomass as fuel. These would compete with Boomeco for the fuel. Other waste-wood plants are proposed and the source of supply may be threatened.

· Greenhouse gas consequences of inadequate supply of waste wood.

Throughout the UK waste-wood power-plants are being built and it is almost certain that the supply of waste wood will not be sufficient to guarantee long-term availability of this fuel source. The companies will be using the fall-back position that they can always import wood pellets/chips. Experience (eg. Drax power station) shows that this wood is likely to come from clear felling old-growth forests in the USA, or plantations that have displaced old-growth forests. DECC have stated that they expect 80 per cent of biomass to be burnt in the UK for power generation will have to be imported. DECC have published figures to show that this fuel is WORSE for greenhouse gas emissions than the current fossil fuel mix for electricity generation. http://www.foe.co.uk/blog/blind-carbon-burning

The sustainability of the fuel source IS a ‘material consideration’ for planning purposes.

· Alternative re-use of waste wood

Wood is a valuable resource. The Bristol Wood Recycling Project state that 25% of scrap wood can be reused. Waste wood can also be used for making chip and particle board. A technology that sees it only as fuel to burn, is an outdated technology that has no place alongside the ambition of Bristol as Green Capital 2015.

· Fire Hazard

The 2012 fire at Tilbury power station in the wood pellet store – which took three days to bring under control and destroyed the storage facility – shows the dangerous nature of storing wood chips/pellets. There are no plans to handle the fuel under an inert atmosphere.

· Dangerous Wood Dust disposal

The plant will not accept ‘fines’ from Boomeco. This is the wood dust which must be removed before the fuel is burnt. This is an explosive and carcinogenic substance. There are no details of how and where the fines will be disposed of by Boomeco.

· Toxic Ash disposal

The ash will contain heavy metals and other toxic substances from the waste wood burnt. There are no details of how and where this will be disposed of.

· The plant is in a flood zone

What precautions will be taken to stop wood fuel, toxic ash etc. from being scattered by a flood?

· Impact on Natura 2000 classified Severn Estuary wildlife refuge.

No figures are supplied modelling the deposition of nitrogen. The deposition already exceeds permitted levels on the reserve, which is less than a kilometre from the site. If the potential impact of the pollutants directly attributable to the installation exceeds 1% of the permitted level, the effect of background concentration, and also the potential effect of all other planned facilities that could contribute the same pollutants, must be assessed. This has not been done. Atkins admit (8.6.1.3)

‘there may be indirect impacts on the ecology and wildlife of the estuary’

· Untried technology.

The company behind this application, Nexterra, and the process they use, have been beset with serious problems, which go far beyond those of ‘conventional’ biomass plants. Recently, Nexterra were forced to close a similarly designed plant in Tennessee because within less than 18 months, the weak acids in the woodgas had corroded key components. Luckily it got shut down without a serious incident. Whereas their similar plant at the University of South Carolina exploded. Which is not an unusual record for this technology.

http://ubyssey.ca/features/ubc-biomass432/