With all this fuss about the local radio presenter, now seems a good time to rerun an old Bristolian of the Week item from summer 2007:
Sean – The radio phone-in king
Sean’s recent exchange with BBC Radio Bristol’s Sam Mason borders on genius:
Sam Mason, presenter: And now we go to Sean in Bristol. Sean, can you sum up the weather where you are in one word?
Sean: Cunt.
(Hat tip: Private Eye)
Sean obviously knew something we didn’t.
If you’re at a loose end tomorrow you might like to pop down the Watershed where for a hundred fifty quid you can attend ‘This green and pleasant land: a one day conference’.
It’s nothing less than “a candid look at sustainable land management, building design and construction” and “will explore the way we have historically used land in the UK and, if we are to live sustainably in the 21st century and beyond, how we need to radically change the way we manage our land as a valuable resource.”
Or then again you might want to save your money. As the keynote speaker is none other than George Ferguson of Acanthus Ferguson Mann presenting case studies of “successful, sustainable and imaginative regeneration projects such as the former Elizabeth Shaw Chocolate Factory in Bristol”!
Yes, he’s doing a “green” case study of a speculative development that’s not even been built. A development that will radically sprawl over on to the city’s iconic, world class greenway to make room for 25 car parking spaces and will sustainably create loads of one-bedroomed investment flats in an area which already has a documented oversupply of such properties.
Is that a brass neck I see on the man with the red trousers?
Time to return to the council’s latest response to Vowlsie’s complaint.
Having had to cave in to the inevitable and admit the Railway Path land is covered by the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy as the Blogger pointed out over two months ago, we now find Complaints Manager, Tim “Baudrillard” Sheppard waxing lyrical on the philosophical nature of democratically created policy at Bristol City Council:
The essence of the matter involves the purpose of Council policies. As I see it, they act as a framework to help guide progress, they are not rigid and absolute prescriptions.
Really? No doubt this comes as interesting news to councillors and voters who thought that democratically elected representatives made policies rather than frameworks and Mr Sheppard and his officer chums just got on with the job of implementing them to the best of their abilities.
Apparently not. Instead it seems we go out and vote to produce some kind of freewheeling postmodern interpretive framework for unelected officers to play with after due consultation with the city’s wealthy elite.
So when the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy states unequivocally that the Bristol and Bath Railway Path is “a large scale and strategically significant green corridor” and a “significant wildlife corridor” that’s protected under the strategy as an informal green space, this is not a “rigid and absolute prescription” to not develop the land as you might think.
No. Through the magic of local government officers’ interpretive jouissance this actually means the land is available for speculative developers to build small tower blocks on and for them to use to increase car parking capacity for their development.
Brilliant isn’t it? Look out for Mr Sheppard’s The Save Railway Path Campaign Did not Take Place essay out soon.
To be fair to Sheppard he does add a caveat by saying:
There will be times when there is a tension between differing policies and tension between desired actions and the aspirations of a policy. It is then for the Council to consider these competing needs and take a balanced view. This is what I believe has taken place and what lies behind the actions taken by David Bishop.
But what tension is there between what policies? Tim doesn’t go into that but the FoI emails show us that Bishop’s policy experts from Parks, Property, Conservation and Transport Planning were all against the proposal to sell the land for development. No tension there at all with the Parks and Green Spaces Strategy then.
So just what policy did Bishop discover in the course of his private conversations with one of the city’s most influential multi-millionaires to create these remarkable and overwhelming policy tensions?
Meanwhile on the subject of the lack of need for an Environmental Impact Assessment for the development, Mr Sheppard has gone very silent indeed …
Bristol City Council – to use their own strangulated bureaucratise – are to take “the opportunity to fully address the issue of the actions of David Bishop,” the Blogger learns tonight. Although quite why they can’t just address the actions of David Bishop is anybody’s guess.
However our translation team seem to think this means they will be launching an investigation into Bishop in the near future.
But don’t hold your breath on this one as the person going to be doing this investigation is Bishop’s subordinate, Tim Sheppard, the council’s Complaints Manager.
And he won’t be troubling us with stuff like what the terms of reference for this investigation might be, who he’s reporting to, what time scale he’s working to, who he’ll be speaking to, whether the result will be made public or anything else that might distinguish his efforts from absurdly amateurish cover-up attempt.
More on this soon along with a fascinating insight into what council officers think democratically agreed policy means …
Among the many treasures to be found in the council’s FoI release on the Railway Path land sell-off are some emails that reveal the huge influence of Square Peg’s large corporate agents – such as solicitors Davies and Partners and planning consultants Pegasus Planning – over the city council.
Indeed it rather looks like these private interests are actually calling the shots to our council officers – the supposed custodians of our land – rather than the other way around:
[Pete] Webb [Portfolio Management Officer, Valuation Practice, Property Services] to Chanelle Brodie [Senior Planning Case Officer] 01/07/08 09.03:
“….. Their solicitors have suggested an alternative should we decide not to proceed with the disposal of this land this is for an easement over BCC land to the cycle path. …”
Isn’t it nice of these private corporate interests to go to the trouble of suggesting to us exactly what we should do with our park land?
Brodie to Webb and [Matthew] Cockburn [Transport Development Control Manager] 01/07/08 09.28:
“…. I had a meeting with the developers yesterday and they did confirm that their solicitors are currently looking at the matter.
They intend to –
1) secure conditional ownership over the land marked in green; AND
2) include the additional section of land adjacent to the cycle path, within the ‘red line’ area proposed for “development”, when the formal planning application is to be submitted in Aug 08. They said that THEIR legal team are currently investigating the best way to secure use and permission to develop (for front gardens and access to the proposed “cycle houses”) in relation to the Council-owned land adjacent to the cycle track. I am this morning hoping to get the contact details of a solicitor working for the developers in an attempt to get this issue bottomed out ASAP and well ahead of the submission of the formal planning application.
So some firm of solicitors just announces that they intend to use a public park land verge on the path as they see fit and inform the council that’s what they’ll be doing. Meanwhile our rep Chanelle will “get the issue bottomed out”.
And doesn’t she just? As the planning application goes on to include plans to develop the verge for front gardens and access for the proposed “cycle houses”. Fancy that!
Brodie to Cockburn, [Ewan] Kilgour [Davies and Partners] and [Stuart} Rackham [Pegasus Planning] 01/07/08 10.24:
“….. – it’s likely therefore that the plans we have seen thus far have not been accurately drawn in relation to formal/legal property title boundaries.”
Er, shouldn’t the council make sure of this before they start selling bits off land here, there and everywhere? Just a thought, like.
[David] Bishop [Strategic Director of City Development] to Webb 03/07/08 11.59:
“I need to see precisely how this proposal interfaces with the Council’s bike path land. Can you come and see me with all the plans?”
Hang on a minute. Didn’t Bishop agree to sell the land to Ferguson in May after a series of private, unminuted meetings and phone calls between the pair? And now in July – just a month before the planning application is due in – he wants to know what effect the development might actually have on the Railway Path that he’s supposed to be responsible for looking after for us?
Isn’t it traditional to do this sort of thing before you agree the sale?
Hat tip: Dona Qixota
Connecting Bristol and Vowlsie are reporting that Bristol has been chosen as the only city in the UK to be short-listed for the European Green Capital Award.
Shit. If this place is the greenest city in Europe we really are all doomed …
The Evening Cancer might not be prepared to report on their columnist, George Ferguson’s role in dodgy public park land deals but they’re more than happy to give his poncey Tobacco Factory bar some free publicity.
“George flies the flag to celebrate victory,” is today’s big headline on page 6 of the paper, accompanied by an embarrassing half page photo of the red-trousered old fool, thumbs up and wearing an ‘Obama 2008’ t-shirt.
The accompanying report breathlessly explains:
Bristol’s Tobacco Factory replaced its familiar flag with the stars and stripes after Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States.
And Obama sweet potato pie, just like his grandmother used to make, is now on the menu.
Tobacco Factory owner George Ferguson says, “I was last inspired by the election of John F Kennedy in 1960” when I was still in shorts.
He likes his nostalgia doesn’t he? Mom’s potato pie … John F Kennedy … Land deals that look like something out of T Dan Smith’s Newcastle …
You can’t, of course, have a full-blown political scandal without a ‘gate’ suffix and logo. Bristol Indymedia have gone for ‘Bishopgate’ but at the Blogger we’ve settled for ‘Red Trouser Gate’ and a rather fetching logo.
Now on to the increasingly vexed question of Vowlsie’s ongoing complaint about dodgy council Planning boss David Bishop’s public land (that’s not for sale!) sell-offs.
Just to remind you, all Vowlsie wants to know is why the council’s own procedures on green space disposal appear not to have been applied to the sell off of park land to developers, Square Peg, at Greenbank on the Bristol to Bath Railway Path and why this strip of land now proposed for development has not been subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as apparently required by an EU Directive. Simple.
The complaint was originally made on the 18 September and he’s still awaiting a reply that should have been made within 15 days. We’ve now waited long enough for Barack Obama to go from being neck-and-neck with John McCain in the presidential race to winning a landslide. Surely Bristol City Council can explain a couple of simple administrative matters in this time?
Vowlsi’s even been away on holiday for a week, having been promised a full response on his return on Monday. But what d’ya know? It’s now going to take them a further two days to construct this response to these very straightforward questions.
Tim Sheppard, a very junior manager responsible for complaints, has been lumbered with having to reply to Vowlsie’s questions because the people that should be responding – Jan Ormondroyd, leader Helen Holland, Bishop’s political gimp Mark Bradshaw or that copper from Sheffield – who doesn’t even know where Easton is – who’s been put in charge of our city for some obscure reason – are too scared to put their signatures to anything to do with the matter. Shepard said yesterday:
I am not yet in a position to provide you with a comprehensive reply but would hope to have something within the next couple of days
So what’s stopping them answering now for chrissakes? They’ve had a further 10 days to work it all out while Vowlsie was away. Isn’t that long enough? What a fiasco. It’s now patently obvious they can’t answer the questions without revealing some extremely dodgy goings-on at the top of the council isn’t it?
Hmmm. I wonder, do you think the idiots actually devised a response last week with the help of Bishop only to have to rip it up on Friday when the FoI documents were released and revealed Bishop’s excuses and claims to be a complete load of fabricated, self-serving bollocks? Why on earth else can’t they respond after having a week to think about it?
Anyway, Sheppard’s ‘couple of days’ takes us to Thursday. And we want answers … Or we want Bishop’s sleazy bald head on a plate. Nothing else will do.
No sign yet of the Evening Cancer publishing anything about the David Bishop Greenbank land sale scandal.
No doubt the fact that their Saturday columnist, Bristol’s most pompous man, George Ferguson is intimately involved in the scandal is entirely coincidental to the story’s non-appearance in what used to be the city’s paper of record before editor Mike Norton turned it into a news-free platform for idiots.
However, the Cancer does find space today for some really urgent issues of major public interest. The whole of Page 3 is turned over to the startling revelation that rain has made the Downs muddy. While over on page 6 we’re breathlessly informed that “an unidentified flying object has been photographed over Filton”.
Holding power to account once again eh lads?
Meanwhile over at, allegedly, one of the country’s finest institutions – the world famous, nothing less than 100% objective Bristol branch of the British Broadcasting Corporation – we find a similar reticence to report the news.
No doubt the fact that one of their presenters, Bristol’s most pompous man, George Ferguson (would you believe?) is intimately involved in the scandal is entirely coincidental to the story’s non-appearance in what’s supposed to be the finest news organisation in the world.
Mind you these publicly funded clots at BBC Bristol ought to be thinking about getting off their lazy arses and doing something about this story before we do something about them.
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines are very clear about their duties, responsibilities and what we can expect of them:
Serving the public interest
We seek to report stories of significance. We will be vigorous in driving to the heart of the story and well informed when explaining it. Our specialist expertise will bring authority and analysis to the complex world in which we live. We will ask searching questions of those who hold public office and provide a comprehensive forum for public debate.
Editorial integrity & independence
The BBC is independent of both state and partisan interests. Our audiences can be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests.
Impartiality & diversity of opinion
We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
I also understand, these days, it’s easy to make a complaint about them online too. You never know, if they don’t get their act together by the end of the week they may be getting a few ..
If you want to see in close-up how Bristol City Council operates one rule for normal people and another for its multi-millionaire property developer clients, take a look a look at the documents they’ve published about their sell-off of our land on the Railway Path at Greenbank that wasn’t and isn’t for sale.
This short but educational saga starts on the 30 April 2008 when the case planning officer, Chanelle Brodie, writes to developer Square Peg’s agents saying:
If the request was successful … confirmation could be given to you within three months.
One day later on the 1 May 2008 and the council’s property department writes to Brodie:
It has been confirmed by the Council’s Culture and Leisure Services Department that the land in question is not surplus and therefore cannot be considered for disposal.
So that’s that then.
Not quite. Enter multi-millionaire, Merchant Venturer George Ferguson. He writes to Brodie on 2 May 2008:
The land is of no conceivable use to Culture and Leisure Services. I have had a word with David Bishop.
Unfortunately the contents of George’s “word” with Bishop don’t appear to have been recorded by the senior council officer but it must have been quite useful because by their next correspondence on 8 May 2008 Ferguson is gushing to Bishop:
I am really grateful for your involvement
No doubt he is, especially when Bishop gnomically replies on the same day – despite having spoken with nobody within the council on the record:
I have made progress on this but would welcome a telephone call Friday afternoon to clarify precisely what you are proposing.
Alas, again, public servant Bishop made no formal public record of the contents of this – what we might assume to be – private call but it must have been interesting because one week later Bishop emails Ferguson, having apparently not bothered formally (or informally) consulting any of his colleagues within the council:
There would be no problem selling you the land you asked for
Wow! There you have it. A three month process magically truncated into 16 days and a piece of land that was not for sale sold to local property developer.
Now, how did they do that?
