Petition - Save Baltic Wharf CC Site (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

As posted last Wednesday, looking at Google Maps there seems to be plenty of land close to at least two of the P&R sites which the CC could use for an alternative site.

The P&R sites give access into the city centre which is as easy, if not easier, than walking from Baltic Wharf and cheaper than the ferry.

 

[StephandJohn]

To find out more go to www.savebristolcampsite.com

To answer some of the recent points;
• The council kept their decision to close Baltic Wharf well hidden. It was only ‘discovered’ when one of the local campaigners (Matt) parents visited the campsite and were told about it.
• The campaign didn’t start until 25th April when Matt got the petition running, followed by the website and started to involve the local press, talk to councillors and canvass local businesses for their views.
• It’s only been as ‘widely publicised’ as his time and funds have allowed. He’s doing a good job, and is working on more ideas, but he’s only one person who has a job and other commitments as well.
As much as possible has to be done in a short space of time before the Council gets entrenched and puts things in place that can’t be changed.
• I’ve been helping out by putting it on the motorhome/caravan forums but, I imagine that relatively few m’homers/caravanners belong to these sites.
• The survey was closed after a few days at 243 as Matt needed to know quickly, and for sure, if there would be a big financial loss to the City.
• The problem publicity/marketing of anything is that you can’t just have one article or interview in a paper or on the radio. You have to keep doing it to keep it in the forefront of people’s minds. I have to keep putting stuff on the forums to keep it going and Matt has to keep talking to local papers, getting on the radio etc.
• The council hasn’t come up with any suitable alternative yet and, in any case, the best thing about Baltic Wharf is you can easily get in to the heart of the city either by walking or on the ferry. Alternatively you can just walk to local attractions on that side of the harbour if you don’t want to go far.

N.B. Since the caravan club changed its rules about having to give 72 hours notice of cancellation its been much easier to get in to Baltic Wharf and other usually fully booked sites if you can wait until nearer the dates you want to go

So, what I’m saying is, that given the short timescale available I think Matt is doing a great job but we can’t rest or the site will just go and we (and Bristol) will be the poorer for it.

 

[GJH]

We keep seeing these allegations of no consultation and the council hiding its intentions but, as the Bristol Post article says, "There has been speculation about the location of the proposed school on the Harbourside since it was announced one would be built there in September 2012.".

Given the fact that land is at a premium in the area (as demonstrated by the fact that there is nowhere else in the immediate area for an alternative caravan site) what other location could there be for a primary school than the current caravan site? Just because people did not pick up on that earlier doesn't mean the council was hiding its intentions. If the council really had that in mind why didn't it just issue notice to the CC rather than hold "lengthy negotiations"?

The choice is between keeping a caravan site (when it is perfectly possible to find an alternative site) and providing a primary school close enough to children's homes (for which there isn't a viable alternative site).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

We keep seeing these allegations of no consultation and the council hiding its intentions but, as the Bristol Post article says, "There has been speculation about the location of the proposed school on the Harbourside since it was announced one would be built there in September 2012.".

Given the fact that land is at a premium in the area (as demonstrated by the fact that there is nowhere else in the immediate area for an alternative caravan site) what other location could there be for a primary school than the current caravan site? Just because people did not pick up on that earlier doesn't mean the council was hiding its intentions. If the council really had that in mind why didn't it just issue notice to the CC rather than hold "lengthy negotiations"?

The choice is between keeping a caravan site (when it is perfectly possible to find an alternative site) and providing a primary school close enough to children's homes (for which there isn't a viable alternative site).

Or, maybe the choice should be re-phased between keeping a caravan site that generates cash and provides jobs, or building a new primary school to cater for the recent high levels of foreign immigration into Bristol?
At the end of the day, it's Bristol. I don't have to visit there, my money is welcome in most places!! :thumb:

 

[GJH]

[HI]Or, maybe the choice should be re-phased between keeping a caravan site that generates cash and provides jobs, or building a new primary school to cater for the recent high levels of foreign immigration into Bristol?[/HI]
At the end of the day, it's Bristol. I don't have to visit there, my money is welcome in most places!! :thumb:

Or having both by relocating the caravan site (which is what I've been advocating)

 

[StephandJohn]

Hi all
I've been away and have only just caught up on the latest news below. The campaign is now concentrated locally but they still need our signatures so if you haven't signed the petition please do so.
Thanks
Steph

The public meeting was very interesting. We were not allocated any time or space but introduced ourselves and, backed by popular demand, set ourselves up on a free table ready for discussion. A good deal of support was mustered. We found out that no plans (for a school or otherwise) have actually been finalised and no decision has been signed off on; albeit that the campsite are not allowed to renew their lease which expires at the end of the year. So there is some hope...of sorts. The Mayor is very keen to push this through, his background is in architecture and planning so he will probably feel most at home in the area of construction (or was that destruction?!). We need to get the Councillors to debate the issue before they break in June. We were told that our campaign has been making waves and is being talked about at all levels of Bristol City Council; we also have the full support of a good many Councillors in the City. The Councillor for Cabot said that he would definitely not support any plans to build residential on the site. Separately the Green Councillor highlighted the risk that “The site may be closed and then found unsuitable for a school in which case we would probably end up with yet more dockside housing.” Therefore, we asked the Cabot Councillor to ask the Mayor two things, whether the Mayor would stake his reputation on there never being residential developments on the site and also how the Mayor and the Council plan to replace the £1,250,000 loss in revenue for traders, services and attractions every year. They may have a capacity problem (10 years in the making!) but destroying the campsite is not the solution. The Councillor for Cabot suggested that an alternative campsite location may (emphasise the may) be found in the future. We must be clear here, our campaign is coordinated by local people and we are not concerned about the profits of the Caravan Club. Our concern is for the effect closure will have on the local community - as outlined in our full report (18th May) found here: www.savebristolcampsite.com/our-report An unlikely change in location will NOT help those people and businesses in the vicinity of the Baltic Wharf. As before, when the matter is fully considered by local people then support builds. Our primary objective now is to reach the 3,500 signature mark and anything anyone can do to help us reach that will be very much appreciated.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[olley]

Or having both by relocating the caravan site (which is what I've been advocating)

But where? No relocation site has been mentioned and if its out of town the site won't be as popular, and most will drive in. The existing school this is suppose to replace is over the other side of the river so all the existing children will no doubt be driven to it, clogging up the roads still further, the whole seems odd.

Much more likely is that the school will be shelved for some reason and the site sold for housing, with someone getting a nice backhander.

Ian

 

[GJH]

[HI]But where? No relocation site has been mentioned and if its out of town the site won't be as popular, and most will drive in. [/HI]The existing school this is suppose to replace is over the other side of the river so all the existing children will no doubt be driven to it, clogging up the roads still further, the whole seems odd.

Much more likely is that the school will be shelved for some reason and the site sold for housing, with someone getting a nice backhander.

Ian

As suggested previously, close to one of the P&R sites.

As regards the school, the ward councillors have pointed out that the caravan site is the only viable option of the three originally considered.

I noticed an interesting passage in the "latest news" above (my highlighting):

We must be clear here, our campaign is coordinated by local people and [HI]we are not concerned about the profits of the Caravan Club[/HI]. [HI]Our concern is for the effect closure will have on the local community[/HI] - as outlined in our full report (18th May) found here: www.savebristolcampsite.com/our-report An unlikely [HI]change in location will NOT help those people and businesses in the vicinity of the Baltic Wharf[/HI].

As I've always suspected, this action/petition is not about saving a caravan site or the interests of the people who use it. Neither is it about the interests of the wider community in Bristol (particular those who need a new school). It is about the interests of a few businesses.

 

[olley]

As suggested previously, close to one of the P&R sites.

As regards the school, the ward councillors have pointed out that the caravan site is the only viable option of the three originally considered.

I noticed an interesting passage in the "latest news" above (my highlighting):
As I've always suspected, this action/petition is not about saving a caravan site or the interests of the people who use it. Neither is it about the interests of the wider community in Bristol (particular those who need a new school). It is about the interests of a few businesses.

It always has been about the money, you seem surprised? Without the money some off the local business may close meaning a loss of local jobs, without the supposed £1.25 million going into the economy of Bristol some city centre jobs may be lost. You can't just drop that sort of money at a stroke without causing some effect.

Ian

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

It always has been about the money, you seem surprised? Without the money some off the local business may close meaning a loss of local jobs, without the supposed £1.25 million going into the economy of Bristol some city centre jobs may be lost. You can't just drop that sort of money at a stroke without causing some effect.

Ian

Not surprised at all. As I said, "As I've always suspected".

That's supposed potential loss is another point as the amount is based on dodgy statistics from a tiny sample. In any case, if the CC were able to open a larger site elsewhere in the city that money would not be lost and, if the site were larger, more visitors would mean more income to the local economy and more jobs. The campaigners' report conveniently ignores that point.

 

[olley]

Their not going to open a another site in the city let alone a larger one, city centre land is at a premium, any site will be outside the city. Here's the old school with plenty of land around it https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...2!3m1!1s0x4871836681b3d861:0x8ee4b22e4b9ad71f
Why not just enlarge it?

Ian

 

[GJH]

Their not going to open a another site in the city let alone a larger one, city centre land is at a premium, any site will be outside the city. Here's the old school with plenty of land around it https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...2!3m1!1s0x4871836681b3d861:0x8ee4b22e4b9ad71f
Why not just enlarge it?

Ian

I would guess (only a guess) that they don't enlarge it because the land around it is both a public park and a fairly steep hill.

I don't think anyone has suggested that an alternative site will be in the city centre (as opposed to the city council area) - as you say land (as with all cities) is at a premium (that, in itself, is a reason why the school site alternatives are restricted). A caravan site outside the city but with good public transport links into the city would be just as convenient for people as Baltic Wharf is at the moment (and a lot more convenient than many existing CC sites are for motorhomers without a car).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[themogs]

Petition - Save Baltic Wharf CC

Done

 

[dabhand]

Baltic Wharf

Why not try and get it listed on the Assets of Community Value register, just a thought?

 

[StephandJohn]

Hi all
Sorry for the silence, and for the length of this posting, but things have been happening.
· Our request, under the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.), for information about how the decision to close the campsite, and how the decision to use the land for a school was made, was refused. We went to the CEO of the Campaign for Freedom of Information (C.F.O.) and he gave us all the necessary ‘ammunition’ to refute their spurious reasons and an appeal has now gone in. If this is refused we’ll go to the Information Commissioners Office (like an ombudsman). If we have to do this it will take about six months to get a ruling; however the help we got from the C.F.O. is compelling and in other campaigns we’ve found it usually works. Really the council officials don’t understand the F.O.I. Act and just go to a default ‘secrecy’ mindset. Hopefully once we’ve explained it to them they might change their minds.
I won’t put it all on here but if anyone wants to read it all please PQ me with your email address and I’ll send it.

· The letter below is from the campaign organisers. We got enough signatures to ask the council to have an open debate on it. (If you remember the decision was made by the mayor on his own and even a lot of councillors didn’t know about it until it was published in the papers)The next meeting is 22nd July and it would be helpful if we all emailed or tweeted the Mayor to ask for it to be included

Hello Steph,
Here's the link to the Open Letter to the councillors on our website: http://savebristolcampsite.com/open-letter.php

I think one of the best things to do now would be to ask forum users to read the arguments and, if they wish, email the Mayor direct with their concerns. He's the person who will make the final decision. If he only came to visit the people and businesses that rely on the campsite users then he might not be so confident. A school bus would be a great way of transporting children to a site that actually needs re-development without compromising people's livelihoods and 30 years of having a great asset for Bristol - a win-win!
Here's his contact details:
Twitter @GeorgeFergusonx
Email Broken Link Removed
The lead Green Councillor on the issue (1 of 5) came to visit the campsite and the local businesses that would be impacted by closure. On Twitter he suggested that Mayor George Ferguson visit as it made him pause to think about his reaction.

If we can get the Mayor to allow us to organise a visit for him then that will be our best chance of saving the campsite.

Onward and upwards!!!
Matt

So – lets hope we can all work together and carry on using this lovely campsite for a long while yet.
Steph

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tootles]

After writing to complain about this (proposed closure), on behalf of the Ex Serviceman's site I represent, I got this answer by way of reply.

Dear Mr Parkinson

I refer to your email dated 5 May 2014, the contents of which I note. I am pleased to hear that you enjoy your visits to Bristol. We know that tourism is vital to our city’s economy, and we continue to strive to make Bristol an attractive city for visitors and residents alike.
However, the City Council also has a legal requirement to ensure that there are enough school places and has to be innovative in its approach. The rate of growth of primary age children in Bristol is amongst the fastest in the country. The council has seen a 30% rise in the number of pupils entering the Reception Year in the last five years. Our current forecasts show that by 2017 there is a need to provide over 4,400 primary school places.
The increased demand at primary is driven by a number of factors including increased migration, increased birth rates, a reduction in the number of families moving out of the city, and families no longer using the independent sector.
The problem of providing sufficient primary age places is particularly acute in the central area of the City and options are very limited. Sometimes the provision of such places involves making difficult choices such as in the case of the Caravan Club.
We are working with the Caravan Club to explore alternative locations with them whilst also investing in excellent local education where it is required as an essential greater investment in our future economy.

On behalf of Corporate Property, Bristol City Council

Anna Polanek
Directors Assistant to Robert Orrett, Service Director - Property
0117 35 74177

I replied, thanking The Council for not considering disabled ex-servicemen and women in their decision, (many of whom do visit Baltic Wharf, for it's ease of getting about), and stated that in writing, I had not realised that 'increased migration' took priority over those injured on active service, so that she and the council could sleep easy in their beds each night.
She has not as yet replied.

 

[Wildbill]

it will close and no one can stop it

 

[GJH]

Our request, under the Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.), for information about how the decision to close the campsite, and how the decision to use the land for a school was made, was refused.

What were the grounds for refusal?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[StephandJohn]

It's a very long email, as is our reply to them. I'd be happy to put it ll on here but I wonder if it would be OK to do? Can I email it to you privately?
Steph

 

[GJH]

It's a very long email, as is our reply to them. I'd be happy to put it ll on here but I wonder if it would be OK to do? Can I email it to you privately?
Steph

PM it if you like but I was only wondering about the actual grounds.

 

[StephandJohn]

Thanks Graham How do I do that?
Steph

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[catspyjamas]

I was wondering about the grounds for refusal as well. I'm sure it'd be ok to post on this thread.

 

[GJH]

Thanks Graham How do I do that?
Steph

To send a PM, click on the member name in the avatar and then on Start a Conversation.

 

[StephandJohn]

Here it is (thanks for the help re sending a PM but as someone else has asked I've posted it all here)

Our request to Bristol City Council under the Freedom of Information Act:

I wish to submit a FOI request for all correspondence and documents including letters, emails, minutes of all meetings, related to Bristol City Council's plans, proposals and decisions regarding Baltic Wharf Caravan Park, including proposed use of the site following its closure.
---------------
Their reply to us:

The Public Interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the Public Interest in withholding the information. The matters considered in coming to this decision are:

Disclose
1 The presumption of the EIR is in favour of disclosure.
2 There is a public interest in transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic processes.

Withhold
1 The factors considered and the reasons for the decision to give notice to the Caravan Club have been made public both in the local press and by way of a published decision notice: Broken Link Removed (pages 3 and 4)
This reduces the public interest in the public disclosure of the internal communications.
2 Whilst notice has been served on the Caravan Club, the decision making process in relation to the site remains ongoing and officers need time and space to consider this. Disclosure of this information would adversely affect the ability of the Council to maximise the value of the land for the taxpayer.
3 There is public interest in the principle of legal professional privilege being upheld.

------------
Advice from Maurice Frankel, C.E.O. of the Campaign for Freedom of Information - we based the appeal on this:

The decision is well worth challenging. The exemptions cited are both subject to the public interest test, which operates under the EIR as it does under the FOIA. You need to ask for an internal review, then be ready to go to the ICO.

The internal communications exception to the EIR operates in a similar way to sections 35 and 36 of the FOIA. It is most likely to protect information relating to a decision which has not yet been taken at the time of the request, in order to protect the 'safe space' needed by decision makers while reaching their decision. You request was made after the decision was taken, so this factor does not apply. The decision which has been taken is a self-contained, complete decision and distinct from any forthcoming decision on how to dispose of the site.

The public interest test will also take into account any possible 'chilling effect' of disclosure now on the frankness of future record keeping and discussions. Since a planning department is accustomed to meeting and discussing matters in public they would normally be likely to anticipate that disclosure would occur - before as well as after - the decision, so there should be little chilling effect from disclosure.In any event, the purpose of allowing officials to take decisions under delegated powers is not to by-pass accountability or openness. There is always a strong public interest about openness in planning.

As for the positive public interest in disclosure you should set out your case, as it relates to this particular issue, explaining why disclosure is in the interests of accountability and participation require and why the published information is not sufficient. It would be worth you reading the ICO's guidance on the internal communications exception:

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations...alist_guides/eir_internal_communications.ashx

Have a look also at the ICO guidance on the exception for the course of justice (although any actual actual legal advice involved in the case is unlikely to be disclosed):

Broken Link Removed

Interesting but complicated if, like us, you're not that experienced in this type of thing!

Steph

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[StephandJohn]

Hi all
The people of Bristol are still fighting the closure. Here is the latest news from Matt who is running the campaign there (all is also presenting the petition on the video mentioned).

.Hello Steph, hope you're well and enjoying the weather?

Here's a link to a video of us taking on City Hall!

Feel free to share as much as possible, now is the time to pressure the Mayor!

All the best,

Matt

Please take a moment to go the end of the video, pick up the link to the mayor and email him.
Thanks.

Steph

 

[DBK]

Looks like the CC is doing its best to keep the site full - there is a two page spread on Baltic Wharf in the current magazine. No mention of possible closure of course.

 

[JockandRita]

Here's a link to a video of us taking on City Hall!

Sorry Steph, no video at this end, unless it's a video of a still image. No sound either.

regards,

Jock.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JockandRita]

Looks like the CC is doing its best to keep the site full - there is a two page spread on Baltic Wharf in the current magazine. No mention of possible closure of course.

Rita and I noticed that article too, and surprised that no mention was made of possible closure. You'd think that the CC would want the extra support.................or maybe not, eh?

Regards,

Jock.

 

[StephandJohn]

Sorry - hope this one works

Ateph

 

[DBK]

Rita and I noticed that article too, and surprised that no mention was made of possible closure. You'd think that the CC would want the extra support.................or maybe not, eh?

Regards,

Jock.

I think they would be worried about people not going if they think it is closing. For example, would you eat at a restaurant which had a sign outside saying it was for sale or was closing down?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}