In American politics, the term "pork barrel" is used to refer to "the appropriation of government spending for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents, such as those in marginal seats or campaign contributors." It is usually diminuted to "Pork".
Bristol City Council are going one better here in Bristol. They're having a go at "Beef". The Evening Post reports:
Bristol City Council wants to run its own herd of cows to provide beef for the city's schools and posh restaurants.
The council is considering taking over Stoke Park, the 200-acre parkland in front of the landmark Dower House alongside the M32.
If the deal goes ahead, the local authority plans to graze cows on the land and start producing its own beef.
The decision which the Cabinet of the City propose to take at their meeting on Thursday 26th February relates to the acquisition of Stoke Park, the large open parkland which runs along the northern side of the M32, and surrounds the Dower House (or I suppose technically a Dower House.)
The summary of this core business, given in the papers for the meeting, is as follows:
Stoke Park is a Registered Historic Parkland in a prominent location overlooking the M32 and forming an important setting and greengateway to Bristol, where the majority of the park is situated.
The parkland is owned by a consortium of developers Barrett and George Wimpey, who under a planning agreement with South Gloucestershire Council now wish to transfer the property to a suitable long term owner and manager. The recommendation for the future owner of the park is made by a Parkland Committee comprising both councils and the consortium, plus Avon Gardens Trust.
The consortium's favoured option has been to transfer the park to a land holding company called Greenbelt, who operate nationally and conserve open space and other assets after a development has been completed. Both the City Council and South Gloucestershire Council are concerned that Greenbelt may not provide the level of resourcing, focus and local knowledge that is required by both councils and local residents, in an increasingly densely populated part of the city's northern fringe.
This is not intrinsically an expensive decision. The officers report suggests:
It is estimated that in the early years costs can largely be met from the endowment from the developers [a fund of £1.2 million, generating about £40k per annum], but in the longer term the net cost of maintenance of the park could be in the region of £80- £100k pa (paras 16-20).
The land has no permission for development and the proposed management company (The Greenbelt Group), have already made suggestions for raising revenue by renting land for hay making, horse stabling and selling fishing rights to a local club.
The management of Stoke Park is currently overseen by a Parkland Committee, although in practice the land owning consortium (herein referred to as 'The Consortium') from Barrett Homes and George Wimpey have day to day operational responsibility - managing the park via consultants, a land agent and contractors. The Parkland Committee is governed by the Section 106 agreement (dated September 1999 and overseen by South Gloucestershire Council as Planning Authority) attached to the housing development at the former Stoke Park hospital site. The Committee consists of representatives of Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council and The Avon Gardens Trust, together with representatives of the consortium.
Under the Section 106 agreement, the Parkland Committee may approve the transfer of the Park to another body having the facilities and funding to permanently maintain the Park. The Consortium's preference has been to transfer the parkland to a Trust run by a body calledThe Greenbelt Company, who operate nationwide taking over post development open spaces and other public assets. Greenbelt have a proven track-record of managing open spaces and currently service over 600 sites throughout Britain.
So, the owners of the land, the developers, want to get shot of it and hand it over to a trust. Their original plan was to transfer the freehold to a management board from the Green Belt group, which would manage the land with local authority representation. This is somewhat like the existing relationship between the Merchant Venturers and the Council in relation to the Downs.
But, the Council perceives problems with this.
Paragraph 21 identifies the key risks involved in this option as percieved [sic] by officers of Bristol City and South Gloucestershire Council officers. These are largely due to the management of the parkland being based around an absentee landlord and tenant farmer model, which is unlikely to be responsive enough to visitor pressures and needs. Consequently, the council may need to step in on a day to day basis, and in the medium to longer term need to consider taking over the park if Greenbelt management is not sustainable.
So the council are concerned that Greenbelt Group might strap on their armour and go crusading in the Holy Land, thus leaving all the humble tenant farmers with no one to fix their dry stone walls or write their Equality Impact Assessment reports. Hence, the Council will acquire the freehold and do all the management activity.
Here's a thought, though. Considering recent history, if the current administration (prop. H Holland) were both the landowner and the planning authority, would you trust them to resist the urge to flog little bits of land on the edges of the park of the land to the first sustainable snake-oil salesman to roll up at the Cown Slouse, with proposals to save the world with carbon neutral key housing for community-led equality-neutral families in need through partnership with the community?
Which brings us on to the beef:
The acquisition of Stoke Park also creates an opportunity to align the future management of the parkland with the West of England Green Infrastructure Plans and the city's own aspirations to develop healthy food supplies for the local population. To take this forward, Natural England has offered grant aid to support a Feasibility Study to explore a sustainable land management model for the park based on livestock grazing, and to link this to the development of grazing management on other green space and estates including Ashton Court and Blaise - plus potentially other wildlife sites across the city which are difficult to manage mechanically and where grazing will better meet the city's ambitious Biodiversity Action Plan objectives.
The working title for this wider city food initiative is 'Bristol Beef' which promises to create a supply of local meat for Bristol schools as part of the 'Transforming School Meals' programme - as well as perhaps exploiting 'high end' markets in local restaurants and via the developing local food offer at the Corn Exchange. Bristol Parks already markets organic venison from Ashton Court which is also on the menu of the new Bistro in the Visitor Centre, so the Bristol Beef concept presents an opportunity to expand this service. This fits well with the city's Green Capital Initiative and the Forum for the Future partnership aiming to create a model sustainable sub region for the West of England. The feasibility study will recommend the breeds of docile of [sic] livestock that are suitable for grazing publicly accessible green space - such as Long Horn or Dexters - and the challenges of moving livestock across the city and creating new local supply chains.
Note that the feasibility study will not be a study of whether this idea is feasible, it will be a study of how to make it feasible. Assuming the Council did own and manage Stoke Park, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some of the land be set aside for pasture. I'm not a farmer, though, so I couldn't tell you whether we're in a good market for beef, or whether the land is more suitable for agriculture than grazing. But why on earth would the Council themselves run the herds? If they're absolutely convinced that the land is best used for pasture and that Bristol needs a guaranteed supply of beef, why not just rent the land to a beef farmer and buy the finished goods from them? I'm sure any existing local beef farmers will be rather irritated that their own Council Tax payments are being used to set up a competing provider.
But, of course, there's more to this than just wanting to purchase a commodity at a fair price. This is an "initiative". It involves "transformation". It is "sustainable". There is an "Action Plan". It's being driven by politics, not economics, which is no doubt the main reason that the council isn't responding to enquiries. Via the Evening Post:
[The] council has refused point blank to answer any questions about the proposal ahead of a cabinet meeting next Thursday, when a final decision is set to be made.
It means there are no details about the scale of the operation, how it would be run or when it might start.
No details have been provided about the practicalities of the scheme, where the animals would be slaughtered or whether they would also produce milk or leather from the herd.
The authority has refused to answer questions about potential legal issues surrounding any future outbreak of mad cow disease if local authority meat was given to school children.
[I]t has also decided not to address the potential effect on local businesses who already produce beef for the city.
I found this entertaining web site a few weeks ago and promptly lost it. Read on for a very funny take on British Agriculture. Naturally this is all fictional, as the Rural Payments Agency doesn't do a lot of paying these days.
Dear Secretary of State for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs,
My brother-in-law who lives in rural England is into farming, he informed me he has just received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs last year.
I now want to join the "not rearing pigs" business, and in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies dictated by the EU under the Common Agriculture Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots etc, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
