1. education
2. school

5.
REPRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
[40 Minutes]
(A)
PETITIONS
NAME
SUBJECT
P13
Councillor Bolton
Transport for Bristol
P14
Councillor Gollop
Road Safety Measures at Westbury-on-Trym Primary
School
P15
Colin Smith
Bishopsworth and Jubliee Swimming Pool
P16
Councillor Janke
Footways in Princess Victoria Street
(B)
STATEMENTS
Name
Subject
S32
Councillor Gollop
Road Safety Measures at Westbury-on-Trym Primary
School
S33
Councilor Jethwa
Bowmead EPH
S34
Councillor Dr Rogers
Bowmead EPH
S35
Councillor Clark
Very Sheltered Housing Scheme
S36
Councillor Sykes
Hengrove Park Development
S37
Councillor Hopkins
Recycling Services
S38
Councillor Comer
Labour Administration
S39
Councillor Clark
Redland Green School
(C)
QUESTIONS
From
To
Subject
MQ32
Councillor D Brown
Councillor H Holland
Questions to Full Council
MQ33
Councillor J Clark
Councillor D Pickup
Colston's Girls School
MQ34
Councillor D Brown
Councillor M Bradshaw
Concessionary Bus Travel
MQ35
Councillor D Brown
Councillor M Bradshaw
Transport Finance
MQ36
Councillor D Brown
Councillor M Bradshaw
Transport Innovation Fund
MQ37
Councillor Dr M Wright
Councillor J Bees
Council Tax
FROM
TO
SUBJECT
MQ38
Councillor M Sykes
Councillor R Walker
Hengrove Park Grasscutting
MQ39
Councillor R Eddy
Councillor J Bees
Council Questions Costs
MQ40
Councillor Dr M Wright
Councillor H Holland
Citizens' Jury
MQ41
Councillor Dr M Wright
Councillor M Bradshaw
Bulky Waste
MQ42
Councillor G Hopkins
Councillor M Bradshaw
Citizens' Jury
MQ43
Councillor G Hopkins
Councillor R Eddy
Chair of Quality of Life
MQ44
Councillor D Brown
Councillor M Bradshaw
Safer Routes to Schools
MQ45
Councillor C CampionSmith
Councillor R Walker
Hengrove Leisure Centre
MQ46
Councillor A Fox
Councillor D Pickup
Children's Centre Programme
2006-2008
MQ47
Councillor Dr J Rogers
Councillor J Price
Commercial Waste
MQ48
Councillor Dr J Rogers
Councillor P Hammond
Residential Futures Project
S:\Reports\2007-08\Council\Statements\03 24 July 2007\Cover Sheet July 07.sxw
Reply to
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Telephone 0117 903 7968
Minicorn
Councillor C Bolton
20 Beauley Road
Southville
BRISTOL
853 1W
[email protected]
Dear ~oxydlbrBolton & Petitioners
PETITION
- TRANSPORT FOR BRISTOL
Thank you all for contributing to this petition delivered to the Council meeting on
24thJuly.
Iam g y supportive of the issue you raised. Like many of you, Ihave thought for a
long time that there needs to be some kind of strategic transport authority for
Bristol, in order for us all to get to grips with the need to improve transport in
general - and public transport in particular - across the Greater Bristol area. Whilst
we have seen much valuable joint working in producing a well received Joint Local
Transport Plan last year and in jointly progressing key transport projects since then,
Iand my Cabinet colleagues are convinced that a new authority is required to
urgently progress this joint approach and deliver the improvements we so urgently
need.
The Government's draft Local Transport Bill published for consultation on 22ndMay
offers for the first time the real prospect of legislation to allow some kind of
Strategic Transport Authority for this area to be created, and Iunderstand that the
Government is keen to see such an organisation for this area emerging. Ican
assure you that Ishall be responding positively to this suggestion in the draft Bill by
the 7'" September deadline re responses. My understanding of the process is that
the Government will then redraft the Bill and put it forward for consideration for the
legislative programme for the next session of Parliament in November.
--,
i
i-ie Couticil House
College C r ~ e n
8ris.tol 55: 572
Execrr+ive$Jiejyj~.i;>
\b/ebsi.ig
www. bristol-city.goll.uk
I shall continue to engage with government to try to ensure that we get the powers
we require to set up an effective authority. First we need to make sure that the
legislation encompasses the powers we need. In parallel, there will be a period of
discussion involving the neighbouring councils to agree upor; the right type of
authority for this area and the appropriate powers. The most fundamental question
will be to ensure that such an authority is adequately funded. Many of us envy the
level of resources available to Transport for London, and we will need to ensure that
whatever body is created for this area has sufficient funding and powers in order to
achieve a significant and lasting improvement to transport in this area.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member for Access & Environment
Mr D Fowler
Head Petitioner
Weply t o
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
BeBephorae 0117 903 7968
Minicorn
Fax
hail
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
[email protected].~~k
PET TOPS 39/TM257
5thOctober 2007
Dear Mr Fowler
PETITION: ROAD SAFETY MEASURES AT WESTBURY ON TRYM CEVC
PRIMARY SCHOOL
Iwrite with regard to the above site and in response to your e-petition dated 6thJuly
2007.
As Iam sure you are aware, in May 2004 a consultation exercise was undertaken to
promote a scheme to implement a number of measures within the area to assist and
encourage walking and cycling to school. This process was then followed, in April
2006, by a formal consultation for a 20mph speed limit, a series of speed tables and
a traffic regulation order for a prohibition of driving at the north end of Shipley
Road, at its junction with Passage Road. The intention of this scheme was to
irr~plementa mandatory 20mph speed limit, primarily along Passage Road. It was
envisaged that this scheme woi~ldbe self enforcing as speed tables were to be
introduced.
The purpose of the Safer Route to School schemes is to encourage more children to
walk and/or cycle to school. However, experience has shown that the provision of
physical measures, such as proposed here are not necessarily successful in isolation.
What has proved to be far more successful is the softer educational and information
measures to increase the number of journeys made to school on foot and by bike.
'These softer measl-ires have proved particularly successful at Westbury-on-Trym
CEVC Primary School where there has been a significant increase in the number of
pupils walking and cycling to school.
As such the original scheme will no longer be progressed, but draft proposals for a
revised scheme are,currently being developed. The revised scheme although
smaller, will centre on the School Crossing Patrol point on Passage Road and will
endeavour to address other concerns raised by parents subject to adequate funding
being available.
The revised scheme will, of course, be subject to a full consultation exercise.
Assuming that the revised scheme is generally acceptable it would be possible to
implement at least part of it during the current financial year. Iwill of course ensure
that you are contacted again when the scheme is ready for consultation, so that you
can comment on it. The Council is committed to full consultation on finding a
solution which addresses the concerns of all stakeholders and my officers will be
focused on that outcome.
-
Ialso understand and acknowledge the disappointment that the Council will not be
proceeding with the original scheme proposed. If you wish to discuss the matter
further please contact Alan Berridge on 0117 903 6946 in the first instance.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member for Access & Environment
Reply to
Counallor Mark Bradshaw
Telephone 0117 903 7968
Minicorn
Fax
/-'\
Ms Julia Killingbeck
71a Princess Victoria Street
Clifton
BRISTOL
/-
Email
Our Ref
your Ref
Date
[email protected]
40 /
24 August 2007
Dear Ms Killingbeck
Your petition regarding the choice of materials to be used on the proposed reconstruction
of the footways in Princess Victoria Street has been received by the Council and the issues
raised in it have been investigated. The subject of footway materials is a difficult one that
prompts discussions throughout the city. The Council have to balance the competing
environment
priorities of complying with its Statutory duties and achieving-nt
within its recourses.
The footways in Princess Victoria Street are in a poor condition and have to be replaced.
To do this in Pennant stone as requested in the petition will result in significant additional
cost and result in the Council not being able to undertake other necessary footway works.
The appearance of the proposed materials is not dissimilar to other roads in the area and
complies with the policy of replacing footways with similar materials.
Itherefore propose to continue with the installation of the small concrete slabs on this
footway to achieve a safe and consistent walking surface. Inote that officers have
discussed this issue with you and whilst agreement could not be reached in this case, I
hope that we will continue to discuss issues to reach agreement if possible.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member for Access & Environment
The Council House
College Green
B r i s b l 951 5'iR
)
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city.g0v.uk
S32
Public Forum Statement for Council from Councillor Geoff Gollop - Tuesday 24th July 2007
Westbury-on-Trym C of E Primary School - Safer Routes to School
I am delighted to see Councillor Dennis Brown taking such an interest in
Westbury-on-Trym ward and the Safer Routes to Schools scheme for
Westbury C of E Primary School.
It is however a pity that he did not show such interest when he was Executive
Member and he even failed to acknowledge receipt of the School's detailed
and exemplary Travel Plan when it was delivered to him.
I am also intrigued by his failure to acknowledge the unwritten protocol in not
dealing with issues that fall outside of his own ward.
The situation is a disgraceful mess.
Some four years ago the Council leafleted every house in proximity to the
School and all parents giving alternative plans for traffic calming measures
around the School. Parents and residents were asked to reply choosing their
preferred option. The Council subsequently widely publicised the chosen
option to those who had been consulted. In the ensuing years the School
and myself received repeated assurances that the work would be carried out
and indeed was scheduled for this summer.
Most recently the School and the parents Travel Group were advised that it
could not now take place. A number of explanations were given suggesting
that the parents' group had been too successful and that as more children
were now walking to school there was no need to make the routes safer. It
was also said that the proposed plans were too expensive because they
involved putting road humps on a bus route and this was costly. It was also
suggested that there were insufficient casualties.
The most disappointing aspect of this problem is that the road in question has
always been a bus route and it is surprising that this aspect was presented as
a cost issue at the very last moment. I also find it disappointing that Cllr
Brown is trying to make political capital out of the situation. The tone of his
questions implies surprise at the decision and yet in an email on 18th July
Dennis Brown wrote “ Please note that when I was Executive Member I was
not fully briefed about the proposal to abandon the road traffic calming
measures but had heard about concerns as to the cost of the proposals and
that many people are anti speed humps etc.”
I urge the Executive Member and all Members to consider this matter with the
utmost urgency, not because the school is situated in Westbury-on-Trym but
because the school is situated on a narrow bend on a busy major road which
is potentially one of the most dangerous locations for a school in Bristol. I do
not believe that any Member would expect their own children or grandchildren
to walk to a school in such a location and I would urge that either the existing
proposals are re-implemented extremely quickly or urgent consultation is
undertaken to find alternative remedies.
There is enormous frustration amongst Westbury residents that the Westbury
scheme has been cancelled whilst the neighbouring scheme in Henleaze has
grown out of all proportion. An essential request for yellow lines outside
Henleaze School has been delayed for years and eventually introduced with
a large number of unwanted and unnecessary parking restriction. I find it
unlikely that the former Executive Member did not know that this scheme in
his own ward was being pursued instead of critical work in Westbury.
GG
Cllr C Collop
20 Fallodon Way
Henleaze
Bristol
BS9 4HT
Aeply to
Tdcpho~e
pdir;icc m
f- ax
E-mail
O ~ i ref
r
Your ref
Date
Sally Lloyd
01 17 922 3755
-
01 17 903 6830
[email protected] k
TOPs68/TM259/JR
1 August 2007
Dear Cllr Collop
Public Forum Statement relatinq to Westbury-on-Trvm (C.E V.C) Primary School - Safer
Routes to School
We are in receipt of the above statement which relates to the petition presented to full
council on the 24 July 2007. This has been passed to Mr John Roy, Traffic Management
Road Safety, Walking & Cycling Team, who is looking into the concerns that have been
raised.
In view of the above you will be advised in writing of the progress of this matter. Please
do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely
Sally Lloyd
Customer Focus Team
Traffic Management
C.C.
S33
Full Council, Tuesday, 24 July 2007
BOWMEAD ELDERLY PERSONS' HOME
Members will now be aware of the announced U-turn last week on the
planned closure of Bowmead Elderly Persons' Home (EPH) in Stockwood
and its proposed conversion into Very Sheltered Housing (VSH).
As Ward Councillor, it is my duty to represent and convey the views of
residents, their families, friends and staff, who recognise that the area cannot
afford to lose this vital facility. I have visited the Home and share their
concerns over the future of this site.
Bowmead is an extremely well-run home, offering one-to-one care, is
conveniently located for families, employs local people and provides a
unique, high quality service. There is no other similar provision in Stockwood.
The Home has won a 5 star Food Standards Agency Award. Its residents
enjoy continuity of care with the same staff - many of whom have worked
there for 10 to 14 years. Importantly, there are also emergency duty teams
which are available on call at very short notice.
I am grateful to the Executive Member for Care & Communities and his
Cabinet colleagues for their decision to re-evaluate the suitability of Vetchlea
for redevelopment into elderly peoples' flats.
However, I wish to receive assurances about the long term future of
Bowmead, which could still be threatened following the conclusions of the
review currently underway into residential care in the city.
The psychological and emotional stress of all this uncertainty to residents,
their families and staff is proving detrimental to health and I fear that this will
inevitably continue until guarantees about continuing care provision at
Bowmead have been given. At the moment, it is my understanding that the
plans to replace this EPH have only been stopped. We are all still awaiting
the outcome and recommendations of the Residential Futures Project.
1
Consequently, I intend to continue to collect signatures to my epetition on the
Council's website which calls for the preservation of Bowmead until a final
and definitive Cabinet decision on this matter has been taken.
I want Bowmead EPH to carry on serving our community and shall fight for its
residents to receive the comprehensive range and quality of service that it
currently provides.
COUNCILLOR JAY JETHWA
2
Cllr Jay Jethwa
Council House
30 July 2007
Dear Councillor Jethwa
Re Your written Statement to Council on 24thJuly
I am writing to reply to your written Statement to Full Council on the 24" July which
has been passed to me as the Executive Member for a reply. I fully appreciate your
concerns as Ward Councillor to ensure that the views of residents, their families,
friends and staff are appropriately represented and understood. It was very helpful
that you were able to attend, with Councillor David Morris, the recent meeting with
residents and relatives at the home which Annie Hudson (Director of Adult
Community Care) and I attended.
I appreciate your support for the decision that I made not to proceed with the
consultation on the possible closure of Bowmead and the re-evaluation of the
s~~itability
of Vetchlea for redevelopment as a very sheltered housing scheme.
I can also confirm that the Residential Futl-~resproject is continuing its work about
thequality and range of all residential care in the city, including options for the future
role of the Council's homes. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the
outcome of this project which will be reporting to Elected Members in the autumn. I
have carefully noted your concerns about the future of Bowmead and your wish that
it should carry on serving the community.
I hope these comments are useful.
Executive Member
Care and Communities
-
S34
STATEMENT TO FULL COUNCIL – 24 JULY 2007
Lord Mayor
I would like to formally raise concerns about the recent statements
made by Cllr Peter Hammond relating to Bowmead House and the
Residential Futures project.
On 21st June 2007 he announced that he was pre-empting the
Residential Futures report by consulting on the closure of Bowmead
and looking towards building a very sheltered housing scheme on the
site. This obviously caused alarm to residents, families and staff.
This was against a background that in July 2006 David Cottam, BCC
Service Manager had written a letter to all relatives and residents of
Bowmead, Brentry, Broomhill and Hayleigh stating that the council
would be looking at the future of residential care in Bristol.
We are now being told that the only reason for proposing the
Bowmead site was that the Vetchlea site was erroneously considered
"too small". Surely there were other reasons such as proximity to
local facilities such as shops, GP surgery etc, as well as the need for
VSH schemes in South Bristol, not just East Bristol and to support
development of high quality accommodation for our elderly and
vulnerable.
I understand that Bowmead fell short of those
requirements.
The sudden u-turn couldn't have anything to do with the plan for a
protest in the chamber could it?
There are a number of questions that need to be answered, but the
timing of this latest announcement have precluded this.
1. The £3.8m million available from the Housing Corporation is for
Bowmead - have the Corporation agreed that the money can be
spent elsewhere and are officers confident that the time limit can be
met?
2. Given that the proposed Vetchlea site is close to 2 existing Very
Sheltered Housing (VSH) schemes in Hillside and Wainbrook, surely
this is going to skew the provision of VSH schemes in the city and rip
up the Council’s vision of a VSH scheme in every community in
Bristol?
3. Have the Labour administration spoken to the housing association
who was expecting to be building affordable eco housing on the
Vetchlea site until this announcement?
4. What do they intend to do about the consequent reduction in Very
Sheltered Housing in the south of Bristol - will the south of the city be
losing out?
5. Did they consult with local councillors about the impact of their
decision, and given that they have timed the announcement so that
they do not have to answer questions on this for 2 months, what does
this say about their ‘vision’ of ‘openness’?
6. What impact will this precipitate decision have on the Medium
Term Financial Plan?
Jon Rogers
Cllr Jon Rogers
Council House
30 July 2007
Dear Cllr Rogers
Re Your written Statement to Council bn 24thJuly
Your written Statement to Full Council on 24thJuly has been passed to me as
Executive Member for a reply.
As you know, I decided to stop the current consultation about the possible closure of
Bowmead on the discovery that the former Vetchlea EPH site in St George is larger
than was previously reported and because of understandable worries and concerns
expressed by residents and their relatives when I met them recently.
As a result, and as you know, officers are now re-visiting Vethclea as a possible site
for a very sheltered housing scheme.
In the meantime, the Residential Futures project is continuing its work. I will be
presenting the options and proposals to Elected Members in the autumn. It would
not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of this review.
I can also confirm this administration's commitment to the very sheltered housing
programme in Bristol and the opportunities it provides for real and important
alternatives, depending on choice and need, to residential care form many older
people in the city.
I hope this information is helpful.
A
Peter Hammond
Executive Member
Care and Communities
CZIJ~!:~[ Heuse
;ci[~gerzissr;
-%-;-&.*
--.: t... t 55:. 5 : e.
-.
I
C
..
--6
"A,.
S35
Statement for Full Council 24th July 2007
The future of the Very Sheltered Housing Scheme in Bristol
I was just a little surprised to see learn from the Evening Post that
the Labour administration seemed to have thrown out any notion of
forward planning enabling residents from across the city to have
access to the Very Sheltered Housing building program. I seem to
remember a mantra that they would be open and transparent,
there has been no consultation to my knowledge.
It is surprising to think that government will give out substantial
amounts of money to deliver projects only to allow a change of site
at the least provision. The mapping exercise for Vetchlea to
become a Very Sheltered Housing scheme would appear at a
glance to be a case of over provocation, with two other Very
Sheltered Schemes within a very short distance. Whilst in the
South of the city residents are being robbed of the chance to
choose these modern facilities.
As ward councillor for Hengrove I am very concerned that my
residents have the opportunity to access good quality and modern
accommodation when they are no longer able to live in their own
homes. This has been taken away from them and the future of
Bowmead will come into question.
Bowmead is a 43 bed residential home, which has a far less
certain future now that it is no longer going under the Very
Sheltered Housing scheme. The Tory councillors are happy to
campaign against the scheme but what they have not taken on
board is that the home will not meet new standards because the
room sizes are too small and the residents are currently expected
to share toilet and bathing facilities. The decisions before the
council in the next couple of years will be difficult. Whether too
close or carry out very costly alterations. The substantial
alterations required would probably mean that the home would
have to close for an extended period of time.
On a personal note I am sorry that the Tories are happy to
campaign for their residents to have second-class facilities in the
short term, and by 2010 the home may be closed for good. I
believe South Bristol deserves high quality facilities but Labour are
happy to take money away from the area, and the Tories
campaign against new high quality facilities in their wards.
Councillor J Clark
S36
Development at Hengrove Park
As local ward member I welcome the proposal to invest £2 million
to kick-start the infrastructure requirements to enable the
development of Hengrove Park to begin. Having been involved in
discussions about the development since well before I was elected
there have been times when I have despaired of seeing a sod
turned on the park in my lifetime. Also I am asked frequently about
progress on the hospital, as residents are keen to have more
health services provided locally.
However I am surprised that the City Council has needed to take
this action, as I believed SWERDA had agreed to fund the
infrastructure costs. I am sorry they will not release the funds
immediately and only hope they eventually provide the full amount
originally promised.
I understand the money is to come from the capital budget. May I
ask if another project is being delayed or cancelled to enable this
project to go ahead and if so which project? I am prepared to
argue that investment in this part of South Bristol is long overdue
but other members may be concerned about a delay to something
they regard as vital to their particular community.
Mary Sykes
Councillor Hengrove Ward
Reply t o
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Telephone 0117 903 7968
Minicorn
Fax
Councillor Mary Sykes
Pu lic Forum
b
~
r
o
Email
[email protected]
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
17 August 2007
v Park Developm~t
e
Iwrite in response to your statement made at Full Council on the 24 July 2007. You
raised two questions as follows:-
Question I: Status of SWERDA funding
Answer:
SWERDA have made an in principle commitment to funding the
infrastructilre costs. This is subject to formal consideration of a
funding application. Applicants are required to undertake design work
at risk prior to submitting an application. I f successful, external
consultancy costs will be recovered.
Question 2: Impact on &pita/ Pmpnmme
Answer:
No project is being cancelled as a result of the investment, but scope
to add any new projects to the Capital Programme is reduced.
Ihope the above information is helpfill in answering your questions.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member for Access & Environment
The Council House
College Greet1
Bristol BS: 5TR
Executive Member
Websife
www. bristoi-city,gov.uk
Statement to Full Council - 23rd July 2007
From Councillor Steve Comer, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group
This Council meeting takes place two months after a Labour Minority Administration took
office with the active support of the Bristol Conservatives.
We've heard a lot of warm words from the Leader of Council about 'consultation' and
'inclusiveness', but the reality has been dithering, delay and confusion.
The Cabinet meeting scheduled for 12th July was cancelled as many issues in the Leaders
Forward Plan were 'kicked into the long grass' or put in a box marked 'difficult decision - do
not open'.
A Cabinet decision on the future of residential homes to cater for our aging population was
an early item to be shelved. Then we were told that Bowmead home would have to close,
now we are told it won't - but will it stay as an outdated facility unfit for todays needs? We
are not told. This decision and the delay on the Bishopsworth Very Sheltered Housing
(VSH)scheme leaves South Bristol short of provision for the future, yet three VSH
developments are now proposed in close proximity in East Bristol. How does that provide
balance or sustainability to our local communities?
People in many parts of our city are under pressure from parking in their residential streets
and cul-de-sacs. The Cabinet was due to launch a consultation on these issues with
residents this summer, yet that has also been plonked in Labour's 'pending' tray. How can
they resolve these local problems if the City Council is not even going to discuss them with
local people?
Bristol leads the core cities in the rate of improvement in recycling of domestic waste. Yet
rather than involve officers in working with residents to resolve some genuine difficulties,
the administration proposes to stall improvements while a 'citizens jury' proceeds on the
basis of vague and blurred terms of reference.
On Redland Green School, approved by a Labour administration in February 2003, we've
seen Labour more concerned to shift blame for cost increases onto others, rather than
resolve difficult contractual issues with the developers. Most importantly, they should be
reassuring pupils and parents that the new school will open in September.
Many items have been shelved, but other plans have been announced that were not in the
forward plan, and where many questions remain unanswered.
We are told that the Council has to invest another £1million (or is it £2million) on in the
Hengrove Park development. Why is this extra funding necessary? Will costs escalate
further? The Capital programme is already stretched, are priorities in local communities in
Bristol to be sacrificed to pay for a prestige project? It is hardly surprising that people in
Bristol are so cynical every time they read about a 'masterplan' or see yet another 'artists
impression'.
Last Friday I experienced at first hand the effects of the heavy rain and flooding in the
Midlands. It didn't seem like the summer season was starting, yet it is near the end of
July. I would expect that we would be in a position to have a clear understanding of the
Council's priorities. Instead we see prevarication, procrastination and panic. We are
watching zig zag decision making by a Cabinet which is rudderless. And the
Conservatives, instead of joining us in providing an effective opposition, join in the
prevarication, and criticise attempts by the opposition to question and challenge their
Labour allies.
When Council resumes in the autumn we will start the process of preparing for the budget,
we will need at that stage to be vigorous to ensure that hostages to fortune do not threaten
the Council Tax payers of Bristol.
S39
Statement for Full Council 23rd July 2007
Redland Green Overspend
I was again surprised to see the Labour group rushing to the press
with their strategy of blame and inability to take responsibility for
the actions of their previous administration. . They had previously
been raised at scrutiny and are the subject of sensitive on-going
discussions between the parties involved. It is my understanding
that it was a Labour administration with Cllr Peter Hammond was
responsible for the drawing up of the contracts for the new
Redland Green School back in February 2003, with a further
contract being awarded by Conservative Peter Abraham in
summer 2003.
Yes, the Liberal Democrats were in charge over the past 2 years
and during that time we were regularly in touch with the other
parties over the progress of the build, in particular Labour
councillor Terry Cook who was given regular updates. So it
beggars belief for Cllr Derek Pickup to turn around and blame us
for a contract that we inherited and had very little leverage and
clearly his party need to take the responsibility for their poor
financial management.
No doubt there are lessons to be learnt by officers and councillors
over the management of such contracts. Lets hope the Labour
group learn some valuable lessons, including communication
within their own group.
At the end of the day it is important to get this flagship school
open on time and then start to unravel the financial problems that
yet again the Labour group have saddled the council with.
Councillor J Clark
Cllr Jos Clark
Council House
30 July 2007
Dear Cllr Clark
.
Re Your written Statement t o Council on 24fh
July
Your written Statement to Full Council on the 24thJuly has been passed to me as
Executive Member for a reply.
You will be aware that I decided to stop the current consultation on the possible
closure of Bowmead on the discovery that the former Vetchlea EPH site in St
George is larger than was previously reported and because of understandable
worries and concerns expressed by residents and their relatives when I met them
recently. As a result officers are now re-visiting Vetchlea as a possible site for a
very sheltered housing scheme.
As you know, the Residential Futures project is continuing its work to review the
quality and range of all residential care in the city, with a view to presenting options
and proposals to Elected Members in the city. It would not be appropriate to preempt tlie outcome of this review.
I note your comment about very sheltered housing in the south of the city and would
draw your attention to the fact that there are already two schemes in the south, ie
The ABC Centre, Chessington Avenue and Southlands and Anchor House,
Southlands. Additionally, as you know, there is a new very sheltered housing
scheme being built in Bishopsworth.
I trust the above comments are helpful.
Peter Hammond
Executive Member
Care and Communities