AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 CABINET - 1 OCTOBER 2009 PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS A. QUESTIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS A1. Cllr Barbara Lewis - subject: Bristol to Bath railway path A2. Cllr Richard Eddy - subject: South Bristol ring road A3. David Willingham - subject: bringing a stage of the cycling tour of Britain to Bristol A4. Tony Dyer - subject: land ownership issue re: planning application 09/03208/P The full text of the questions, and answers will be set out in a separate document, which will be available at this meeting. B. PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS B1. Christopher Bloor - subject: suggested development of a community forest path B2. David Willingham - subject: bringing professional cycling events to Bristol B3. Cllr Tim Kent - subject: Castle Park B4. Mary Bannerman - subject: Castle Park B5. Helen White - subject: Castle Park B6. Richard Lane - subject: proposed development at Ashton Gate B7. Peggy Parsons - subject: proposed development at Ashton Gate B8. Bristol City FC Supporters Trust - subject: new football stadium B9. Colin Sexstone / Guy Price, Bristol City FC - subject: new football stadium / proposed development at Ashton Gate C. QUESTIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS Re: item 5 - Devolution to neighbourhoods C1. Tracy Edwards-Brown, Chair, Hartcliffe & Withywood Community Partnership Re: item 7 - Revenue budget 2009/10 - monitoring report C2. Jackie Fleming, UNISON The full text of the questions, and answers will be set out in a separate document, which will be available at this meeting. D. PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS Re: item 5 - Devolution to neighbourhoods D.5.1 Martin Jones, Bristol UNISON D.5.2 Cllr Richard Eddy D.5.3 Wendy Stephenson, VOSCUR D.5.4 Cllr Helen Holland and Cllr Ron Stone Re: item 8 - Headline waste management strategy and policy statements for waste and streetscene services D.8.1 Tim Kent QUESTION A 1 Questions from Cllr Barbara Lewis to Cllr Gary Hopkins, Executive Member for Environment and Community Safety BRISTOL/BATH RAILWAY PATH Chocolate Factory Consultation Latest, Extract from the Minutes of the Parks Forum (25th July 2009) read:Cllr Hopkins explained that the railway path will not be retained for the route of the BRT and explained that 'barriers' have been put in place to prevent future Administrations and West of England using it for future transport use. Q1. Can the Executive Member tell me when this course of action was agreed? A. The minutes miss out “try to” from in front of “...to prevent...”. I also said that we were concerned that a future administration might not be as supportive of the path as we have been. In fact, we stated before the local elections that we would do what we could to protect the path. The current position is that the applicant is still in discussions with the Council over agreeing the terms of lease arrangements for Council owned land adjacent to the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. As part of the original negotiations in March, it was proposed to include a clause in the lease which would have allowed the Council to take back part of the site if required. This clause was removed following subsequent discussions with the applicant in June. Q2. With whom was this agreement made? A. Officers were made aware of our views and took appropriate action. Q3. What consultation has taken place? A. We asked the electorate. There is also a consultation taking place on the access to the path. Q4. This and other routes in Bristol are preserved transport routes in the Local Development Framework. When was the designation for this path changed? A. The designation has not changed as yet, but in practical terms other routes will be used and the new chocolate factory developments put a significant barrier in the way in the way of path destruction. Q5. What exactly are the 'barriers' which have been put in place? A. See 1 - 4. QUESTION A 2 Questions from Cllr Richard Eddy to Cllr Jon Rogers, Executive Member for Transport and Sustainability Q1. Does Cllr Rogers agree with the public assertion by his Cabinet colleague Gary Hopkins that “this Administration will not allow the [South Bristol] Ring Road” (Full Council, 15th September)? A. Yes. Q2. Does Cllr Hopkins’ view now represent the official position of Bristol’s Lib Dem Administration? A. Yes. It has long been our policy and was last formally expressed in December 2006. Q3. Has this radical departure from policy been communicated to our West of England partners, the Joint Transport Committee or Joint Scrutiny and, if not, why not? A. There is no change in our position. Our administration has consistently supported the South Bristol Link Road phases 1 and 2, but we remain against the Phase 3 ring-road section through the Green Belt by Whitchurch. We support improvement of junctions at Bath Road and Wells Road on existing route and improvements on A4 from Hicks gate to Callington Road. As such we support the South Bristol Link Road, but not the South Bristol Ring Road. Q4. Does this Administration propose to go out for further consultation on the South Bristol link road when it appears to have publicly set itself at odds with this important development? A. Yes we will be consulting further. The South Bristol Link Road will fix a broken road system and thus reduce congestion. The Link Road is an important component to improve the economic, social and environmental regeneration of South Bristol. QUESTION A 3 Question from David Willingham to the Leader of the Council Bringing a stage of the Cycling Tour of Britain to Bristol In an accompanying statement, I have requested that the Council looks at bringing professional cycling events to Bristol as a way to promote our city and to enthuse local people about Bristol as Cycling City. With reference to this statement, I would like to ask the Leader of the Council if she would agree with me that attempting to bring a stage of the Cycling Tour of Britain to Bristol is an achievable and attainable aspiration for the Council, and if so will she ask Officers to make contact with the organisers of the Cycling Tour of Britain with the aim of getting Bristol considered as a stage host in 2010 or 2011? Answer I welcome this suggestion. I'm not sure yet if this aspiration is achievable, but there would clearly be potential benefits both of raising the profile of the city and encouraging tourism. It could also help to raise awareness of and promote Cycling City. I shall ask officers to find out more from the cycling tour and explore the feasibility, including funding implications of Bristol becoming a stage host. QUESTION A 4 Question from Tony Dyer to Cllr Simon Cook Question for the Executive Member with responsibility for land disposals. In response to my question to full council on the 15th September detailed below; Q4 Does Bristol City Council intend to consult directly with local residents regarding the future use of this land prior to the 5th November when planning application 09/03208/P is scheduled to be determined? You replied; A4 It is not intended to hold a public consultation on the future of this land. There has been considerable discussion and consultation over the development as a whole where individuals have had many opportunities to express their views. My Question is as follows; Does the executive member not accept that until the publication of the responses to public questions for the full council meeting of the 15th September, there had been no official announcement or acknowledgement by the City Council that it was, in fact, the owner of a significant portion of the land which planning application 09/03208/P refers to, and does he not further accept that individuals may have responded differently to consultations or offered alternative viewpoints in discussions regarding the proposed development if they were aware that a vital and necessary portion of the land was and is in public ownership as opposed to being in the private ownership of the developers themselves? If the executive member believes that there has been an official announcement or acknowledgement by the City Council of its ownership of this land, could he detail the methods used to make this information public knowledge? ANSWER Planning applications are frequently made for sites where the applicant for planning consent is not the owner. The ownership of the site is not a determining factor in relation to the planning process, and the fact that an applicant does not own the site would not be something that would prevent the Local Planning Authority from making a decision about the application. Equally if representations were made about the applicant's lack of ownership to the LPA, this would not be something that it would have to take into account in deciding whether or not to grant consent. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the necessary legal interests to let it implement the consent. As a consequence of this there was no requirement or need for the Council to make any form of announcement or disclosure of its ownership of part of the existing car park - although the ownership is a matter of public record at the Land Registry where full details of the Council's ownership can be found by searching the public register. The Community Forest Path after the Forest of Avon STATEMENT B.1 The Community Forest Path, a 45 mile long trail around Bristol, embodies the idea that the countryside is a valuable resource in its own right. It is under threat because the Forest of Avon, which looks after it, will cease to exist at the end of September. It is important for Bristol, because the image of Bristol as a City in the West Country is a key element in its appeal to inward investors. This image is reinforced by two factors: 1) You can catch glimpses of the countryside from all over the City. 2) It is easy to get out of the City. Getting out into the countryside is the heart of the message of the Community Forest Path, because the core meaning of the word “Forest” has little to do with trees – it is more like the modern expression “The Great Outdoors.” It comes from the Latin word foras, which means “Out!” as in the answer to the question – “Where are you going dear?” The ability to get “Out” is essential for physical and mental health. However, one man’s foras is another man’s domi or home, which is why we need a Community Forest Path – Community in this context means “friendly relations between neighbours and between neighbourhoods.” The Path promotes community in four ways: 1) By visiting hostelries along the route it encourages fellowship. 2) By passing through each of them, the Path provides an opportunity for cooperation between neighbouring authorities. 3) By intercepting routes leading “out” of the City, it diverts people into appropriate channels. 4) By encircling the City, the Path reinforces the idea of the Green Belt as a limit on the ability of the City to encroach on neighbouring authorities. The two factors that contribute to the image of Bristol as a City in the Countryside, mentioned above, also depend on this limit. To ensure the effective development of the Community Forest Path as a strategic route after the demise of the Forest of Avon, we need to keep lines of communication open. The most effective way to do this is to produce some promotional literature, which should be: 1) 2) 3) 4) inexpensive web-based printer friendly and/or produced by a print-on-demand printer This must be a co-operative venture in order to spread costs and build a skeleton team ready to raise funds to turn the strategic route into a strategic network. I have had expressions of interest from JLAF and Community Action, who work across the authorities (which is good) but they need support from the Unitary Authorities. I am asking for that support from Bristol City Council now. Christopher Bloor, Local Correspondent to the Open Spaces Society for the City of Bristol and South Gloucestershire under direction from the Bristol Public Rights of Way Liaison Group STATEMENT B 2 Statement - Bringing professional cycling facilities and events to Bristol The Cycling City project is excellent in its aspiration to increase the level of cycling in Greater Bristol. The Cycling City Delivery Strategy document rightly identifies that communities need to be engaged with and enthused about cycling. I am here to make a representation about a different side to cycling, which I feel Bristol should embrace as a catalyst to promote the Cycling City project; Sport Cycling. You may well ask what could Bristol do to promote the professional and sporting sides to cycling, I would like to present you with two ideas, one that is just aspirational, and one that with effort on the part of the Council could so easily become reality. The first of these ideas is that as Cycling City, Bristol should aspire to have a velodrome. I am not suggesting that the Council funds or builds a velodrome, but that it encourages one to be built as part of another major development. I believe that this aspiration could be documented, possibly in planning guidance; maybe the people living near Ashton Gate would welcome the redevelopment of the site as a velodrome and other diverse sporting facilities rather than a change of use to a supermarket.... The second, idea is to bring top flight Road Cycling events to Bristol. There is no doubt that this is an achievable goal. I can see no reason why Bristol shouldn't put itself forward as a host city for major Cycling Time-Trial and Road Race events, nor is there any reason why Bristol shouldn't be in contact with the organisers of the Cycling Tour of Britain with the aim of hosting a stage start or stage finish in either the 2010 or 2011 Cycling Tour of Britain. I am sure detractors will mention the inconvenience of road closures, but this minor inconvenience will be more than mitigated by the benefits hosting such events could bring to our city. The boost to the tourism and retail sectors from a large influx of people to this event are obvious benefits, as is the raising of Bristol's profile as a tourist destination. Imagine the iconic sight of the peloton crossing the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which would be seen across the country in the prime time TV coverage. Finally, with Great Britain hosting the Olympics in 2012 and with the number of elite British Cyclists, not only could bringing these events to Bristol enthuse people to use their bikes more, they could inspire Britain's next generation of elite cyclists.... David Willingham STATEMENT B 3 From: To: CC: Date: Subject: TIM KENT <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> 30 September 2009 09:51 Public Statement on Castle park for Cabinet 1st October Town Green – Castle Park Dear Cabinet I wanted to report to you on the decision of the Public Rights of Way and Green Committee in August on the Town Green application for Castle Park. The committee followed the guidance of the public inquiry that the application could not be allowed. This was primarily due to the nature of the landownership and whether a right had already been bestowed to use of the land. But the committee did believe that the applicants had proved a good case for protecting this valuable park for the future. The committee’s final agreement (by majority) was: 1. That the Committee requests the Council Executive to consider bringing forward proposals for Castle Park to be voluntarily made a Town Green as per the 2006 Act, as part of any future development proposals. 2. That any development proposal for the St Mary Le Port site aimed to reduce the footprint, so protecting open space in Castle Park 3. That the Council Executive bring forward plans to protect Bristol's valued parks and open spaces by including a programme of voluntary Town Green applications as part of its Parks and Green Spaces Strategy. In moving this amendment we clearly recognised that the redevelopment of St Mary Le Port was not only beneficial to the city but to the park which is currently blighted by the current abandoned buildings. But we did feel all effort should be made to reduce the footprint of any proposed development so as to protect as much of the open space as is possible. We felt that when a redevelopment solution has been found as part of the application process (planning permission) a simultaneous application for a voluntary Town Green status could be sought via an application from this Cabinet to our Committee. Such an application may not be for the whole area of the park, there are issues of consecrated land, but applying for the whole park (outside of the development area) would be preferable. We would not see Town Green status stopping any improvements or redesign of the park to improve public use. We also believe that Town Green status would not stop some small scale and temporary commercial use of the park as long as the funds raised from this were reinvested in the park. Finally the committee felt that as Bristol is Britain’s Green Capital we should look to bring forward further voluntary Town Green applications for other key parks in the city that we could never envision loosing. We accept this is long term and hope this can be worked into the Parks and Green Spaces strategy for consideration. It would be useful if in the near future the Cabinet could respond to the Committee’s request. We are happy to meet with the Cabinet if necessary to discuss the proposal that we have sent to you. All the best Cllr Tim Kent Chair, Public Rights of Way and Greens Committee STATEMENT B 4 Statement by Mary Bannerman to meeting of Executive on 1st October 2009 Castle Park should be a Town Green The decision of the Public Rights of Way and Greens Committee on August 3rd to refuse my Application for Castle Park to be a Town Green came as no surprise. But that the same Committee immediately recommended that Cabinet should voluntarily register Castle Park as a Green not only delighted members of the Users Group but showed how much things have changed, and moved on, since the application was made in January 2007. I can think of no better way to mark Bristol’s transition to a Green City than to act on this recommendation. I believe Bristol City Council now recognize that the city centre, with its growing resident population, is very short indeed of open space, and that there is no way to obtain more where it is so much needed. Bristol’s plentiful supply of greenery is in the wrong place! We do not need more shops and offices. We need space to breathe and be ourselves, and to know that this space is secure for future generations. The Users Group is committed to doing its utmost to protect Castle Park in its entirety. We cannot accept any erosion of the green space for development, and it is for this reason that we are hoping to challenge the PRoW&G committee’s decision at a judicial review. If no Green is registered till after this or that development, till after the family silver has been sold, then we will be left with a poor rump of a Green. However, it was made plain in the Application, and reiterated at the Public Inquiry, that no built-on, consecrated or highway land is included. Neither is the Park work depot, Castle Keep ruins or the Vaulted Chamber. The boundaries we used were those of BCC Parks, although it was admitted that there were various versions of these. There exist plans, perhaps not yet public, for a sustainable, green solution to the derelict buildings at the Bristol Bridge end. In these the old structures are in the main retained, renovated and extended towards High Street and Wine Street. A boulevard is created with a lively street front. Very few, if any, trees are removed and no green space is lost. This is the way forward. It is fully compatible with a Town Green. For once, can Bristol look into the long term and not sacrifice all the best things for a shortterm financial gain? We cannot afford to lose this space. I urge you to accept Councillor Tim Kent’s recommendation. STATEMENT B 5 Castle Park User group welcomes the moves of the Rights of Way and Greens Committee in its efforts to preserve Castle Park and also welcomes the proposal which puts Town Green Status clearly on the council agenda. The purpose of the Castle Park User group is to protect all of the green space of Castle Park. We therefore ask that in any consideration of voluntarily making Castle Park a Town Green, the whole of the green space must be included. Castle Park is a small area of green space in the centre of our city. It is very highly regarded by the people of Bristol, this is evident from the mass of popular support the move to protect it has engendered. It is a popular tourist site steeped in history and the very birth place of our city. It is unquestionably well used: In the report by the Inspector, Vivian Chapman QC, at the Public Inquiry, he stated, ‘he was quite satisfied that Castle Park has been used for informal recreation by a significant number of the inhabitants of the City of Bristol’ (1). The central area of Bristol has a shortfall of green space, it ‘falls below the Quantity Standard’(2) as required by the Bristol Green Space Standards. The situation is made worse by the recent increase in high rise flats and there fore residents in the central area. By preserving all the green space in Castle Park, the council will not amend the shortfall, however it will not exacerbate the problem it now has in redressing it. The public inquiry into the town green application, which was held last December, incorporated the whole of the green space of Castle Park in its remit. The Inspector’s judgement on the application is revealing. Mr Chapman, the Inspector, grants that all the major criteria for a successful town green application were met in this case. His recommendation relied on ‘implied’ appropriation of the land and is the first time anyone has found an appropriation to be implied in the history of the British Legal System. His decision may well be overturned at judicial review. In conclusion we call on the Executive Committee of Bristol City Council to use its vision, to acknowledge the wishes of the majority of its citizens, and to save itself huge financial costs and voluntarily elect to make the whole of Castle Park a town green. Helen White Castle Park User Group (1) Report of Mr Vivian Chapman Q.C. 30th March 2009 Ref LIT/FMH/AG/JD5/360/62903/VRC/09/27wp/SI/Castle Park Report: P. 36 section (162) (2) Bristol’s Parks and Green Space Strategy, Bristol City Council: current document. STATEMENT B 6 Statement by Richard Lane “Say Yes to Tesco” Petitioner on e-petitions Bristol website Good evening my name is Richard Lane and I have a petition running for people to voice their support for the proposed new development at Ashton Gate. My petition is now approaching 3000 signatures. The online e-petition has over 1500 signatures, over 500 more than the opposing petition, and more than all of the other current online e-petitions combined. As you know it is much easier to motivate people into opposing new developments but a little more difficult to find people to show their support for new developments. So for my petition to be as successful as it has so far been shows that people do feel strongly about the positive impact this new development will have on south Bristol in particular and the region as a whole. The opponents of this plan claim to be the voice of Greater Bedminster, yet they focus their entire campaign around one section of North Street, which is between the Hen and Chicken Pub and Ashton Park. This completely omits the areas they claim to represent and surprisingly or not is the social centre of Southville from where the campaign is being organised, which for me raises the question of their motives. This proposed new development would offer the people of south Bristol, North Somerset and areas beyond the Cumberland Basin a retail choice currently not available to them. It would also be the catalyst for a major boost to the area and to refuse it would be yet another blow to the majority of people in south Bristol and an area that has suffered from a lack of major investments for a number of years when compared with the central and more affluent northern fringes of the city. As a proud Bristolian I ask you to give us the chance to have something to be really proud of not only for south Bristol but the city and region as a whole. Thanks for listening. STATEMENT B 7 Letter of 18/9/2009 from Ashton resident of 56 years to Steve Lansdown. Dear Sir, Re Tesco on the Ashton Gate Football site I attended the meeting at St Francis Church on 17/9/09 where there was a strong feeling that the shops on North Street would be suffereing with the development of TEsco at Ashton Gate. My own feeling is that people shop on North Street for a newspaper, stamps, haidressers, doctorsʼ prescriptions, banks, cafes, old age pensions etc, a pie, fish and chips, hame, meet and screws. No one shops on North Street for a weekly shop. I know many people would love Tesco at Ashton Gate from abbots Leigh, Pill, Barrow Gurney, Backwell, Long Ashton, Ashton Vale, Easton-in-Gordano, Failand, Ham Green, Leigh Wood. Many people coming here over the Ashton Flyover would be pleased to droop off into Tesco and do their weekly shopping. I support the venture, and although I like many others live immediately opposite Sainsburyʼs I would like to chose my shopping more. Good luck PP STATEMENT B 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • BCFC SUPPORTERS TRUST CABINET ADDRESS 01-‐10-‐09 Good evening. My name is ________________ and I am here, with some of my colleagues, representing Bristol City Football Club’s Supporters Trust. I want to tell you why we believe a new football stadium is so important to us and The Club. The Trust is the official organisation that represents the followers of Bristol City, commonly called ‘The Robins’. What you see tonight is just a representative few of us – but if you would like to hear the real passion in our club, I can arrange for everybody to attend and individually tell you what a new football stadium will mean to them! The Trust represents thousands of supports across all ages, ranging from pensioners through to young children, male and female, and from all walks of life . We are ALL avid followers of our club and when travelling are also representatives of the City. We are proud of both our Club and our city. Throughout the winter months we follow our Club wherever they are playing so some of us have the opportunity to see different football facilities all over the country. We can see what new facilities mean to their followers and how they have helped their towns and communities. Our more senior members remember the days in the 70s of what was called ‘First Division’ football – now Premiership football – when the existing ground was packed and all the big names used to come to the City ground. Teams such as Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool.....teams that many kids in the City now just dream of seeing! We have high hopes that soon those days will return and young children from schools and communities all over Bristol and the surrounding areas will be heading to the home of The Robins to watch THEIR team take to the field against these legendary names – and to see world class football being played in the City! However, we still have a little way to go to get there – but not that far -‐ and a new stadium is all part of that dream. The existing facilities need replacing: they are constrained, dated and for many a symbol of the old days and The Robins’ place in the City’s history. Many local people will be sorry to see the existing stadium go but everybody has to move on and there are exciting challenges ahead for the Club. The Supporters Trust is wholeheartedly behind the Club’s Board and is supporting them in every way possible in this project. We want a new stadium so that we can be proud when visiting teams come to Bristol. We want to be able to show off! We want our opponents to be envious when they go home to their stadium and look back: ‘We wish we had a stadium like Bristol City’s!’ It will be more than a football stadium -‐ it will be a message that Bristol is on the football map! It will be a landmark for the City. We know there are hard decisions to be taken: there will be a lot of tears shed if Ashton Gate is demolished -‐ maybe to be replaced by a foodstore. But that is life. That is progress. We understand that such decisions are not always welcome but sometimes there are NO alternatives. If our stadium is to become reality then we appreciate that a foodstore is essential to fund the project. There aren’t bags of gold available to fund the new stadium so the Club has to take the best option for its future. • • • • • • • • We believe it is important that the Club looks ahead. The day will come when we will have to have a new stadium – whether it is on the existing site or a new site. It is inevitable; you can only do so much with the existing stadium in the long term. We are better to bite the bullet now and move than reflect on the error of our ways in the future. The new site will allow us to develop what we want rather than be limited by physical constraints. It will allow us to build the stadium that we need. If we don’t make this move, we would be denying the future of the Club the opportunity to enjoy what is best for it. Bristol has a history of talking-‐up projects, only for them to fail: a City arena in the Temple Meads area; the other football team in the City – if there is one! – were once looking at a new stadium on a new site. Somehow neither project materialised. We don’t want this to go the same way. The Club has been playing at Ashton Gate on a permanent basis since 1904 – long before I and my colleagues were born. And we want to see The Club thrive into the future. We are committed to supporting the Club and ensuring it has the best facilities possible and we will go out of our way to ensure that it has them. We are not talking about facilities for today but for tomorrow and the next decade. Facilities that will be enjoyed by our children, their children and even the generation after that. Ladies and gentlemen, tonight you have heard just my voice but this voice represents several thousand people. If you want to hear them all, you arrange the time and we will be here to show you OUR feelings: it is imperative for both The Robins and the City that this project doesn’t fail. I urge both officers and members, OUR ELECTED MEMBERS, to listen to our passion and ensure that we get our new stadium. I can only repeat what the Club Chairman says so often: No foodstore on the existing ground means NO new stadium – and another dream will die! Thank you. STATEMENT B 9 BRISTOL CITY CABINET MEETING 6PM THURSDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2009 1. ORDER OF SPEAKING • Supporters Trust – Club perspective: what is means to BCFC • ‘Say Yes to Tesco’ – • Guy Price/Colin Sexstone, BCFC -‐ Summary 2. CONTENT • Guy Price/Colin Sexstone Summary: 1. Good evening, my name is Colin Sexstone/Guy Price, Chief Executive/Development Advisor to Bristol City Football Club. 2. You’ve heard from several different parties this evening about the proposed new stadium – as an important decision for the City as Cabot Circus or Harbourside. Both of these developments stirred similar emotive feelings among local residents – and both have proved to be jewels in the City, attracting visitors to the City and benefiting the local economy. 3. There is no doubt that there is strong public support for a new stadium. This evening you have heard from the Club’s Supporters Trust as to why those who follow the football club day in and day out believe a new stadium is essential. 4. Then you have heard why ordinary local people feel a new foodstore will be good for Ashton. These are people who are not necessarily football enthusiasts but people -‐ like Peggy – who are local residents and just want a modern facility on their doorstep to make their life easier and importantly to give them choice. 5. I now want to tell you what it means to the Club, its directors and players and those pushing so hard to bring a new stadium to the City. 6. A new stadium is essential to the Club and the City: Bristol has always lacked a ‘top quality’ venue that attracts national interest. This is THE opportunity to deliver that venue for the City – and importantly it will be built with private sector finance. It is more than a football stadium – it will be a symbol of prosperity and success. 7. It will be a multi-‐use facility that will attract usage from outside of the game of football, like so many stadia do nowadays. For many years there has been discussion about a new stadium: firstly out towards Avonmouth and then in the Temple Meads area. The City is still waiting for its new stadium! 8. For those who have been or seen the new Arsenal Emirates Stadium, or Wembley, or....... (Other examples?), you will appreciate the significance of these landmarks. And not just as buildings but as statements of success, delivering benefits and value to the community. We estimate the new stadium could bring £XX million to the local economy each year. 9. Why not build on the existing site? Simple, it is insufficient to cope with a new 21st Century stadium: the site is not big enough; it is contained by existing infrastructure and has inherent traffic and transport issues. 10. Thus, as you know, we have chosen to build a new stadium on a site on the edge of the City boundary – a site that will allow us to make the most of the opportunity rather than limit our aspirations due to physical restrictions. 11. The new stadium will hold twice the capacity; will be a state-‐of-‐the-‐art building; environmentally friendly; and an asset to the City (multi use). It will be sustainable and designed to cater for large attendances. It will be serviced by the new proposed bus services so will be easily accessible and will have parking to cope with the Club’s ever increasing following. 12. BUT... a new stadium is very expensive – it will cost in excess of £90 million, all to be raised in the private sector, a major achievement in today’s economic climate. 13. A large part of this success will depend on maximising the value of our existing site. Many uses have been suggested for the site but at the end of the day we have a duty to the future of the Club, our shareholders, fans, players and the next generation to get the maximum value for Ashton Gate. In today’s market, that value is in a new foodstore and it is many times what we would get for a housing development or any other commercial development. Any new development on the existing site has to be financially viable. 14. In summary, what we are proposing is a once in a lifetime opportunity. We are going to have to move the Club in years to come. It is our intention to become a premiership side and we will need the facilities to meet that challenge. If we don’t bite the bullet now, there may never be another opportunity. 15. In a nutshell, if Bristol City Football Club is to be a member of the top flight – which is every sportsman’s dream – we have to move forward. That involves relocating and facing the economic and financial challenges of today’s market. 16. Lord Mayor, members of the Cabinet, Ladies and Gentlemen: the message is simple: if we do not achieve a realistic use for the existing site then there will be no new stadium! NO FOODSTORE means NO NEW STADIUM! 17. Thank you for your time. QUESTION C 1 QUESTIONS 1. Will Bristol City Council continue to fund areas considered currently deprived, that are to-date in receipt of Neighbourhood Management and Neighbourhood Partnership monies ? 2. Is the money being used to support 11 Neighbourhood Partnerships being taken from the existing 3 Neighbourhood Management areas ? ANSWER The Budget for 2010/11 is under consideration. I anticipate that the funding previously provided to Neighbourhood Management areas will continue to be funded. The draft Budget will be published in December 2009 and will be subject of consultation and political debate, with final agreement at Full Council in February 2010. The money being used to fund the new Neighbourhood Committees is not being taken from the funding provided for the Neighbourhood Management areas. QUESTION C 2 1. AGENDA 7 – “Revenue Budget 2009/10 – Monitoring Report UNISON would like answers to the following questions; with respect we would appreciate them at least in time to formulate additional questions or clarity on the responses given. Given a political drive to somehow reduce services, care plans to be reviewed and homecare costs to no doubt be increased to the service users, UNISON would like to ask questions and would appreciate written responses to them. On the draft statement of accounts, unaudited, year ended 31st March 2009. 2. Page 4, 5th paragraph UNISON is pleased to note the additional £2.5m from the figure of £1m taken into account when the budget was set for 2009/10 and the general fund stands at £12.4m; how will this be used to improve front line services? Should it now be used for the budget pressures that exist, for example, in HSC? Answer : The general fund balance includes £6m which is kept back as a working balance and would not generally be used unless the Council got into extreme financial difficulties. Of the remainder, £3.9m has been used in setting the budget for this year and next, and the rest earmarked for additional investment in services in the current year. 3. Page 4, 6th paragraph The further allocation of further grants, as these are additions to any figures gone before; exactly how much additional money will be allocated to Business Transformation Programme and exactly what will that money be used for. Could not any remaining ease existing budget pressures? Answer :The additional grant has been allocated £1m to the Recession Action Plan and £528k to the Business Transformation Programme. The latter ‘tops up’ the funding available to pump prime the actions necessary to improve services, reduce costs and wastage and improve productivity, with the objective of delivering the Council’s corporate priorities. 4. Page 4, 7th paragraph How is the Council now going to fund Health and Social Care adequately to meet the needs of a growing elderly population and ensure the most vulnerable of our society have care plans that meet their needs? Given the savings made can HSC be given an increase in base budget? Answer: An increased budget for Health and Social Care will be considered as part of the 2010/11 budget process taking into account estimated increases in demand. 5. Page 5, HRA How will be £7m be spent on the Housing Stock? Answer: HRA balances are adjusted year on year, depending on financial performance in-year, and are held as a reserve in order to sustain the HRA Business Plan. These reserves are essential in ensuring that we maintain our ability to invest in our housing stock, including the delivery of the decent homes programme. 6. DSO Assumes it generates a surplus and is BCS being forced to be uncompetitive to assist in keeping the rest of the budget in control. What organizational costs are the City Council expecting that £0.96m has been set aside for? Answer: The £0.96m has been set aside to meet the costs of severance of first and second tier officers arising from organisational change. 7. Schools Budgets The schools budget balanced around £7.89m, which represents around 4.5%. As it’s not gone over the 5% can you explain why there is no money to claw back all the changes going on in schools with the Primary Review etc. and is the spending there being taken by the Schools’ budgets’ reserves? Answer: Schools have delegated budgets and are allowed to carry forward balances. 8. Page 6, Income and Expenditure Account What changes in pensions meant £4.9million? Answer: Accounting standards require council’s to show the cost of accruing retirement benefits in their accounts each year, based on notional figures supplied by the pension fund actuary. The £4.9m represents the reversal of the total amount in question so that there is no impact on total service costs met by council taxpayers. 9. Page 7, top box Revenue and other funding £42m. There is significant scope to reduce Revenue expenditure on Capital using Capital Receipts, instead of other sources of capital or supported by borrowing. On Page 48/9 of the report is it not possible for the £6.7m to be made available from these figures. Answer: The balance of £6.7m relates to receipts from the disposal of assets. All of this sum is committed to the financing of the approved capital programme. 10. Page 56 the £47474m on Capital Reserves be made available? Answer: As answer to previous question, the balance on the capital reserve at 31 March is fully committed to financing of the capital programme. 11. Page 28 Final Box There is an increase to the General Fund balance of £3.451 for the year. What will happen with this money? Answer: The use of the general fund balance, including this increase, is set out in the answer to a previous question. 12. On Page 29 bottom box The 6.391m available for new expenditure. Will this be used and how much to ease existing budget pressures? Answer: As above. 13. Page 34, Trading Accounts, Catering How much was the deficit catering figure of £688 thousand arrived at with no actual figures before it? Answer: The £688k refers to the actual catering deficit in the previous financial year 2007/08. The service was outsourced in 2008/09 and therefore there are no figures against Contract Services for this year. 14. Page 44, No 14 Employee remuneration Business Transformation was anticipated to slim line management for cost savings; therefore how can 3rd tier posts and above have increased along with salaries and how can we, as a trade union in these economic times, endorse an approximate 30% salary increase for the Chief and Deputy Executive and the rest of the workforce only get 2%? Where are the savings if we, not only lost many 3rd tier and above employees and had to pay out redundancy, but then employ more than we had before on higher wages? Answer: Reductions in posts as a result of restructuring are largely being implemented in 2009/10, and therefore one would expect this to be reflected in the comparable information in the accounts for this year. Therefore, savings will arise in 2009/10 rather than 2008/09. The rationale for increasing the salary range of the post of Chief Executive was set out in the report to HR Committee in September 2007, and was the subject of consultation at that time. The salary increase reflecting the enhanced role set out for this post, and reflected independent advice received from the Council’s consultants. The post of Deputy Chief Executive was a new post created as part of the management restructuring of the Council, the grade and salary of which was set by the HR Committee. Therefore, no previous pay/grading level for this post existed. The salary increase quoted by UNISON is erroneous. The Council’s management restructuring was also the subject of consultation prior to approval of the new structure. 15. Page 53/54, Schools PFI phase 1a, b, c With the expenditure that has been committed to school building projects, which are excessive and less money to educate children, what is the effect on the revenue budget? How are those financial commitments from 2009/10 - £9568m – to 2011/2013 £36986m. 2009/10 – £14531m – to 2011/2014 - £59854m. The years 2014 have budget forecasts against them that range from £43,008 to £96,264. What pressures will this place on existing budgets? Why are the sums so significant for what amounts to 4 schools? Why would the Council want to be committed to this expense; only 4 schools have been improved and the care of our most vulnerable, the Older and Disabled Adults, been cut to levels that severely reduce the care they receive. How was this PFI contract written; did it include risk transfer to the public sector; if it is re-financed does it contain the Public Accounts Committee clause that 70% of any savings that are generated by refinancing must go back to the public sector body? Answer: The figures that are quoted here in the first two paragraphs relate to the estimated payments that the Council will make under the two PFI contracts, but are incorrectly stated. The complete, correct schedules of figures are: Phase 1a 2009/10 2010/11 to 2013/14 (total) 2014/15 to 2018/19 (total) 2019/20 to 2023/24 (total) 2024/25 to 2028/29 (total) 2029/30 to 2031/32 (total) £9.568m £36.986m £44,157m £43,016m £43.008m £20,932m TOTAL £196.667m £14.531m £59.854m £78,899m £83,989m £89.749m £96,264m £7,703m TOTAL £430.989m Phase 1b and c (BSF) 2009/10 2010/11 to 2013/14 (total) 2014/15 to 2018/19 (total) 2019/20 to 2023/24 (total) 2024/25 to 2028/29 (total) 2029/30 to 2033/34 (total) 2034/35 The two phases each comprise 4 schools, ie 8 in total, not 4 as quoted in the question. Part of the costs are funded by government grant (capital element) – as indicated in the statement of accounts - and part through the Dedicated Schools Grant (revenue element) paid by the DCSF. The latter is allocated to schools on the basis of £4,520 per pupil. This amount also takes account of a topslice of the DSG to meet the ‘PFI affordability gap’. Other than the fact that the Council would not have had the money to rebuild these schools if it had not signed up to PFI, there are other benefits – eg new buildings are more energy efficient and fit for purpose as ‘21st Century Schools’ (ICT etc) and more pupils entering our schools, partly as a result. The PFI contracts include risk transfer to the private sector and were written in accordance with SOPC (Standardisation of PFI Contracts, issued by HM Treasury). At the time of writing these contracts, SOPC required 50% of the re-financing gain to be returned to the public sector and this is the level included in the contracts. An addendum to SOPC4 was published in October 2008 which increased the public sector share from 50% to 70% above a pre-determined threshold. This will apply to any future PFI contracts. 16. Page 56, Revenue Reserves Business Transformation £4645m. Restructuring Costs £1918m. Why 2 reserves; what are the protocols for both? Answer: The Business Transformation funding was set out in the report to Cabinet in June of last year, and is being managed by David Trussler. Its use has been referred to in an earlier question, and includes meeting severance costs relating to 2nd/3rd tiers. The reserve for Restructuring Costs covers first and second tier severance costs and is managed by the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, with HR committee approvals as necessary. 17. Page 72, bottom box How will the impairment loss of £1065m from Icelandic banks be managed and whilst the Council remains optimistic about recovering the £8m; overall the best they may get is 80p in the pound; how will the shortfall be managed? Answer: As reported in the Revenue Budget 2009/10 monitoring report on the Agenda, the majority of the loss has been written off in the 2008/09 financial year. 18. Page 85, Government Grants The Council has recently claimed that Government grants would be reducing overall, placing the Council in a position of being £30m short. Given the financial information on Page 85 grants gone from £490,612 to £486,322 about £4m how does the City Council stand now on the £30m, deficit and where do you think it will come from? Answer: The £30m deficit relates to various issues, one of which is a reduction in general government grant. The £4m referred to in the question is in respect of specific grants, not general grant. UNISON reserves its right to submit further comments under the public forum. STATEMENT D.5.1 BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL CABINET MEETING THURSDAY 1ST OCTOBER 2009 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 - “DEVOLUTION TO NEIGHBOURHOODS” VIEWS OF UNISON UNISON is deeply concerned by the contents contained with the report of the Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods. The report sets out radical proposals for the way existing services of the City Council will be managed by local communities from 14 districts. To date there has been no consultation with either UNISON or its trade union colleagues regarding the report. The report itself makes no reference to trade union consultation. Whilst the report forms part of the Communities Act for local authorities, it is disappointing that since the act was published and received royal ascent, there has been no briefing sessions to the trade unions on the possible implications. UNISON wrote to Graham Sims (Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods) on the 14th September 2009, setting out our concerns and requesting a meeting prior to Cabinet. It is disappointing therefore, to record that to date, there does not appear to be any acknowledgement of the letter, let alone a formal meeting being arranged. It is also worth noting, that UNISON did not receive a copy of the report from the City Council, but received a copy from a concerned member. Given on board the sensitivity of the report and its implications, UNISON is therefore concerned that the City Council had not considered it appropriate to forward a copy officially to the trade unions for their information and response. UNISON recognises that there are several community groups already established within the City and for which officers and elected members regularly attend meetings. However, UNISON holds the view that these groups deal with “minor” issues, such as the provision of additional off street lighting etc., and that the establishment of 14 ”mini councils” is a major change in how the services are provided for. As such, UNISON believes that the report should be withdrawn for the following reasons:1. There is no indication in the report, as to how the remaining membership of the committee after the Councillors have been allocated their places, will be given. There does not appear to be any democratic process being considered for the remaining seats, therefore UNISON believes that it will be in the interests of the City Council’s workforce for the trade unions to be allocated seats on the new committees. For example, the report highlights under paragraph 4.13 (page 8) a number of City Council services which are to be devolved. Under paragraph 4.14, it highlights further devolved services. These could be transferred to a new employer under TUPE, therefore the TU’s would rightfully expect to be consulted at every stage and be involved in the decision making process. 2. If the City Council does not hold the view that the trade unions should be granted a seat on each of the 14 committees, what consideration is being given to providing agendas and copies of reports to the trade unions, where there will be items of interest to the TU side being debated. UNISON would expect to receive copies of the agendas and reports at least 10 working days before each committee meets in order to consider responses. 3. Leading on from point (2) above, will UNISON or its TU colleagues be allowed to attend the committees and address the committee under a “public forum”, in order to amplify their concerns. This is not identified anywhere within the report. 4. The report makes no reference to the constitution of the committees. In any democratic group, there must be an agreed constitution and this should be seen as a priority before the committees are established. 5. There is no indication contained in the report exactly who the committees are directly accountable to. UNISON holds the view that the City Council ultimately are responsible for the actions of each committee, including the procurement process taken by the committees in appointing prospective tenders of contracts. 6. There is no indication contained in the report if the City Council has the powers to overturn decisions made by the Neighbourhood Committees. Equally this must include appeal rights, which again is not stipulated. 7. The report does not indicate if the Committees have the power to terminate existing contracts run by the City Council in their Neighbourhood, including the right to re-tender for the contract. At present, most contracts are operational between 3 – 5 years, and what UNISON would like an explanation on, is if the Neighbourhood Committees decide to terminate a contract where BCC employees are being employed half way through its contract, what discussions will be held with the TU side to consider future employment options etc. 8. The report fails to stipulate if membership of the committees should include persons from a management and business orientated background. As these committees will be directly responsible for large budgets, the need for tight monetary controls becomes more significant. UNISON is extremely worried that the vast majority of these committees will have members with no financial accountability skills experience. 9. Whilst the report highlights the services which are to be devolved, it does not indicate that the committees will be conversant with Procurement Guidelines. What UNISON would like to know is exactly what “Procurement Monitoring “steps will be taken by the City Council to ensure that the committees appoint only approved Contractors on both minor and major works. 10. The report does not indicate what role the City Council will have in monitoring each committee to ensure there is consistency being applied. As some of the neighbouring committees “overlap” districts (i.e. Sea Mills which part falls in the Kingsweston Ward, the other falls inside the Stoke Bishop ward), this could cause disruption amongst local residents if one committee makes a decision which its neighbour committee completely disagrees upon. 11. The report sets out a budget of just under £11 million for the 2010/ 2011 financial year being delegated to the 14 committees. What figure is being quoted or suggested as being anticipated for the following year’s needs (2011/ 2012). 12. The report does not indicate how fair funding for each committee is going to be managed. Whilst it is recognised that some areas of the City have greater needs than others, the amount of funding to each committee has to be equitable and fair, yet the report does not consider this. 13. Will the 14 Neighbourhood Committees produce annual action plans, setting out their key objectives and consult with the Trade Unions where there are potential Industrial Relations/ Health and Safety issues affecting BCC employees. The report does not indicate this. 14. UNISON notes that a new service director is being created, along with 7 Co Ordinator Posts and two Democratic Services Officer Posts. UNISON whilst welcoming the proposals, does cast a shadow of concern that other current posts in the authority may be placed at risk as a consequence. The report does not indicate if the posts will be ring fenced to existing City Council staff, or in fact are existing posts which have been re designated. UNISON believes from the outset, that the above 14 points must be dealt with as a matter of urgency in order to reassure its members. Members of the Cabinet are therefore asked to agree to UNISON’s request, that the report is withdrawn until as such time as formal consultation with the TU’s have been held, and all concerns addressed. UNISON Bristol Branch 6th Floor Tower House Fairfax Street Bristol BS1 3BN Tel. (0117) 9405002 E-mail [email protected] STATEMENT D.5.2 Statement by Councillor Richard Eddy to the Cabinet on 1st October 2009 AGENDA ITEM 5 - DEVOLUTION TO NEIGHBOURHOODS To Leader & Cabinet The Conservative Group broadly welcomes the report before you today which proposes further and deeper devolution to neighbourhoods across the City of Bristol. Whilst it must be acknowledged that the current pattern of 14 Neighbourhood Partnerships have helped break down departmental silos and improved multi-partner working, without properly devolved budgets and the ability to make real decisions, they risk remaining mere talking shops. Your report “Devolution to Neighbourhoods” is the first step on a journey towards significant devolution of budgets and decision-making. No doubt, there will be some hitches along the way, but the destination and objective is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the significant structural changes which have already been made within this Authority to accommodate Neighbourhood Partnerships, we are concerned that it is proposed to expend £500,000 in set-up costs, when secondments and more efficient ways of working could easily reduce these overheads. In particular, we believe the plan to appoint a “Neighbourhoods' Tsar” at Service Director level - commanding a salary package of £100,000 to oversee just 7 Area Co-ordinators - is completely unjustified. At a time when this Authority is rightly seeking to make significant reductions in overheads and in the number of first and second tier officers, appointing a permanent Officer post at this level seems wildly extravagant and should not be countenanced in the present financial climate. Instead, this Council needs to find ways of making local government work more efficiently, utilising all the skills of its workforce, not simply adding to the massed ranks of bureaucracy. Councillor Richard Eddy Leader, Conservative Group STATEMENT D.5.3 Voscur Statement to Bristol City Cabinet meeting on Thursday 1 October 2009. Voscur held meetings on Saturday 19 September to consult residents on the new proposals and Wednesday 23 September to consult community groups. These points summarise the comments from residents and community groups who attended these meetings on the proposals. • People were concerned that they had not been consulted as part of the development of the proposal, and their first sight of the proposal was less than one month before it is scheduled to be approved by cabinet. The reassurance given at the residents meeting that the ‘roll out’ of the proposals would be a learning process was welcome but there was still some concern (from both meetings) that this ‘top down’ approach was being imposed without proper consultation with communities. • Maintaining the existing 14 Neighbourhood Partnership (NP) areas and building on existing established partnerships and groups was welcomed (although some feel that the geographical areas are still too large). • Proposals to strengthen resident involvement are welcomed but this is a lengthy and resource intensive activity. The report is not explicit in how this commitment will be resourced. • There was a strong view that residents should have a majority of places on the Neighbourhood Partnerships. If membership (including resident representation) is either under-resourced or under-capacity then NPs will not be able to function effectively. Each one needs active, informed citizens to participate. • Residents and voluntary and community groups are a key part of NP. Establishing and retaining a consistent level of representation from these groups in all 14 NPs is essential. • There is agreement that equalities groups need to be represented. This will need extra support as equalities groups are not necessarily represented at a local level in each NP. • Having some consistency for the 14 Neighbourhood Partnerships would be welcome. Guidance for NP/NC would help maintain consistency in decisionmaking (for example how equalities communities have been considered in decision making or how decisions are based on evidence of local needs and concerns). • Some suggested that Neighbourhoods should be divided into smaller geographical zones with (resident) reps from each (similar to St Pauls and Hartcliffe and Withywood model) but there was no agreement on this. Effective and accountable ways of involving community representatives need to be considered. • There is concern as to how existing structures (for example Neighbourhood Management areas and smaller ward level committees) will be integrated into the new NP structures. • How the devolved budgets will be divided over the 14 NP is a key question. More information is needed on how this will be done and how people can comment on this. There is concern that areas of deprivation in the city should not be further disadvantaged. • There was a view that budgets described as newly allocated to neighbourhoods are in fact already committed centrally (such as the community buildings budget which supports the maintenance of four community buildings in the city). • Some concern was expressed that the NC could take resources currently provided to established organisations and that rather than empowering established community groups they might be disempowered • Some residents felt strongly that the NPs must support and involve smaller (neighbourhood) groups and not replace them or the work that they do. • NC/NP need to show they can deliver action on local issues and not only be talking shops. • It is important that NC/NP communicate what they are doing. Letting people know what has been achieved is a very important part of engaging local people. In the past NP communication to local people has been patchy. • The Neighbourhood Forums should be exciting and attractive – not just the usual formal meeting format. • There will need to be ongoing support and training for all partners including councillors, statutory partners, residents and voluntary community sector reps. It was clear from these two initial meetings that more time is needed to ensure that both resident groups and other voluntary and community groups are involved and understand the new proposals. Many of these groups will be affected by this devolution process and yet feel that have been excluded from the development of these plans to date. If further phases of devolution are implemented then many more voluntary and community groups will be affected. It is important that voluntary and community groups are fully involved (in line with the COMPACT) before further devolution is agreed. Wendy Stephenson Chief Executive Voscur STATEMENT D.5.4 Statement to Cabinet - Devolution to Neighbourhoods “The founding principle of local government is that citizens have the right to influence the decisions that affect their lives and their communities” – this is a key notion that goes through the government’s Strengthening Local Democracy consultation. Labour in Bristol has always embraced this and in the past devolved decision making for major regeneration funds such as single SRB (Single Regeneration Budget) and NDC (New Deal for Communities) directly to local communities. Labour’s recent administration established the Neighbourhood Partnerships. They are still less than two years old – and the feedback has been positive from local people who want to influence decision-making and improve the area they live in where they can. So we welcome building on the Neighbourhood Partnership model and devolving significant revenue spend down to neighbourhood level. However, as the Leader herself has admitted, there are still many questions and though members attended the workshop – many of those questions remain unanswered. We feel strongly that for local people to have a real say and make local decisions about their localities then devolving financial decisions to local councillors does not go far enough. Additionally few would dispute the value of multi-agency working and partnership – indeed the report says of neighbourhood Partnerships that “a strength is the continued multi-agency commitment to working together across service boundaries to get things done”. We are concerned that again – if councillors make the decisions – those working in partnership with local people may feel disempowered. The strength of the existing Neighbourhood Partnerships has already demonstrated that there was a free dialogue between all attending that has been greatly valued, and is in danger of being undermined. We also have some concerns about the report concerning the costs. One of these concerns refers to the proposals before Cabinet which suggest four local councillor meetings in each of the 14 areas every year – a minimum of 56 extra meetings. The constitutional constraints require 2 extra democratic services staff to manage the legalities of calling and minuting those meetings. We hope that residents attending will not find this cumbersome and complicated when they had hoped for a simple way to say “can’t something be done about whatever” in their neighbourhood. Additionally the appointment of a Tier 2 officer to manage a team of seven area co-ordinators will appear extravagant – especially since Business Transformation has reduced the number of Tier 2 officers just recently to make cost savings. Tier 2 officers now manage hundreds of other staff not just seven. Labour’s reorganisation put Neighbourhoods at the top of the agenda with a Strategic Director post. It is culture change in the council that will deliver for neighbourhoods not additional expensive senior officers. Finally the funds devolved to Neighbourhoods look as they will total £11m, but feedback from local groups who have attended council presentations suggest that most of this figure is taken up by existing council staff salaries. As little as £2m could be the remaining sum and fears have been expressed that this will be spread thinly across 14 areas. However, as Labour councillors we are concerned to understand the criteria under which the money will be apportioned so that areas of deprivation get they resources they need. There seems to be no mechanism for fairly apportioning the devolved monies as yet – and what’s more there is no clear idea as to how citywide strategic plans fit when they are super-imposed across what devolved neighbourhood partnerships might want in future. I want to make it clear again that Labour welcome this devolution to local communities, this is the Labour government’s and former labour administrations direction of travel. And Labour councillors will work enthusiastically in their partnerships to bring genuine devolution and decisionmaking to local people. Cllr Ron Stone Labour Lead on Neighbourhoods and Cllr Helen Holland Labour Leader STATEMENT D.8.1 Statement to cabinet on Agenda item 8 – Waste Strategy Cabinet, The current direction of the waste strategy that Bristol City council is now taking, under your leadership, is to be welcomed. The threat of a massive white elephant mass burn incinerator, that the Labour party is determined to impose on us, has for now been seen off. The long term waste solutions that have already been developed have proved to be cheaper and more environmentally friendly than Labour’s dirty incinerator that would have taken £100s millions to build under an expensive PFI scheme that could have bankrupted this city. But I want to address a smaller issue in the grand scheme of things but one that worries many of my residents and that is the possible reduction in bin sizes for medium to large families. Here is a story of a typical Whitchurch family. They have three children and a 240 litre bin which is emptied once every two weeks. With nappies, super market packaging, etc it is a struggle to keep to the limit but they do. They recycle over 50% of all their waste with their green bin that they pay for, their plastic recycling that they take to the bank twice a week. But still it can be tough to keep within the limit some weeks. But if their bin is stolen it would be replaced with a 180 litre bin with the new rules that are being considered. This would mean this family being punished because of the actions of others – can this be just? Many have said to me that their only option will be to take more domestic waste to dump at the recycling centres. This would not help our recycling and reduce agenda. My concern is that the option currently being considered (Option 1 in the paperwork to Quality of Life Scrutiny) is not a just system in that it does not fairly treat larger households. We can though move to reduce waste, through smaller bins, and introduce a more equitable system. Option 3 within the paperwork proposed a more equitable solution where there would be different bin sizes dependent more upon the size of the house. Not only would this be fairer it would also help us in our agenda to reduce waste. The current system being considered is option 1 which is: Reduce the size of bins from 240 litres to 180 litres for 5 person households or less and provide a 180 litre bin and 140 litres for 6+ households. This system would leave small households with reasonable to generous capacity but 4 person households would only have 22.5ltrs of capacity of residual waste per week. 5 person households would only have 18ltrs of residual waste capacity per week. But a 2 person household would have 45 litres each – hardly encouraging them to recycle more and reduce waste. Option 3 proposes: Households of 1 have a 140ltr bin, 2-3 a 180ltr bin, 4-5 a 240ltr bin and 6+ a 240 and 140ltr bin. This would be a far fairer system for larger households but I accept it may not achieve the reduction in residual waste that the Executive member seeks. This is why I would like to suggestion something in between the two be considered: 1-2 person households 140ltr bin 3 person households 180ltr bin 4-5 person households 240ltr bin 6+ person households 180ltr + 140ltr bin The above system would produce fairer bin sizes, produce a similar reduction in waste as option 1 and prove cheaper as would require far less 180ltr bins which are the most expensive size to currently purchase. A fair system is one that everyone can buy into. But a system that appears to penalise families will cause resentment and resistance to recycling just when we need people to embrace more recycling. I accept this is a small issue in the grand scale of the paper you are considering today but it is a major issue for my residents. I have received more communication on this than any other subject over the last 3 years. All the best Cllr Tim Kent Lib Dem – Whitchurch Park Ward
© Copyright 2024