1. sports
2. football

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