1. education
2. school

CABINET - 27 NOVEMBER 2008
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
Sefton Park School:
A(s)1
Elizabeth Johnson
A(s)2
Inez Aponte
A(s)3
Toni Burrows
A(s)4
Yasmina Lambert
A(s)5
Dr Peter Lambert
A(s)6
Jeffrey Otterbeck
A(s)7
Gwinear Lloyd
A(s)8
Merriel Waggoner
A(s)9
Valerie Emmott
A(s)10
Martin Terry
A(s)11
Joanne Pottinger
A(s)12
Joel Stokes
Filwood Adventure Playground:
A(f)1
John Pearce
A(f)2
Vine Nyahunzi and Miriam Bimha
Prince Street Bridge:
A(p)1
Chris Hutt
Primary Review:
A(pr)1
Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
B.
QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS & COUNCILLORS
Note: questions received have been circulated to Cabinet members and are
available on the Council's web site. Copies of the answers will be placed in the
meeting room one hour before the start of the meeting.
1
C.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS:
Item 6 - The Cabinet's response to the recommendations of the Climate
Change Select Committee
C(6)1
Anne Lock for David Redgewell
C(6)2
Cllr Dennis Brown
Item 7 - Improving outcomes for children through a commissioning
led approach (excellence for all)
C(7)1
UNISON
C(7)2
Dick North
C(7)3
Clare Bradford
C(7)4
Esther Pickup-Keller
C(7)5
Keith Harrison
C(7)6
Cllrs Barbara Janke, Clare Campion-Smith, Bev Knott & Brian Price
C(7)7
Anthony Austin
Item 8 - Residents parking scheme - consultation outcomes
C(8)1
Dr Els van Ooijen
C(8)2
Ashley Forbes
C(8)3
Peter Thompson
C(8)4
Suzanne Gardner
C(8)5
Jennet de Caresle
C(8)6
Ms A Manson
C(8)7
Rob Porteous
C(8)8
Terry Davey
C(8)9
Cllrs Barbara Janke, Brian Price, Simon Cook & Michael Popham
C(8)10
Greg Fletcher
C(8)11
Diana Kershaw
C(8)12
Cllr Neil Harrison
C(8)13
James Smith
C(8)14
Sandra Fryer
C(8)15
Gwen Newman
C(8)16
Andrew Yerbury
C(8)17
Helen Tierney
C(8)18
Trevor Blythe
C(8)19
Hilary Jelbert
C(8)20
Cllr Alex Woodman
C(8)21
Sheila Matthews
C(8)22
Gabrielle Kuzak
C(8)23
Marc Kuzak
C(8)24
Charles Halden
C(8)25
Laura Barrell
C(8)26
Liz Crawford
C(8)27
Karen Slee
C(8)28
Andrew Hardwick
C(8)29
Michael Butterfield
2
C(8)30
C(8)31
C(8)32
C(8)33
C(8)34
C(8)35
C(8)36
C(8)37
C(8)38
C(8)39
C(8)40
Maggie Shapland
David Stansbie
Deborah Davinson
Stephen Perry
Stephen Perry
Ms H D McCloy
Bernard Cooke
Cllr Richard Eddy
Dr Adrian Longstaffe
Cllr Mark Wright
Laurence Penney
Item 9 - Organisation design / restructuring: proposals for 2nd tier
structure
C(9)1
Cllr Simon Cook
Item 11 - Capital programme 2008-11
C(11)1
Cllr Mary Sykes & Cllr Jos Clark
C(11)2
Anne White
C(11)3
Alister Palmer
C(11)4
Ken Suckling
C(11)5
Janet Rees
Item 14 - Prefab redevelopment - Horfield Prefab site CPO
C(14) 1
Mr D Vincent
3
STATEMENT A(s) 1
Please could this statement be read out at the Cabinet Meeting on 27th November.
Like many of the parents of children at Sefton Park Junior and Infant school I find it
incredible that the Local Council and the Young Peoples Services seem determined to
press ahead with the expansion of our school without actually having visited the site to see
for themselves the issues we are trying to highlight. Please may we arrange a time when
it would be convenient for any/all with an honest concern for the welfare of these children
to come and inspect these schools and compare for themselves the current proposals
being put forward?
Please do not make these decisions which will affect thousands of children and their
families in the future without being fully and properly informed.
Regards
Elizabeth Johnson
STATEMENT A(s) 2
I would like to express my concern about the plans to expand Sefton Park school. I have
enrolled my child there for next year, but wasn't aware how bad the outdoor play facilities
might become if expansion goes ahead. This really worries me as I have a very active
young son. I totally agree with everything Sarah Bailey has written to you about below.
Sincerely,Inez Aponte
From: Sarah Bailey Sent: 19 November 2008 14:40To: [email protected]:
Ref: Sefton Park Expansion Plans Questions for the Cabinet meeting next Thurs, 27 Nov,
4:00pm at the Council House. I would be grateful if you would please forward these
question for me to the next Cabinet meeting 1. As a parent who is concerned for all of our
children, not just those at Sefton Park, I am keen to know how fully the local demographic
of the area been researched. i.e: extensive new building around the Brunel site area will
bring young professionals who over the next few years will have primary school age
children. Young families continue to move in to this popular area. There is no point
extending Sefton Park to unacceptable concentration - thus potentially harming this
exceptional school - if it still creates insufficient places. How have the calculations included
not just current demand for places but future demands?2. How does the argument that it's
okay to include off-site facilities(i.e. playing fields up the road), in the calculation about how
much space children need, comply with national guilde-lines? Do any of the members of
the meeting genuinely believe that a green space removed from the school is
compensation for unacceptable lack of space at play-time,a lack of space that is so openly
admitted by the architect that s/he has designed playspace on a caged roof.3. We have a
poor reputation for education in Bristol. What is the justification for taking a school that is
not only NOT struggling, but is even exceptional, and putting it in jeopardy, when there are
other alternatives.4. Do you consider that there has been adequate consultation about the
Sefton Park Expansion, because I don't? I was made aware by the parents' group, not by
the LEA5. Why have plans for building a new school on the Brunel site been abandoned?
If it is believed to be acceptable to squeeze so many children into Sefton Park, why is it not
considered acceptable to squeeze them into a new purpose-built building, with playing
fields, up the road. Has it been properly considered that a new building of single form entry
on the Brunel site could be later expanded to two-form entry as demand for places grows?
6. Has it been properly considered that this new school could be set-up and run by a
management team from Sefton Park if you consider the expertise of this school so
special? Sefton Park is already two schools. Could a third join the Federation under the
same headship? If it is acceptable to have off-site playing fields, why not off-site teaching
block, with playing fields, and spend the same money there.7. There is a rumour that the
Cricket Ground want the Brunel site for expansion of their own facilities, i.e. Car Park. Has
it been considered that their need for a carpark could be incorporated into plans? Schools
don't need parking at weekends. Could a new school benefit from proximity to the cricket
club. (Space traded for training perhaps? specialist school perhaps?)8. It is very hard to
see this process as anything other than a cost-cutting one. The argument against parental
objection is that objectors are in the minority. Surely anyone and everyone concerned with
(all) our children would object to these plans on ANY basis other than financial. Is there
any educational advantage for this proposal?(larger schools attract better teachers won't
wash, Sefton Park attracts great teachers because it's a great school, better facilities
would bean argument but none are offered). Is the ONLY benefit financial?9. How are
financial concerns justifiable in light of 1. above?10. The question of expansion has
already been discussed and abandoned on the basis that the overcrowding made it
unfeasible. What has changed?I look forward to the meeting's reply. With many thanks for
your kind attention Sarah Bailey parent and ex-parent, and generally concerned for the
future of (all)Bristol's schools(as my children are left, or nearly left, this is NOT a plea of
self-interest)
STATEMENT A (s) 3
I would like to inform the council of the knock on effect to the local
and wider community from the proposed expansion of Sefton Park School;
1.In the Spring,upon hearing the rumour that the Ashley House building was to be pulled
down, the Youth Club that was housed there, uncertain of its future and fearful of being
without premises, moved to another location quite some distance away in St Pauls. This
was a great disappointment to the local youth as the Ashley House location allowed
teenagers from the surrounding and diverse areas of St Andrews, Montpelier, St Pauls,
Horfield, and St Agnes to meet together in a social setting. It had been very successful and
benefitted the wider community.
2.The future, and fundamental nature of the nearby Scout group was put in doubt when it
was revealed that, as part of the expansion scheme,their hut would be demolished, their
greenspace dug up and the whole area turned into a CARPARK for just a fraction of the
proposed school staff. The hut is premises for Brownies, Guides, Beavers, Cubs,Scouts
and many "birthday boys and girls" and their guests as numerous parties are held there.
The amount of children we're talking about must be huge. Again the group benefits the
wider community. Yet there is STILL uncertainty and doubt in the plans with regard to its
future home.
3.Windsor Playgroup a pre-school facility that has been in the Ashley House building for
many years and which serves the wider community, including some referrals from Social
Services, saw a significant fall in numbers at the start of this school year, despite all the
places having been allocated before the Summer holidays. This has resulted in staff days
being cut. Unforgivable in the current climate. It was found to be the case that many
parents of children with places had heard rumours that the building was to be pulled down
and took their children elsewhere. Their confusion is not surprising since indeed the whole
Playgroup was overlooked during the first phase of plans and the staff and parents were not
consulted in the early stages at all. Wth more information those parents would have had a
better grasp of the facts. The realisation that they had overlooked an important facility must
have put the planners into panic mode. That can be the only explanation as to why why all
three of the recent designs either leave out Windsor playgroup entirely or place it in
unsuitable locations with regard to health and safety. Luckily Windsor Playgroup is slowly
recovering from the setback.
4. In early November Michael Branaghan wrote: " There is no question of destroying the
ethos of the school. the ethos is what the inhabitants make of it. Evidence from other
schools illustrate that a different but equally effective ethos will develope for an expanded
school of the quality of Sefton Park" What will the geographical intake of an expanded
Sefton Park be? It follows that the additional children will largely be from the surrounding
predominately white middle class areas. This will proportionately change the nature and
ethos of the school, it would create more of an imbalance than already exists and some
parents would no longer choose Sefton Park for their child, further exacerbating the
situation. Yet suggestions to build a new school at the Brunel Site, thus allowing Sefton
Park to continue as it is, a desirable school for children from ALL backgrounds, or to create
one on the old Fairfield site with the exciting opportunities for a new and diverse intake that
would promise, are considered by the council to be non starters? Returning again to the
Sefton Park proposals; of course it goes without saying there will be a change in
atmosphere given the increased numbers on a congested site, but even if this was ignored,
left for us to deal with (as it seems Mr Branaghan is saying), the overall CULTURAL
balance of a school cannot be changed WITHOUT "destroying" and destroying irrevocably
its nature and ethos. A school's "quality" should be judged on a number of criteria and its
cultural make up should be one of them.
This impact on us all needs to be acknowledged and justified by those concerned before
they steamroll ahead with the expansion.
To conclude; I have become ever more aware that this proposed expansion affects not only
the immediate but wider community. Yes, those closest, enjoy the benefits, it goes without
saying, but facilities such as the scout hut, youth club and Windsor playgroup are
fundamentally incusive and all embracing and, I'm sure others would agree, that we don't
want to compromise, dilute or, heaven forbid, lose them entirely. And we don't want to lose
one iota of diversity at Sefton Park. To lose that would cost far more than £6 million!
Toni Burrows
STATEMENT A (s) 4
I am writing to you regarding the Sefton Park school expansion and to express my strong
opposition to this plan.
I am a mother of 2 children going to Sefton Park school and alongside many parents, I
believe that expanding the school is not suitable.
Children flourish in the familiarity of a smaller, more easily negociated school communities.
Children don't like huge schools.
There is no sufficient space for children in the expansion plans. The plans show the
destruction of the green spaces.
Children need green spaces and space to run.
Expanding the school will create more traffic and chaos.
Ashley House, an historic building will be destroyed.
Sefton Park school is a fantastic school where children and parents are very happy, there
is a strong feel of community and all of that will be lost if a big school is built instead.
What about the space nearby? The Brunel Field or Fairfield School in Montpelier?
Thank you in advance for your time.
Yours sincerely
Yasmina Lambert
STATEMENT A (s) 5
I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the proposed expansion of
Sefton Park School. I oppose it on a number of grounds including:
i) it is not in the interests of local people
ii) it is not in the interests of the children already attending the
school. We do not want bigger classes
iii) it will involve the loss of valuable green space and a historic
building
iv) as far as I am aware there has been no consultation of local people or
of parents of children (we have not been consulted under either category).
Local democracy and accountability need to be improved
v) if more school places are needed there is a perfectly good site at
Brunel Playing Fields (as originally proposed) or ex-Fairfield School that
would be ideal.
This is short sighted, irresponsible and contrary to the interests of our
children.
I would be grateful if you could acknowledge this this letter has been
received and included in your consultation
Yours
Dr Peter Lambert
STATEMENT A (s)6
I would like to make you aware of my huge concerns over the proposed expansion of our
excellent Sefton Park school. I live in St Werburgh and have six children, three are
currently at the school. They love it there as the staff are so magnificent. their one
complaint to me when I ask them how things are for them at school, is lack of space,
particularly at break time.
At peak times in the school day I have witnessed dangerous situations due to over
crowding. I implore you, please don't ruin a good thing. Bristol needs good schools and I
believe expanding this one would put it's reputation and more importantly, it's pupils at risk.
Also, why wasn't there a school built on the Brunel colledge site? An area that has more
infants than places available at schools, new development of about a hundred new homes
right in the middle of this area, therefore more children. Yet no new school.
I have heard the council are saying there is a very small number people opposed to the
expansion of Sefton Park School, I feel this opposite to be true.
So please hear my voice as a concerned parent, please don't let me and my children
down,
yours faithfully, Mr Jeffrey Otterbeck.
STATEMENT A (s) 7
Members of the cabinet
I am writing this statement after looking at your "Corporate plan" and particularly the
section "Our city: better neighbourhoods". I am fortunate enough to live in a great
neighbourhood in Bristol, with a high quality environment and easy access to good
facilities. I live opposite Sefton Park School, a great 2 form entry school where my 3
children are very happy. There is a scout hut at the end of the road, with a green area
surrounding it, where of course they all go on various evenings,and actually I now
run one of the groups there myself. At the other end of the street, there is a fine old
building, Ashley House, which is not only a nice piece of history to have on one's doorstep
(it was built in the 1860s by a former Lord Mayor of Bristol) but also houses a local
playgroup, the after school club, and until recently a youth club. The whole site
has a great deal of greenery, including lots of mature trees.
HOWEVER, the council has plans which will sweep all these, and my quality if life, away.
They have reneged on the plan to build a new school on the Brunel site (where there has
been much new housing development) and want to expand Sefton Park school instead.
This will require, apparently
KNOCKING DOWN THE SCOUT HUT AND MAKING THE AREA INTO A CAR PARK
KNOCKING DOWN ASHLEY HOUSE
BUILDING A 2 STOREY SQUARE BUILDING WITH ROOFTOP PLAYGROUND (so add
another storey) OPPOSITE OUR HOUSES AND ON THE GREEN AREA THE CHILDREN
NOW PLAYON
MAKING THE REMAINDER OF THE GREEN AREA INTO A "SERVICE AREA" FOR
BINS
Apart from all this, from a parental point of view I and many others do not want our children
educated in a "mega-school". We like the nurturing atmosphere of a smaller school. We
also like having facilities near, but not part of the school, where different ages and cultures
can mix. I can assure you I am not a lone voice in the objections to this plan.
What particularly caught my eye in your document was the sentence "We will re-focus our
activity so that all neighbourhoods are high quality environments with easy access to good
facilities and that residents feel that they can influence the area in which they live."
After attending numerous council meetings, sending in questions and statements, replying
to consultations, and organising petitions (e-petition with 150 signatures, paper with 200), I
and many many others are still no nearer to feeling that our voices have been heard.
Absolutely no notice whatsoever has been taken of our objections or suggestions. Eg. One
suggestion is that the car park could be situated at the Brunel site and the green area
round the scout hut could be saved for use by the school as a wildlife and allotment area.
Also that the shell of Ashley House should be retained and incorporated into a thoughtful
architectural design. We have suggested these ideas many times but the same plans
steamroller on regardless. We really feel we are not being listened to.
I fail to see how the plan to expand Sefton Park School fits into the overall city plan that is
outlined in this document. To say it was part of the "making a difference" section would
be a red herring, as the school is already excellent, according to the latest Ofsted report.
Why jeopardise this? Far better to build a new school to meet the demand for places, at
the Brunel site as promised.
I hope the cabinet will have the courage to reverse the decision to expand Sefton Park
School and revert to their original plan, which would deliver the much needed school
places relatively soon, and would keep a good - and green - neighbourhood intact.
After all, your corporate plan states "We want everyone in Bristol to be proud of their
neighbourhood". Car parks don't make me proud. Historic buildings do. Would this happen
in Clifton?
Yours faithfully,
Gwinear Lloyd
STATEMENT A (s) 8
Statement to be submitted to Cabinet Meeting 27/11/08
I am a parent of a pupil at Sefton Park Infants School and would just one more time like to
draw your attention to the effects that the proposed expansion will have upon the children and
adults of the area. The site is already extremely restricted. Playgrounds are crowded and the
recommended amount of outdoor play cannot be satisfied as it stands. This year's 3 form entry
reception children have already been asked not to run outdoors. This situation cannot possibly
be improved by placing a building and service yard onto the one grassy area that the children
currently enjoy. Even if this building does incorporate a roof top hardcourt playground it is
obvious that the addition of 240 children to this already crowded environment is a ludicrous
idea. For the Council to continue to drive through such damaging plans shows an extreme lack
of care.
Coupled with this destruction of our precious school, is the proposal to turn the Scout Hut and
its grounds into a car park. For Peter Hammond to call this precious local amenity "an
underutilized green space" shows his complete ignorance of the site and its usage. It also
shows how insulting and careless he is in dealing with local concerns.
Alongside this destruction is the proposed demolition of Ashley House. To contemplate
destroying this beautiful building of significant historic importance can only be a sign of the
desperation and shortsightedness of school planning policy in the area.
The Consultation Process offered to parents and local residents has been of the poorest
quality (please see my statement to the Call-In Committee below) and it beggars belief how
the Council expect the public to have any faith in their ability to listen to, respond to and care
about the people who vote for them. The Council seems to be a world closed unto itself,
completely out of touch with its constituents and any sort of common sense. We are not a
bunch of ill informed idiots who will swallow the meaningless spin and procedural flim flam
on offer.
Heather Tomlinson stated at Children's Scrutiny on Monday that "feasibility went through
Cabinet some time ago".
Kate Campion tells our Governors that feasibility will be decided at the end of this month.
Stella Mann of the IRIS Consultation says parents were presented with three "feasible
options".
What on earth is going on? This whole procedure is a complete farce and an insult to our area.
The Council have obvious alternatives to wrecking our neighbourhood. Please please please
get your act together and consider them.
With reference to statement submitted to the Call-In Committee 18/11/08
I am a parent of a pupil at Sefton Park Infants School and would like to comment on the
inadequate Consultation Process that has been applied to the proposed expansion of the
Infants and Junior Schools.
Parents and residents feel that the proposed expansion of the schools will have a devastating
effect upon the lives of children who attend the school, use the Scouts, nursery and after
school club facilities. Green Space and buildings of great architectural and environmental
importance will be demolished.
Given the importance of the issues surrounding the proposed expansion, the Council seems to
have made no effort to secure a meaningful consultation with the so-called stakeholders
involved.
Stage 1 of the consultation programme consisted of an A4 sheet being sent home with
children for parents to fill-in and return. The reliability of this method of communication to
ensure that all concerned groups are contacted is obviously poor. Children who are absent
from school that day would have missed it, and those attending after- school club or other
activities before going home have a high chance of loosing this piece of paper. And that one
piece of paper seems to be the whole of Stage 1 consultation. There was no opportunity to
see the proposed plans or to receive any information with which to make any sort of informed
opinion. Neither were local residents invited to contribute to this first stage. I understand that
90 responses were returned all of which were against.
Stage 2 of the consultation consisted of a meeting held at the school at which Bob Rutherford,
project manager, announced that the expansion was a "done deal". Since this was my first
introduction to the possibility of expansion I was deeply shocked to realize that my worries
about the expansion being extremely damaging to the school, the neighbourhood and local
youth provision would actually have no bearing. We were presented instead with 3 possible
options, which we were told would be published on a website in due course along with all our
concerns. These "findings" from the consultation evening were finally uploaded on the website
on 29th October, the day before Consultation closed. A mere 24 hours was allowed for people
who had been unable to attend the school meeting to evaluate the proposals, form an opinion
and register their reaction to the proposals. The reason for this 11th hour presentation of the
plans was that apparently the files were big and difficult to upload. I don't for a moment believe
that the Council's IT department would find 7.5 MB of pdf files difficult to upload or that they
could possibly spend eight weeks working on such a thorny problem. To all intents and
purposes thousands of stakeholders have been willfully excluded from the consultation.
Neither was any response given to our many concerns raised at the meeting.
A second consultation meeting was held at the Scouts' Hut, where I asked the Director of IRIS
(Involving Residents in Solutions) if she was minuting the meeting to which she replied "I'm not
very good at that". I fail to see how she can accurately
report back on a two hour consultation that has not been recorded. She was also asked if she
would be able to publish her record of the evenings consultation before the Council meeting
the following Thursday to which she replied "I do have a life". This slack approach from the
Director of the Consultation gives me no confidence whatsoever that our views have been
heard, listened to, reported, answered or even cared about.
I have seen no published Equalities Impact Assessments neither have I seen any sign of
these crucial studies being carried out.
Peter Hammond stated at the last Cabinet Meeting that our many representations to Cabinet,
Full Council and Scrutiny Commission show the extent to which we have been consulted.
This is patronizing and wholly incorrect. The volume of questions, statements, letters and
complaints is a direct result of the complete inadequacy of the consultation. Our submissions
to Council are the result of individuals working hard to be heard and receive accurate
responses; they are not a Consultation Process.
The clear message from Council has been that the expansion is happening regardless of our
views and that a shoddy appearance of a Consultation is all that is deemed necessary to tick
the appropriate box.
Merriel Waggoner
STATEMENT A (s) 9
Questions/Statements to Bristol City Council regarding the
Proposed Expansion of Sefton Park School
BCC Cabinet Meeting Date: 4pm Thursday 27th November 2008
Deadline for Questions: 5pm Friday 21st November 2008
Deadline for Statements: 12pm Wednesday 26th November 2008
Name: Valerie Russell Emmott
Address: 75 Sefton Park Road
Email: [email protected]
Parent/Carer ⌧
Resident ⌧
Bristol BS7 9AN
Other (please state) ⌧ Scout Hut parent
My concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the school have not
diminished with the passage of time. Nor have my previous questions to Council
been adequately answered. Whilst initially open to the possibility of being
presented with a new, innovative design and improved accommodation for the
children, regrettably these have NOT been presented to us as a school
community.
What seems to be masquerading as the ‘preferred option’ of three is an illconceived design which would result in:
Destruction of the little green space the school has;
Imposition of a car park where the well-used, well-loved Scout Hut is
located;
A potentially dangerous, non-inclusive three-level building with roof-top
playing area, which anyone with mobility issues would find challenging;
NO improvement to the existing Edwardian era buildings, which need
improvements according to each OFSTED report;
Severe disruption to learning and ethos of the school during a major 18-24
month building process with no assurances of how these will be managed;
Severe traffic implications for commuters using Ashley Down Road,
destruction of the balance and of the entire area for neighbours and users
of the local amenity buildings, and most importantly safety implications for
children in an already congested, over-crowded site even before they get
close to the perimeter of the school.
Can the Cabinet now explain how this proposal fits with the Every Child Matters
agenda, and indeed the stated importance of community cohesion and
sustainable neighbourhoods across Bristol?
STATEMENT A(s) 10
I am the parent of a five year old at Sefton Park school.
I would like to state my concerns regarding the consultation process for the expansion of Sefton Park school.
When the decision was made to change from building a new school on the Brunel to expanding the existing Sefton park
school site in January 2008 a public statement was made.
This statement makes clear that the reason for the change of direction was due to objections from Gloucester cricket
club due to their need for space to hold overflow parking, concession stands, and space for television crews.
This statement continues by retaining the possibility of building a school on the Brunel at some unspecified point in the
future. Such a possibility contradicts the reasoning for expanding Sefton park school site.
Was it right to put the needs of the cricket club above the needs of the school when the decision is part of an education
review. Was the proposal made one which simply sidestepped issues in order to maintain time-scales required to gain
money from central government. Or was there more to this than can be concluded from the statement given.
The contradictory nature lead me to await further information as to the final direction in which proposals could or
would be taken. No such information was presented in an easily accessible manner before the first stage of consultation
began in July with response forms collected by 27 July. Such a lack of information made it impossible to comment on
the details of the expansion plans and led me to object to the proposals.
Following the first consultation a cabinet meeting was held whereby it was decided to continue with the consultation
process with a focus of developing the plans to expand the Sefton Park site. However it was not until 18th September
that the report for this consultation was released.
This document revealed that 750 consultation forms had been distributed. Of the replies given 90 objected to the
proposal 8 agreed with the proposal and 65 required more information. Within those for the proposals some have
questioned the way in which the change of strategy was announced.
Councillor Hammond has stated, prior to the release of this document, that 750 local residents had been consulted.
Objections have also been described as those of "a vociferous minority and that there was also a body of support".
The Board of governors hold the position that though they are not against the expansion of Sefton Park the proposals
made must show the ability to meet the educational needs of the school in a safe and usable environment. The board of
governors still continue to state that these requirements have not been met. This does not mean that they support the
proposals, as quoted in the January 2008 statement, nor does this mean they are part of a vociferous minority.
The second set of consultation meetings were also begun in an untimely manner. Communications released on 12th
September contains the statement that be confirmed from the week beginning the 16th of September ",
The request to start the second stage was made on 18th September with the date set for this second stage being 22nd
September. From start to finish this consultation period lasted no more than two weeks with parents and local residents
left uncertain as to how the process would continue or how questions would be answered.
Several proposals proposed plans were discussed with many issues being raised which questioned the feasibility of any
of the plans put forward. A request was made by one parent that the result of the consultation be collated in time for the
next council meeting. This was dismissed as not being feasible.
Documents for this consultation stage were generated on the 28th October and published on the 30th October, the same
date as a council convened to decide on continuation of the current proposals .This makes it difficult to see how full
information could have been made available for committee to make a fully informed decision. This newly generated
report states that 1500 consultation forms were distributed in June 2008 a fact that appears to have been used by
Councillor Hammond to infer that over 1000 people had been consulted.
Furthermore the document reveals that none of the proposed plans meet the requirements of the governor, parents or
other community groups with parents particularly concerned about the safety issues when children move between sites
for sporting activities
The board of Governors are reported as finding that "option 1 was preferred as it provided the school with soft play
space easily accessible by the younger children, and larger class-rooms for reception, Year 5 and 6".
However question remained over the usefulness of the rooftop playground, the size of halls, accessibility and security
plus a number of other issues. As such it was felt that a good solution could be found but it was not designed yet.
It seems that Councillor Hammond has since used this information to communicate option 1 as simply the preferred
proposal.
The board of governors is supported by a working group, consisting of parents who are architects and building planners
who are still having trouble reconciling the school requirements with the limited space available under the current
proposals. Even within the last two weeks the board have asked Kate Campion to revisit the possibility of expanding
the Sefton Park buildings onto the Brunel site. This request was met with the reply that the site is too small without any
clear explanation as to why 210 children on the Brunel site is not possible when 610 children on an equivalently sized
site is acceptable. This raises concern that the pacilities provided will be unsuitable for the long term development of
Sefton park school.
There appear to be two main reasons for focusing development on the Sefton park site.The need to provide fair and
equal acces to expanded provision for both the Ashley and Bishopston ward, against the need to avoid conflict with and
support the needs of the cricket club over the space available at the Brunell site.
The need to provide fair access to educational provision has always been recognised by those opposing current
proposals. However the manner in which available land is proposed to be used has been questioned by both parents and
the board of governors. These proposals attempt to cram 610 pupils into half the available space with limited access
sports facilities on a second site, a proposition that seeks to undermine any proposition of fairness to those who are
most in need. Indeed it seeks to bury the needs of children within both communities beneath the commercial
requirements of a sports club.
Throughout this process parents and local residents have felt railroaded towards proposals that are unsatisfactory for the
needs of the school and the children that will attend. Parents opposing the proposals have often asked themselves why
this is the case.
It now appears that the cricket club have a development plan which “involves a desire to knock down the current Jessop
Stand (next to the field) and replace with a banqueting and conference centre (but that this is dependent on being able to
secure adjoining land for permanent car parking”. This of course is the same kind of request for additional parking that
other organisations, such as Bristol Zoo, have had rejected with calls to promote alternative means of transport.
Additional parking built on the same land that is being sought to expand local education facilities.
Such development could be put forward in a more useful form. Redevelopment could include facilities that require the
use of the Brunel site removing barriers to the placement of a school on the existing land that will have less permanent
rewuirements from the cricket club. It seems that there has been a missed opportunity for some joined up thinking. If
you consider that this is joined up then more information is required in the public domain to explain why.
Further investigation reveals that media events to promote such a proposal have been attended and reportedly supported
by councillor Helen Holland, leader of the labour group Bristol council.
Now I am presented with statements from councillor Hammond that seek to affirm support for children most in need
whilst the leader of his party seeks to push children away from available land within their own community. Land that
could be much better put to educational use. Such incomplete information serves only to fuel speculation as to the true
nature of the decisions that have so far been made. It could seem that use of inner city measures is one which appears to
give limited and temporary access to sports facilities before the ultimate removal of school access to the Brunel site.
All the points covered in this statement lead me to question the manner in which the consultation process has been
undertaken and the speed at which proposals have been pushed through the executive committee without full and proper
information being made available.
I support the expansion of school provision within the area and would be happy if the success of Sefton Park could be
more widely accessible. I do however feel that such a successful school as Sefton Park could have been far better
supported within the consultation process and that the use of inner city measures are wholly inappropriate given the
existing space that can be better utilised for educational purposes. I also feel that in an educational review the needs of a
school should have been placed above those of a cricket club.
I would call fro more information to be made available regarding the long term relationship that is expected between the
school and the cricket club with regards to the use of Brunel site. I would also call for a clear definitive statement that,
the long term use of the Brunel site by the school, under any chosen proposal, will be protected under section 77 of the
School Standards & Framework Act 1998.
regards
Martin Terry
STATEMENT A(s) 11
I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on Thursday and
would like this statement read out:
I write as a concerned parent of a child at Sefton Park School, as a
local resident and as a parent who has in previous years needed to
take Bristol Local Educational Authority
to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal to highlight illegalities
in their practices regarding educational provision.
I am also Bristolian, I have worked for the Bristol City Council and
unfortunately I find it difficult not to be cynical regarding
Bristol’s poor record of educational provision to its state schools.
Bristol's responsibility for providing children with a good education
seems to get forgotten about when short term fiscal targets take
priority.
I regard the proposal to expand Sefton Park School to be wrong.
The site is small and already overstretched and space is
compromised. My daughter has permanently lost her two front teeth
after a football accident due to overcrowed playgrounds. Furthermore
she is in a class of 33 children with not enough space for tables
and chairs.
I feel there has been a lack of consultation with local residents and
parents.
I feel that altenative options regarding other potential sites have
not been fully investigated.
I feel that the plans submitted are ill-thought out
I feel that the financial rewards for Bristol and cricket media
coverage seem to be outweighing Bristol’s responsibilty in providing
good education.
I feel the current plans for expansion of Sefton Park school will
lower educational standards and educational experience
Joanne Pottinger
STATEMENT A(s) 12
STATEMENT TO CABINET – 27 NOVEMBER 2008 – JOEL STOKES
Another statement regarding the proposed expansion of Sefton Park School.
I’m sure you’ll be thinking “Oh no – not again”. But it needs to be said at every available
opportunity – Expansion Of Sefton Park School is NOT THE BEST SOLUTION for the shortage of
school places in this area – IT IS A BAD IDEA.
The site is too constricted.
The ethos of the school will be changed irrevocably.
The cramming of 630 children plus nursery children onto this site is horrendous.
The total disregard of public concern is being shown by you, the public servants.
The consultation process has been a sham and we have no confidence in any future consultation
which may or may not be in the pipeline.
There has been a complete lack of professional advice by educational and child welfare experts.
The U turn decision to abandon the new school at Brunel has not been adequately explained.
The list goes on – and on – and on!!
Any reasonable person can see that this proposal risks the ruination of a good school whilst other
options to solve the problem are being pressured out of the public domain.
A new school should be built at Brunel as was originally planned.
The cricket club objections over car-parking facilities pale into insignificance when compared to the
future of Bristol’s children.
The policy of no new 1FE Schools should be treated as flexible.
Yes, this expansion proposal is consistent with the Primary Review - the same review which the
DSCF has decided is not up to scratch.
The statements and questions submitted here and at previous meeting are the concerns of hundreds
of ordinary people.
We do not have the resources of a large PR company like JBP who are employed by the Cricket
Club.
We cannot afford to host fancy receptions at the House of Commons in order to influence the
planning process, as do JBP.
We do not have the time or money to build strategic relationships with key politicians at Bristol
City Council, as do JBP.
These methods we must leave to the corporate professionals who have the wealth and power to
exert their influence on the council.
All we have is our reasoning, our common sense and our commitment to do what’s right - for all of
Bristol’s children and youth.
I will save Councillor Hammond and Michael Branaghan the trouble of replying to this statement
with the standard muddled, inadequate, condescending response letter which we now all receive as
a matter of course – none is required thank you.
- ENDS -
STATEMENT A(f) 1
Statement to cabinet meeting – 27th November
(The maps referred to in this statement will be provided at the meeting)
Dear Councillors,
ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND IN FILWOOD
Following on from my presentation of this statement to the Children’s Scrutiny
Commission earlier this week, I believe it is such a pertinent issue that it needs to be
presented to you as the Cabinet who alone have the power to make things happen.
I run a free Saturday morning Kids Club at the Filwood Community Centre along with
my wife who also co-ordinates the only after school club in Knowle West at
Connaught Primary School. I am also involved in Youth Moves.
Filwood ward as you will know has a deprivation profile which is within the top 2% of
wards in England. In addition to this unacceptable statistic, Filwood ward has a
higher than average number of children and young people. Educational attainment
in this ward is also well below the UK average. Despite these indicators , Bristol City
Council has not begun to address the play needs of children in the area and Filwood
ward does not boast a formal park or play areas that meet the policy standards
agreed by the Council both in the recent Parks and Open Spaces Strategy but also
in the current Local Plan.
There is a desperate need for a staffed adventure playground for children and young
people aged 0-19. Adventure playgrounds aim to provide children of all ages with
opportunities to engage in challenging and inclusive play that would be difficult to
find elsewhere in a busy urban environment. They provide opportunities for
climbing, swinging, jumping, den building and gardening. This type of active play
contributes towards children achieving at least 60 minutes of at least moderate
intensity activity every day, as recommended by the Chief Medical Offcier. In this
way, play is increasingly recognised as one way of tackling the sedentary behaviour
that contributes to childhood overweight and obesity.
Filwood park is the only informal park in Filwood ward. It used to have play
equipment and a teenage skate park. These have been removed and no attempt
made to make the park more attractive and secure. Play England and the National
Children’s Bureau have guidance on design and location of adventure playgrounds
and how they should be developed with the whole community. This site is ideal for
an adventure playground and other facilities that would create a lively hub within a
formal park setting.
As you can see from the diagram, an adventure playground on Filwood park would
be within 600 metres of 80% of households in Filwood ward and within virtually all
households within 1000 metres. Research shows that the more activity and passive
supervision there is in a park the greater the level of safety and security. A formal
park with an adventure playground and perhaps small animal area, cafe and other
uses would make the area even more attractive. Secondly the presence of full time
staff on site is central to the overall success of a park. Therefore an adventure
playground would not only provide a free open and accessible play environment for
children and young adults, it would also make the Park a better facility for the whole
community. In contrast only a handful of houses are within 600 metres of the
hengrove park play area which involves cross a busy dual carriageway.
The Council have recently sold Filwood park to English partnerships who expect to
be given permission to build houses despite public opposition. This is very short
sighted of the Council because to provide a formal park and a quality play
environment for children eslewhere will require acquisition of other land which will
have a value as a brownfield site and therefore a much more expensive option. It is
misguided of the Council to assume that a children’s playground is a substitute for
the play environment that a staffed adventure playground provides in a natural
setting. Equally the well being of all members of the community is enhanced by a
quality park.
I am here on behalf of Carmel Christian Centre which provides various services to
the local community including the only cafe, an after school club for working parents
and a free kids club on Saturdays as well as youth activities and provision of
Christmas hampers. We have a volunteer base of over 400 and would like to be
involved in the provision of an adventure playground working with the whole
community including the other churches in the area. We want to serve in the
community and to help make this statement a reality.
You will be aware of the strong local opinion that Filwood park should remain a park.
I hope that Filwood ward profile is sufficient evidence to you that a quality park and
an adventure playground would provide a much needed facility in the area. The
Council has the ability to bring about positive change in this community and help to
meet the Every Child Matters Agenda. The capital cost is small in relation to the
Council’s overall capital programme and equally the revenue implications are also
minimal in terms of the impact on young lives, their health, development and well
being.
The need is great and I hope that the Council will respond positively. Balanced and
sustainable communities will never be created by housing alone and because of the
current regeneration plans, your time to act is now.
John Pearce
26.
Nov.
2008 9 : 3 7
CARMEL: CENTRE
No.
2010
P. 2
STATEMENT A(f)2
d
FILWOOO PARK.
Good afternoon Councillors.
.
We would like to Introduce ourselves; Vine Nyahunzi, aged 15, and Mlriam Birnha, aged 13.
We both llve in KnowIe West.
We have come here today t o appeal to you regardingthe immoral sale d o u r local park. Thls took
place without asking all the chlldren and young people tn the area, We fully understand that people
need houses, but we thlnk it Is very wrong to take away our park, or even to take away part of our
park, in this way.
Filwood Is the only formal, proper park In our cornmunlty, and It should be fully restored, as a park.
Many familles In Filwood do not have a car, and it is too far to walk to Herigrovewlth young children.
We believe that a supervised Adventure Playgroundshould be bullt on Filwoad Park, just Ilke the
ones In Southmead and St Paub, It is wrong that the Council has provided these facilitiesfar
depilved chlldren across Bristol, but not in our.ccmmunity. This Is unequal and unfalr. There should
. . The newspaper sald that every day, more and
be a safe place to play, free from bullyingand drugs.
more children are getting Into crime. There should beadult supervlslon, to keep everyone safe and
prevent the place gettlng trashed.
By taklng away our park, or even half of It, to meet houslngtargets, there Is a clear and strong
message In all of this, for the younger generation, that because It Is a depdved area, the needs and
oplnions of children and young people can be Ignoredand over ruled, by politicians and master
planners and private developers who want t o make a profit, Barak Obama said it is tlme for things to
change.The Children's com$ssloner sald you should llsten to the voices of children and young
people.
How can Bristol be the "Green Capltal of Europe", if the Councll goes ahead and bullds houses on
our patk? We call for a supervisedAdventure Playground to be built on Fllwood Park, which should
be fully restored as a park. Fllwood should get its new Community Centre and shops, but not by
taking away our park, or even by taklng half of it. Under the current plans, It Is clear that the children
and young people of Filwood are belng cheated and taken advantage of. 'This is wrong.
Today, we appeal to you to be treated equally and fairly.
Thank you for Iistenlngto us,
STATEMENT A(p) 1
Statement to Cabinet - Prince Street Bridge
I would like to submit the following statement to tomorrow's Cabinet meeting in relation to
the the proposed alterations to Prince Street Bridge. I hope to be able to speak to it.
I urge Cabinet to reconsider the current proposals for alterations to the traffic
arrangements on Prince Street Bridge. There are much better ways of accommodating
cyclists and pedestrians in a safe and commodious manner than what is proposed. It
would be foolish to press ahead with the current proposals without considering and
consulting on the possible alternatives.
Firstly may I say that I acknowledge that the present arrangements on the Bridge are
unsatisfactory for pedestrians due to the narrowness of the footways. Some modification is
required to resolve that problem. However current arrangements for cyclists are not
problematical in the context of the general traffic conditions that cyclists must contend with.
There is no justification for changing the current arrangements on account of the needs of
cyclists unless a substantial overall benefit can be identified and substantiated.
There is at least one option which delivers safe and commodious conditions for both
cyclists and pedestrians, namely the complete closure of the bridge to motor traffic
(excepting emergency vehicles and buses) and the allocation of the west half entirely to
pedestrians and the east half to cyclists. Not only will this option provide for more attractive
conditions on the bridge but also on the approach routes, particularly Wapping Road, while
acting as a much needed restraint on peak flows of cars entering and leaving the city.
By contrast the current proposals will create conflict between cyclists and pedestrians and
between cyclists and motor vehicles. Virtually all the cycling interests have expressed
concern about this and are urging that the current proposals are not proceeded with.
Chris Hutt
STATEMENT A(pr) 1
Statement on behalf to the Liberal Democrat group on the response of the
Executive Member to the call-in on the Primary Review and to the Children’s
Scrutiny motion
The decision made at the call-in on Tuesday 18th November was that the proposal to
close three schools should be referred back to Full Council and that a cross party
group should consider in detail the cabinet decision.
At the Children’s Scrutiny meeting last Monday a motion was passed asking that the
decision on future arrangements for the Sefton Park schools should be made in public
with the opportunity for full debate. The Executive Member pointed out that advice
from Democratic Services should be sought and this suggestion was included in the
proposal. The seeking of advice should not be a smokescreen to avoid making the
democratic decision-making process transparent. Nor should it be a delaying tactic in
addressing deep concerns about the proposal and serious issues about the education of
children in the city.
I urge the Executive Member to respond quickly and positively to both requests.
Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
Liberal Democrat shadow spokesperson for CYPS
STATEMENT C (6) 1
CAMPAIGN for BETTER TRANSPORT
Bristol & Bath Travel to Work Area/SW Network,
35, Frome Road,
Bradford on Avon,
Wiltshire, BA15 2EA
STATEMENT TO CABINET
Meeting 27th November, 2008
David Redgewell has asked me to submit a Statement to Cabinet which I trust will be acceptable
in that I have been unable, via your website, to see particular items on the Agenda to which our
comments relate – apart from the over-arching one of Climate Change! Just about everything is
contained therein – congratulations for the manner in which that matter is being addressed.
1)
The most important – the priority – is for me to write to you yet again to plead for the
early formation of an Integrated Transport Authority. This Authority, had it been set up, or
moves taken to set it up, might well have subverted the recent auction of rail land within the
WoEP. CfBT are attempting to investigate the means by which the rail industry consult over
land sales such as these which may in future prove to be crucial to bringing LTP schemes
forward to improve access to stations and services. We believe there should be clear guidance
to all authorities and transport boards that they should register rail land in which they have an
interest under the terms of LTP 1 and 2 with the SWRA and GOSW. We trust you agree that
this might avert a similar occurrence in the future to the recent auction of rail land at Henbury
and Patchway – not to mention Frome.
2)
CfBT support the introduction of CPZ, so long as a first class public transport system
has been put in place prior to its launch. Again, a fully integrated transport authority would
have been ideally placed as the one to be consulted upon the BRPB auction plans. Particular
mention was made by David of the 89 bus service and Severn Beach Line, linking Clifton, to
Montpelier via Redland.
3)
Local Buses/Local Trains - Whilst we welcome Bristol City’s success at gaining
“Cycling City” status, it is felt that without an entirely robust public transport system –
particularly rail – across the entire Bristol (WoEP) Travel to Work Area, operating under the
aegis of an Integrated Transport Authority (able to set timetables and fares) it will be very
difficult to keep the people of the city, both residents and those visiting from peripheral areas,
supportive of the steps being taken. Rail is the mode of choice, as many share our concern for
the free running of bus services at all times of day, and regardless of conditions on the
motorways.
Thank you,
Anne Lock for David Redgewell
STATEMENT C(6) 2
Statement from Cllr Brown to the Cabinet meeting on 27th November 2008
relating to Agenda Item 6
I am pleased to see that the requirement to respond to the Committee’s
recommendations has also stimulated further outline Cabinet proposals. These and
their other responses are now publicly available for scrutiny.
I am pleased to see that in many instances this response document reiterates the
Committee’s recommendations under the heading “The Council will…”. Some of these
contain more detail than in the Committee’s recommendation wording and others
remain relatively outline responses.
I am particularly pleased to see the sections “Related measures shown for
completeness”. Under this heading some responses relate to items discussed by the
Committee but are now presented in greater detail than in their recommendations.
Others reflect elaborations and extensions to reflect national and regional policy
changes.
I would be grateful if the Cabinet could clarify how they intend to progress the
Committee’s recommendation 21, which relates to Policies G and RE5 of the draft
Regional Spatial Strategy. The response from the Secretary of State appeared to
delete these sections. There is clear support from the Regional Assembly for the
retention of these policies, rather than replace them with less demanding Central
Government targets. I am aware that the relevant Executive member appreciates the
significance of this alteration and, hopefully, will be working with other Councils,
especially in the West of England Partnership area, to retain the more environmentally
significant approach implicit in these two Regional Policy proposals.
As with the wording of the recommendations, I understand that the Cabinet’s
responses need to be of an outline nature in such a tabulated format. However, it
would be valuable to know which of their proposals they will be dealing with
immediately, and when we can expect fuller reports to come to Cabinet explaining in
detail what, when, and how these will be progressed. In particular, the Committee’s
recommendation 4, on “environmental impact assessments for all council policies,
decisions and projects” merits a specific report to show how quantitative assessments
will be made and presented in all relevant documents.
The welcome proposal to establish a “Merton Rule Working Group” (under Ref 3 in
Appendix 1) needs to be explained more fully, including details of membership, when
and how they will report, and what public and Scrutiny Committee input is anticipated.
It would be valuable to know what the precise remit of the Working Group will be and
whether its work will include related energy efficiency proposals, such as those of
Uttlesford District Council (Recommendation 24). Of particular importance will be the
promotion and delivery of energy conservation measures to existing properties
(implicit in recommendations 16-18 and 23 and throughout the deliberations of the
Committee) and some body (perhaps the Working Group) should be empowered to
progress this aspect.
STATEMENT C (7) 1
CYPS SCRUTENY COMMISSION, MONDAY 24TH NOVEMBER 2008
BRISTOL CITY CABINET MEETING, THURSDAY 27TH NOVEMBER 2008
“ IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN THROUGH A
COMMISSION-LED APPROACH (EXCELLENCE FOR ALL)”
JOINT REPORT OF HEATHER TOMLINSON, STRATEGIC DIRECTOR
CYPS AND JON HOUSE, DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
VIEWS OF UNISON:UNISON has a number of concerns relating to the report, not least the fact that copies
were only circulated to UNISON officials on the 12th November 2008. If the City
Council truly believes that it supports the concept of employees being in a trade
union, then the Council must allow meaningful time for UNISON and its colleagues
from the trade union movement, to consult with their members. UNISON comments
on the report below, are based purely on what information we have been provided
with to date, as there has been no time to consult with our members since the report
was distributed.
UNISON does not want to create any barriers with the proposals and formally records
that we wish to work with the City Council on this project. Initially, we had sought
approval to withdraw the report in order to consult. This request was turned down.
However, if consultation with the affected workforce is to be carried out, the City
Council has a duty to allow as much time as possible in order that all concerns raised
are dealt with.
With regards to the report itself, UNISON is alarmed to note that none of the
recognised trade unions have a place on the two “stakeholder groups”. If the City
Council is intent on transferring 467 staff across to a private company under TUPE in
a smooth manner, it can only do so with the goodwill and co-operation of the
workforce. According to UNISON’s records, we have in the region 60% membership
from the groups affected. We believe therefore that we should hold a place on the
stakeholder group, as clearly we are an interested party.
What the report does not identify, is whether the transfer of these posts will impact on
other City Council workforce areas, such as I.T., H.R., Legal Services and Payroll
Services. With such a large group facing a TUPE transfer, UNISON believes that this
will have a serious impact on other BCC sections where their workload will be
directly affected.
We are not convinced however, that the transfer will improve the Education Standards
and give full value for money. UNISON is surprised that the transfer is being pushed
through at a time when radical improvements in the service have already been
recognised. Furthermore, the report makes no reference as to how the project will link
with the bigger picture of Efficiency Savings etc. There is an old saying “why fix it
when there’s nothing wrong”. The same could be said of this proposal.
The report highlights that the City Council’s “Business Transformation” had raised
concerns and was partly the driving force for the scope of the contract in September
2008. UNISON is deeply concerned by this particular remark, because at no time on
any of the joint Business Transformation Review meetings which all trade unions are
invited to attend, has this matter been discussed. If the transfer of the workforce in
Education is seen as a template for other future services under Business
Transformation, then the City Council has to be open and clear to the trade unions
from the outset. Regretfully, this does not have appeared to of occurred in this
instance. Returning to the subject of the scope of the report, we have yet to be
provided with any clear indications as to which posts are directly affected.
UNISON nationally is opposed to privatisation of public services at any cost. We
believe that public services should not be used for profiteering by private companies.
By agreeing to transfer the workgroup, the City Council will face the inevitable
conclusion that major profits will be expected to be received by the successful bidder.
UNISON has concerns that any takeover by a commercial enterprise will not
recognise trade unions. We seek an assurance therefore, that the tendering process
clearly specifies that any successful bidder must recognise the trade unions for
negotiation rights on behalf of their members.
Paragraph 9.4 of the report claims that detailed consultation with the TU’s will take
place once the successful partner is announced. If the timeline shown under
Appendix 4 is correct, the successful bidder will be announced towards the end of
April 2009. In order to meet with the partner and to negotiate formally the “handover
process” under TUPE, we believe that 4 months until the intended start date of
September 2009 is far too short a timescale and cannot be physically achieved with
such a large work group. UNISON would refer members to the previous comments
stated in this response in that if further City Council services are to be privatised
under Business Transformation, the process used in this transfer will be seen as a
template. We believe that at least 6 months should be set aside for negotiations with
the successful partner under TUPE.
Finally, members in the report are informed that the report is to advise them on the
progress of the project to date. UNISON believes that this is somewhat contradictory,
bearing in mind that the recommendations clearly imply that members are asked to
endorse the strategy set out.
UNISON Bristol Branch
Thursday 20th November 2008
STATEMENT C(7) 2
CABINET 27TH NOVEMBER 2008
IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN (EXCELLENCE FOR ALL)
STATEMENT BY BRISTOL DIVISION, NATIONAL UNION OF
TEACHERS
If we are to improve standards of educational attainment in Bristol schools we must begin
with an objective assessment of current achievement levels. Too frequently public discussion
has been informed by anxiety about raw scores in SATs and GCSE without any serious
attempt to place these in social context. There is a widespread public conception that Bristol
will be at the bottom of any education “league table” and that the problem is a high
proportion of “poor” schools. Unfortunately, these sentiments find an echo in this Cabinet
paper.
Bristol presents a paradox. It is one of the most prosperous cities in the country yet
educational attainment in local authority schools is unexpectedly low. The explanation lies in
Bristol’s long history of social division. Approximately 25% of Bristol secondary pupils are
in private education. A further 18% attend secondary schools in neighbouring authorities.
The proportion of Bristol primary pupils transferring to Bristol secondary schools is the
lowest of any Local Authority in the country. At the primary level there is a very high degree
of private provision, particularly for those in Year 6.
Since the pupils in Bristol LA schools are not representative of the total cohort of pupils
across the city it is necessary to use another measure to assess their performance. The
Contextual Value Added (CVA) measures the progress made by a pupil, school or local
authority, taking into account the known effect of a number of factors such as gender,
ethnicity, eligibility for free schools meals and social deprivation. If we look at the 2007
results Bristol does quite well. The KS1 – KS2 score is 99.7 and the KS2 – KS3 score 99.9
(LA average is 100). GCSE results also turn out almost exactly as predicted. The KS3 –
KS4 score was 998.1 (LA average 1000). There is always room for improvement, but the
inescapable conclusion is that Bristol LA schools as whole achieve the expected results for
their pupils. In fact, this is true for almost all LAs, whose CVA scores differ only slightly
from the average, including those who are claimed to be doing much better than we are.
This is not an excuse for complacency. There is a major problem to be addressed in the
persistent underachievement of working class and ethnic minority pupils across the whole of
the education system. The solution given in the Cabinet paper is simple – let someone else
manage the process. This seems to be underpinned by two dogmas that have characterised
New Labour (a) Private provision is superior to public services (b) Anyone can do the job
better than Bristol City Council. It is ironic that we would not even have a Labour
administration now were it not for the successful campaign against Home Care privatisation.
There is a massive increase in the scope the exercise from the original proposal to outsource
about 120 School Improvement posts. This plan involves the transfer of 467 staff, practically
the whole of the central education team outside the core. This has been suggested in the
interest of “coherence”, yet if that were the objective all services would have remained the
direct responsibility of CYPS. It is also suggested that “schools” have been extensively
consulted and favour the change. We are aware that a large number of heads are so
dissatisfied with the education leadership in the Authority that they have come to support the
EfA strategy. This is not the view of the overwhelming majority of staff who will actually
have to deliver.
The paper skirts over the question of cost, implying that it is a budget neutral exercise. But
the successful bidder will not provide services for nothing and these costs can only be met
from the public purse. There are plenty of ways of developing successful strategies without
handing over all the arrangements to a separate provider. The correct approach is to improve
existing structures through a more systematic involvement of teaching staff. There is now far
less sharing of best practice among practitioners, a situation that will become much worse as
more academies are established. The signal being sent out by the Authority is that it has no
confidence in its ability to address these issues and cannot wait to hand the responsibility to
someone else, preferably unelected. This proposal is just the latest step in the abdication
process.
The concluding part of this statement has been produced entirely by staff working in
ECLAS. In any reorganisation the NUT is very reluctant to engage in what may be seen as
special pleading for a particular section of our membership. However, the case for excluding
ECLAS from the process is so strong that we believe it should be given separate and detailed
consideration.
The Education of Children Looked After Service was placed in Safeguarding following the
restructuring of CYPS. This was seen as part of building an integrated service for children in
care. The formation of the long term Children in Care teams under the BONUS
reorganisation, gave impetus to the planning of closer working between ECLAS and Social
Care in order to provide wide support for all Children in Care.
The service works to raise attainment, promote attendance and improve outcomes. This can
only be done as part of a multi-agency provision. We have increased support to social care
staff by basing staff members with the long term children in care teams in Avonvale Road
for part of the week. There is now concern among social care staff about the lack of an
education specialism within Safeguarding.
At no time has it ever been suggested that this service was suitable to be 'commissioned out'
from Safeguarding. The first time the team was aware of this was two hours before the
information was in the public domain.
We do not feel there has been any discussion about the work of the service or how it would
fit within the 'partnership'. How would data protection work in terms of the sensitive data
we currently share within the council on these children?
The focus of Excellence for All is on improvement in Bristol schools. Of the 429 current
Children in Care of statutory school age, 42% are in Bristol mainstream schools, with a
further 7% in Bristol special schools. The council has a corporate parent responsibility for all
of the children in its care. The service monitors, tracks and supports Bristol children in other
authority schools and the proposed changes would militate against this. Individual planning
is the cornerstone of improved educational outcomes for children in care as evidenced in the
emphasis placed on PEPs and introduction of Personal Education Allowances through Care
Matters.
Other concerns:
• No consultation with young people
• These proposals will fragment services between local authority providers (e.g. social
workers and foster carers) and the contracted out service where the specialism and
expertise already developed may not be effectively deployed.
• How to set performance indicators for Children in Care? This is an ever changing
population which makes target setting difficult. The number of children that come into
care with existing educational issues means that we should be moving to a measurement
of progress for each child rather than cohorts.
• ‘Care Matters’ talks about quality PEPs but would there be a target – how would this be
measured – especially for the 58% not in Bristol schools.
• EMA/Exam marking – private companies have no record of successes!
Quotes from the LGU document Children in Care August 08
However, “one size fits all” isn't appropriate at local level and authorities therefore need
through knowledge of the characteristics of their care populations (with emphasis on the
plural) and a range of appropriate strategies to improve outcomes. Especially important,
though, is having a professional workforce at all levels and in all disciplines which
understands the issues involved. The aim should be to ensure concern for children in care
becomes fully and permanently embedded in the culture of children's services as there are
few other specific issues of higher moral order for local authorities than caring for the
children and young people for which they have a degree of parental responsibility.
Corporate parenting ...... needs to be provided collectively by social services, education.....
The ECM white paper has 20 basic elements ............. it can be seen that delivering this
necessarily involves the collective approach described above.
In the view of members of ECLAS this contracting out represents a move away from the
direction of Every Child Matters and will be to the detriment of the education of the
Children in Care of Bristol
Dick North
Bristol NUT
STATEMENT C (7) 3
Excellence for all
I am writing in support of the extended scope for the contract which is being drawn up
under the 'Excellence for all' agenda.
It is my view, shared with other secondary headteachers, that the contract will significantly
strengthen the support and services provided to schools, by drawing in expertise through
an external partner and providing a coherent structure to the management and delivery of
services. We see this as a major step on the journey to improving outcomes for students
in our schools.
Clare Bradford
Headteacher Henbury School
Chair Bristol Association of Headteachers of Schools and Academies
Aspect Views on Excellence for All
STATEMENT C(7) 4
submitted to
Bristol City Council
Cabinet Meeting 27th November
Recent developments regarding the proposal to outsource staff to a “strategic partner” have
raised a number of concerns among Aspect members working within Children’s Services, and we
have been asked to bring these to your attention as it is understood that the proposal is to be
discussed with a view to reaching a final decision at the meeting on the 27th.
On behalf of Aspect members we are therefore submitting the following thoughts to feed into
your deliberations.
Communication and Consultation
Unfortunately, despite the experience and knowledge gained during the earlier consultation
exercise around the more limited proposals put forward earlier this year, a number of concerns
have nevertheless arisen around the consultation and communication with staff during this very
recent period of communication.
Aspect particularly regrets that the widened scope, incorporating a fivefold increase in the
number of staff directly affected, initially reached many staff through the media. Although clearly
such a big project is difficult to announce to everyone face-to-face at the same time, efforts to
make such arrangements would have been very much appreciated. Short of such a mechanism
being put in place, Aspect members believe it would have been far more appropriate for such
important and potentially difficult news to have been delivered through personal and direct
communications either team-by-team according to a common timescale, or if necessary at least
via personalised letters or emails.
Aspect also remains concerned that to date there has been little meaningful consultation with
unions (despite comments to the contrary in the submitted report). The efforts made to inform
representatives of the plans in advance of the general announcement have been appreciated;
however opportunities for the unions to contribute meaningfully to discussion around the
proposals have not yet been arranged. As you will appreciate, given the challenges already raised
above regarding communications with staff more generally, there has of course been no
opportunity at all, at least to date, for the unions to consult with members and feed back in a
meaningful way – whether about professional concerns or with respect to employment
considerations.
Public communications to date have also appeared to portray a perception to a wide audience
that front line staff in the authority are not fit for the role of school improvement. At a time when
there has been a 19% improvement in 5 grades A*-C at GCSE and a 9% improvement in 5 grades
A*-C (incl English and Maths) at GCSE, it is unfair and inappropriate for the message to be
portrayed that officers within the Authority are not demonstrating results and delivering against
their objectives.
Rationale behind the Proposals
There appears to be a worrying disparity between the messages being conveyed internally to staff,
and the messages being given and received externally.
Internally, efforts have been made by individual managers to reassure staff that the proposals are
a strategic response to the need to access additional resources. In contrast, the messages being
communicated to the public are viewed as containing the clear implication that frontline staff are
the problem and that these proposals have been put forward in order to tackle issues around staff
performance. Indeed, Aspect members have heard Elected Members in public fora state that the
partnership proposals are intended to help Bristol tackle poor performance from frontline
personnel. It is, of course, unclear to staff whether this disparity is due to a lack of understanding
among Elected Members regarding the rationale behind the proposals – which would be a
worrying finding – or whether the disparity is due to the existence of multiple agendas – which is
of course potentially even more worrying.
As you will appreciate, this disparity in communication raises a number of questions. Above all,
Aspect members are anxious that if Elected Members perceive poor performance by frontline
staff to be the “real problem” then the reassurances being given regarding TUPE protection, jobs
and career opportunities are difficult to trust. On the other hand, of course – and potentially
equally problematic from a Cabinet perspective – if the Elected Members really do perceive
frontline performance to be the key issue, then a TUPE-based outsourcing arrangement that
ensures protection and continuing service for existing staff clearly will not tackle those issues.
Perceptions and Performance
Finally, Aspect wishes to highlight concerns that the proposals above all – whether they are aiming
to access additional resources or to lead to serious personnel changes – appear to be based on a
misunderstanding of the most recent developments in Bristol.
It is understood that recent discussions have included frequent and very negative references to
Bristol being “at the bottom of the league tables”. While it remains clearly the case there is much
work to be done, the statistics quoted earlier demonstrate the step change that is already taking
place within Bristol.
While it remains the case that there is much improvement still to be made within Bristol schools,
it is also true that recent developments have illustrated a very important change in terms of the
direction of travel. Aspect believes the early but hugely significant developments already seen
indicate that the corner has been turned and a rapid – if as yet fragile – improvement agenda is at
least succeeding in driving the step change needed. As such, the requirement is for a stable and
highly facilitative environment conducive to acceleration of the journey already underway, rather
than yet another hugely distracting period of upheaval that could easily undermine progress for
months or indeed years.
Sizeable change can be energising, but is very often challenging and draining even when managed
very effectively and collaboratively. The dangers involved in disrupting a fragile but accelerating
improvement curve would seem to be high risk in any period. However there is also, of course, an
additional immediate economic stress impacting on children and families, school staff, the local
authority, and of course the officers themselves. At such a time of great economic uncertainty the
risks associated with such a considerable outsourcing/partnership exercise can only increase.
Summary of Aspect Submission
Aspect members demonstrate daily that they are committed above and beyond the call of duty to
ensuring the best possible outcomes for children across the city. As frontline staff confronting the
difficulties on a daily basis, there are few people in the authority more aware of the need for
ongoing and systemic improvement throughout the children’s arena, and in schools in particular.
Earlier on this year ASPECT submitted a response to Nick Jarmans’s options paper. I quote a
section of our response stating our wish to see a fourth option to be considered:
A proposal for a fourth option to be considered alongside the options already put forward.
Aspect would welcome a fourth option that would evaluate far more rigorously the current context,
and indeed the work currently carried out by School Improvement staff presently. This analysis
could include a review of OFSTED reports and the comments therein, which focus on support by the
LA, asking schools to evaluate the input by SI staff and academic results. This analysis could also
help to highlight where there is evidence that results may not have improved, but deterioration in a
particularly challenging scenario was avoided. Again, this would provide useful learning. This
evaluation should allow us to make a diagnosis and subsequently find a ‘cure’ for the ‘disease’.
Alongside this analysis, Aspect members would also like to see some recognition of the
commitment, innovation and hard work that has been put in, especially in recent years, in
responding to the difficult Bristol context. A range of initiatives have been tried; staff have
responded with commitment and dedication despite the stress and turbulence of constant change.
Yet it appears from the proposals that one of the key issues is alleged to be that senior
management has been distracted by staffing issues. In contrast many members feel that one of the
key underlying issues is that unless the right strategies are adopted, and a clear consistent
challenging vision is established – with support for staff in delivering that vision – ultimately it
matters not how hard the work is carried out, as the results will not be evident.
If there is to be change, it is essential that change is managed appropriately, and is based on an
accurate understanding of the current situation. In contrast with the picture being painted in a
number of recent communications Bristol is no longer simply propping up the league tables;
rather Bristol schools are rapidly improving and on an accelerating curve.
Aspect therefore requests that Cabinet reconsider the proposals incorporated in the “Excellence
for All” paper. It is of course essential that the anticipated benefits in terms of outcomes for
schools and children as well as any cost benefits (although it has been clearly stated that this is
perceived to be a cost-neutral move) are not outweighed by the economic risks or the difficulties
associated with the upheaval and inevitable short-term distraction.
Esther Pickup-Keller
ASPECT local representative
STATEMENT C(7) 5
Report to Cabinet 27 November 08: Improving Outcomes for Children
through a Commissioning-led Approach (Excellence for All)
I write as Chair of the 14-19 Workstream Group for Bristol. The 14-19
workstream group was established by Bristol City Council with support
from Government Office for the South West and the Department for
Children Schools and Families to lead the work of partners to ensure a
coherent contribution from all to benefit teenagers in Bristol.
I have been briefed on the proposals which are at the heart of the
report through the development stages and have carefully read the
Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee papers and the attached question and
answer sheet. I fully support these proposals and strongly believe the
rationale and key proposition outlined in the question and answer sheet
is correct:
"Though we are seeing steady improvement in the level of attainment in
Bristol schools, we owe it to children and young people in the city to
drive improvements forward more quickly. By working with an external
partner - with a proven track record of improving attainment elsewhere
in the UK - we are confident we can deliver further improvements in
teaching and learning across Bristol."
I believe the implementation of these proposals will lead to accelerated
improvement for those young people within schools in Bristol now and in
the future.
I note and offer this support on the basis that:
1.
Improvement is already being made but there is a need to
increase the speed of it.
2.
This is a partnering arrangement and the contract has been set
up to reflect this.
3.
The City Council remains responsible for the strategic direction
of this work and can hold to account the delivery partner and the head
of the service.
4.
The City Council determines the targets, performance monitoring
and framework arrangements and the right to terminate the contract if
targets are not delivered.
Keith Harrison
Chair - 14-19 Learning and Skills Workstream Group
STATEMENT C(7) 6
Item 7 - Cabinet Agenda 27th November
Statement from Lib Dem group
We are putting on record our strong concerns at the lack of consultation, co-operation or
discussion over the proposal to externalise the School Improvement Service. For some
years educational attainment had been a cross-party priority but it seems that work has
been going on for months without our knowledge or involvement.
We note the reference to "strongly argued proposals from schools" but there is no such
argument nor indeed any analysis of the current educational circumstance and no
justification of the proposals in educational terms. In the absence of any clearly argued
case or analysis either in the report or made available to us, we would put on record our
reservations. Improvement has been achieved but such improvements are fragile and
vulnerable to yet more upheaval in the services providing vital support to children's
attainment.
We note that there is no risk analysis attached to the report, nor has one been made
available to us for inspection.
We note that no evidence of the success of such arrangements elsewhere has been
provided to us or in the report and that there are clear examples of mixed success across
the country.
We note the report states that "the council would remain in tight control of these
arrangements" however no information is provided about governance or the exercise of
accountability.
We note the Leader's statements about openness, honesty and transparency yet the
future of the city's education service has been decided on the basis of secret negotiations.
In the face of such an unsatisfactory case presented here, the secrecy of arrangements
and the failure to provide any analysis of how educational outcomes are to be improved as
a result of this proposal, we would not endorse these recommendations.
Barbara Janke
Clare Campion-Smith
Bev Knott
Brian Price
STATEMENT C(7) 7
National Association of Head Teachers
Bristol Branch
Cabinet Meeting: 27th June 2008
Agenda Item: Improving outcomes for Children through a
Commissioning led Approach (Excellence for all).
NAHT welcomes the opportunity to respond to this report, which signals a significant
increase in the scope of a partnering process that started principally as an exercise
relating to school improvement services.
This response draws upon consistent themes contained within previous NAHT
submissions to officers and elected members.
Key points in this submission to Cabinet are:
NAHT welcomes the widening of the stakeholder (schools) group membership
NAHT notes the additional composition of the Project Board
Seeks assurances regarding the continued strategic involvement of headteachers
and governors in the oversight of the partnering arrangement and delivery
Seeks assurances that stakeholder groups are enabled to provide professional input
to issues raised by contractors about the contract specification.
That stakeholder groups are enabled to consult with their relevant peers regarding
the outcomes expected within the contract.
NAHT recognises the enormous disquiet that the increased scope of the proposals
has caused affected staff groups
___________________________________________________________________________
Members of Cabinet will be aware of the contents of the detailed paper submitted to
them by NAHT on 26th June. One of the core themes was centred round the
significant benefits that derive from a greater strategic involvement of school leaders
in driving the school improvement agenda. The establishment of the widened
stakeholder group is welcomed by NAHT.
It is essential that plans be laid now by the Board and current stakeholder groups as
to the nature and composition of longer-term strategic stakeholder consultation
groups of school leaders and governors, so that the process of development and
monitoring within the contract draws consistently upon the professional input from
those with whom the professional responsibility for school improvement ultimately
lies.
The point above builds upon a previous submission in which the following point was
made: “Supporting a systemic change, achieved through the strengthening of citywide collaborative partnerships between schools and other services and a utilisation
of the professional skills of leadership teams to help identify and drive school
1
improvement activity to a higher degree than currently is the case, is the key to
providing a sustainable long term solution to the school improvement agenda.”
The development of longer term consultative groups will further harness the creative
professional energy and commitment of the leaders of educational settings and
officers in working together to develop new and more effective ways of meeting the
needs of children and young people.
The current school stakeholder group has, for reasons that NAHT recognises, put
forward the view that the scope of the partnering arrangement be expanded so that a
greater coherence in the delivery of school facing services can be achieved. This has
occurred as a direct consequence of the earlier school improvement proposal, which
risked creating a reduction in coherence in the professional view of school leaders.
Viewing the scope of the proposed services to be included it is clear that the majority
of all the school facing services fall within the remit of the partner organisation. A
natural implication flows from this development, namely that school leaders will see
the partner organisation as the organisation that they will look to for vision and
leadership on all aspects of school development.
It is therefore critical that the appointed partner organisation is able to provide
visionary and innovative leadership on all aspects of school improvement and
development within the contract specification and in the context of the overarching
children and young peoples service plans.
There will be a period in the contract process in which potential contractors seek
clarification on the contract. Many of those questions may be technical and some
impact on professional issues. In the latter case it is, in the view of NAHT, essential
that the stakeholder groups be enabled to contribute professional viewpoints where
relevant.
The contact is an outcome led specification, driven by the collective will to improve
outcomes for young people. The specification structure outlines three core themes
and detailed provision within each. All will have specific outcomes within the contract.
It is essential that the outcomes are seen, and deemed by the professionals within
schools as broadly both reasonable and achievable within the specified timeframes.
It is also essential that any narrowly defined pupil performance data driven outcome
requirements do not distort the emphasis upon broader based activities in themes 2
and 3 provision which have a strong impact upon standards.
NAHT would see it as appropriate that the schools stakeholder group be enabled to
consult with their peers on aspects of the outcomes expected within the contract.
It is a matter of deep regret that manner in which staff affected by the suggested
increased scope of the partnership arrangement occurred in the way it did. They only
heard of the proposals through the media before a face-to-face meeting was held
between staff and senior managers. NAHT recognises the deep anger felt by the
affected staff and the implications this has for climate within which the current
proposed development has been unnecessarily placed. The contract timescales
mean the available time for trade union consultation and inclusion of professional
input from staff groups is severely compressed and as a result may fail to draw upon
expertise that could profitably further inform the contract specification.
Anthony Austin, Bristol NAHT Secretary, Tel / fax 01761 463339
2
STATEMENT C(8) 1
Dear Cabinet
I attended the meeting of the Bristol City Council's Sustainable Development and
Transport Scrutiny Commission this evening. They were considering the proposal to
introduce a Residents Parking Scheme, in the first instance in two "pilot areas" of
Kingsdown and Brandon Hill. (http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/pressreleases/2008/nov/proposed-residents-parking-zones-announced-.en) One of the
recommendations of the Scrutiny Commission was that the impact on business should be
carefully considered.
I am a self employed psychotherapist, seeing approximately twenty people a week for one
to one and a half hours each. As I work from home, as do very many of my counselling
and psychotherapy colleagues, I am very concerned about the impact that a Residents
Car Parking Scheme would have on my livelihood and the well being of the people
who come to see me.
Unlike a retail business I operate a strict schedule of appointments, therefore if people
cannot find parking nearby that is open to them (which at present they can), they may
miss their appointment. Being forced to use pay and display parking may discourage them
from coming at all, particularly as the most vulnerable people often find it difficult to come
for therapy.
Therefore I urge you to take into consideration both the impact on businesses such as
mine and on the community that makes use of them.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Els van Ooijen
STATEMENT C(8) 2
I am writing to protest against the proposed pilot scheme in Clifton.
As I see no benefit to the residents or business's in the area, in fact
it would have a negative affect on our local business's and is simply
not necessary. As it stands the car parking situation is more than
adequate, it has been for years and should just be left alone.
I feel this is just a money making scheme by the council and we should
have a democratic referendum before even a pilot scheme is introduced.
Kind Regards
Ashley Forbes
Resident of Clifton
STATEMENT C(8) 3
I attended the meeting of the Bristol City Council's Sustainable
Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission on Monday evening. They
were considering the proposal to introduce a Residents Parking Scheme,
in the first instance in "two pilot areas" of Kingsdown and Brandon
Hill. One matter that they did not consider was the impact on the urban
environment of the conversion of front gardens into parking spaces, a
trend that the introduction of a charge to park on the street can only
accelerate. Gardens reduce air pollution; turning them into hard
standing will therefore decrease air quality, contrary to one of the
stated objectives of the scheme. They also moderate air temperature and
absorb rainfall, so I suggest that if the pilot scheme goes ahead these
factors should be monitored in order to get a full picture of the
overall impact.
Peter Thompson
STATEMENT C(8) 4
This is my statement for consideration by the meeting.
I am in favour of the pilot scheme.I am a resident in the proposed pilot zone in Clifton
Wood
I attended Monday night's meeting at the Council House as one of the small minority who
turned up in favour of the plan. I would not have expected a larger turnout from my group the Yes/pro group - as I assume they all believed that, as the plan was selected by the
majority in the 2 Pilot Zones on a free vote, and as the Report suggested that the council
would implement the pilot, the Yes/pro people felt there was no need to turn up to the
scrutiny meeting.
It was very disturbing to see the well-orchestrated turnout from the No campaigners, very
few of whom are from the Pilot Zones. Their presence was intimidating and their behaviour
was rude, unruly, arrogant and ignorant.They were particularly offfensive and ignorant in
their references to the democratic system of local government in general and to the
method by which we were democratically consulted - the postal questionnaire.
Though the residents of the 2 Pilot Zones voted by a majority in favour of the proposal, the
No campaigners - and Councillor Abraham - still insist that there was a majority vote
against it. May I suggest that the Council makes it clear at the next meeting that schemes
will only go ahead in areas where there is a majority vote in favour. Monday night's
meeting was an example of a militant group of hardliners from Southville (which is not
subject to the pilot) trying to dictate that people in Clifton Wood and
who are
desparate for some relief from parking congestion could not have it.
These No campaigners have mounted an intensive leafletting and poster campaign in our
area in recent months. They are very intimidating people. I am concerned that the council
might bow to their suggestion that another vote be taken in the pilot areas during the
forthcoming consultation period to ask residents again if they really want the scheme.
There has to come a point where people accept that the residents of the areas have been
consulted and they have cast their vote and the scheme goes ahead. As it is a pilot
scheme it will be closely monitored to see whether it is successful. The No campaigners
are making their absurd suggestions with a view to delaying or destroying the scheme. I
trust that the council will have the courage to implement the pilot schemes on time and
with rigour.
I will attend the meeting on Thursday afternoon and would like to address the Members
Suzanne Gardner
STATEMENT C(8) 5
Dear Sir/Madam,
Yesterday I attended the Council meeting on the above.
I did vote AGAINST the scheme via the initial paper consultation that was
sent out but want to make clear my views as someone both living and working
from home in Royal York Crescent, Clifton Village, BS8.
Firstly, it is my belief that the scheme would greatly exacerbate the
problem of parking in my street and therefore the immediate vicinity too.
There are simply too many cars that RESIDENTS own, (I own one Smart car but
will not part with it due to the lack of good enough alternative public
transport services) and it is NOT the issue about hoards of commuters
parking for whole days that creates the problem in the first place. In
addition, putting double yellow lines in front of all the garages here would
severely compound the problem for the residents who in the main own these
garages in Royal York Crescent because they would no longer be able to
utilise the space in front of them. It's sheer lunacy! I realise that
parking congestion is grave in my area but the remedying of the problem lies
NOT in enforcing another stealth tax but ultimately in developing a far
better and more extensive, affordable public transport system. Then ONLY
could such a residential parking scheme ever be considered or justified.
From a point of view that affects me personally, I work from home and my
clients visit for one hour only (about 3 to 4 max per day). 90% of my
clients visit by car because there is no realistic public transport
alternative for them to come to me. It would usually mean for them catching
2 to 3 buses to get to me and an incredibly long journey for only a one hour
consultation. My clients would simply no longer use my service and my
business would be finished - guaranteed. I also know that I am not alone as
a 'sole trader' business in terms of people whose livelihoods are gravely
threatened.
As you can see from reading this, I am extremely upset about the proposal
and would kindly request that you hear my voice and those of the many others
who live and work here too. Times are hard enough without the additional
prospect of having one's business wiped out by absurd and poorly thought out
schemes such as this one.
Yours faithfully
Jennet de Caresle
STATEMENT C(8) 6
Fwd: Residents Parking Scheme Redland
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Residents Parking Schemes for my area.
The residents of Clyde Road Redland are very able to park with ease at present and
this would be changed by the knock-on affect of other areas having Residents Parking.
I reiterate, there is no problem with parking in this road and as far as I am aware no-one
has complained about it. Paying for permits to park would completely change the way
we park in this area, would prove to be stressful and would also be an unwanted extra
motoring cost. Furthermore introducing a Residents Parking Scheme in this area or
nearby would ruin my income as I am a self-employed counsellor and pride myself that
my clients can easily find parking. This would no longer be the case and I would
possibly need to relocate work making my tax contribution smaller due to paying for
clinic space, or I may otherwise need to move myself and my family for this reason. I
would like my opinion to be considered and added to the other NOs I am sure you have
already received.
Ms A Manson
STATEMENT C(8) 7
Subject:
car parking scheme
Dear Sir.
I am a resident in Hill Avenue, Bristol BS3. As it happens, I do not have a car, but I work
from home as a counsellor and therefore the ability of clients to park in my street, close
to my house, is a matter of importance to me. I am opposed to any scheme that would
make it impossible for this to happen, as it would have an adverse effect on my
business.
In addition, although there are a large number of people who communte into Bristol,
park during the day in Hill Avenue, and walk from here across the park into work, I have
not noticed there is a problem with finding adequate car parking spaces. I have not
observed a problem with these commuters, and I don't think there is a need to change
the current situation.
Yours sincerely,
Rob Porteous
STATEMENT C(8) 8
Subject:
Residents Parking Scheme
As a Bristol resident running a small **psychotherapy **private practice
in the city I wish to represent my total opposition to the introduction
of residents parking schemes as proposed by the Sustainable Development
and Transport Scrutiny Commission of Bristol City Council.* In my view
the process so far has been deeply undemocratic, never having been
presented to voters at election and with a so-called "consultation"
exercise which said "we have already decided to implement these schemes,
do you want to be first or last?" The problem is that (as the
"consultation exercise" admitted) once one neighbourhood has a residents
parking scheme, the adjacent ones will feel additional pressure on
parking and will be likely to follow. Thus a commitment to "pilot"
schemes will be a commitment to the whole city introducing residents
parking in time due to the domino effect.
Bristol is home to many counsellors and psychotherapists, together with
many complementary medicine practitioners. What we all have in common is
that we have clients who travel to see us for an hour or less usually at
some time during their working day. Often the practice rooms are
situated in residential areas, sometimes in practitioners homes. Taken
singly such practices may seem a small part of the local economy, taken
together they must be quite significant. *I am certain that the
introduction of residents parking will have a major negative impact on
all such small businesses in residential areas. *Clients will find that
there may be many empty parking spaces in the area but the few available
paid spaces are likely to be all taken. Practitioners will not have
sufficient visitors parking tokens to give to clients. They will find
that clients are unable to attend as they no longer have the time in
their day once the time-consuming search for a parking space is factored in.
The one good experience I have of an effective residents parking scheme
is in Ealing, West London. There the restriction is imposed only for two
hours a day, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. The aim is solely
to deter commuters using the streets as a park and ride (which is the
'bait' used to lure us into accepting the current proposals in Bristol).
However the Ealing scheme is appropriately and narrowly targeted. Few if
any extra yellow lines have been added, thus no spaces have been lost.
Residents driveways have been marked with white lines so that they may
park across them themselves without incurring fines (a frequent bugbear
in other schemes). Disc parking is available for visitors at 50p per
hour with little or no restriction on the number of discs available per
house. A 'light touch' scheme such as this would be a good pilot scheme
for Bristol. The draconian scheme suggested is, as far as I am
concerned, the first step on the road to parking hell.
Yours Faithfully,
Terry Davey
STATEMENT C(8) 9
Statement to Cabinet, 27th November 2008
Resident's Parking scheme Item 8
Proposed pilot - Clifton
Following the large number of questions and requests for information at the Transport and
Sustainable Development Scrutiny Commission 24th November, we would request that full
information be provided to all residents who requested it.
We consider the consultation that was carried out was flawed. We therefore propose that there
should be no decision on the Clifton pilot area until a working group - comprising residents within
the area and residents from the adjacent areas - have had a chance to look more closely at the
proposals.
Further work should include a full impact assessment on local businesses and trades, doctors,
schools and sheltered housing as well as access for supply vehicles within the pilot zone and
adjacent areas and how these needs are to be accommodated.
We would expect that, as local councillors we would be closely involved at all stages and would
suggest that regular reports be made to our local neighbourhood partnership Clifton, Clifton East
and Cabot.
Councillor
Councillor
Councillor
Councillor
Barbara Janke (Clifton ward)
Brian Price (Clifton ward)
Simon Cook (Clifton East ward)
Michael Popham (Clifton East ward)
STATEMENT C(8)10
RE Residents Parking
I would petition you to reject the pilot residential parking schemes
proposed for the Brandon Hill and Kingsdown areas of Bristol.
The submission of the committee to implement the pilot, following the
public meeting which took place on Monday 24th November, does not
reflect the public consensus at this time.
1. Only 13 per cent of the population of Kingsdown and Brandon Hill have
indicated that they want the scheme to go ahead.
2. The consultation documentation was flawed. The consultation asked
what form the scheme should take and not whether there should be a pilot
scheme in the first place. Questions were open to interpretation and as
I understand from the meeting on the 24th, the documentation was
presented to an independent marketing body who found it to be inadequate
for purpose.
In light of this the pilot should be rejected until large parts of the
consultation process have been properly conducted.
3. The councillors for Southville and Bedminster believe that if people
in a particular area want the scheme, then only they should have a say
as to whether the scheme is implemented. I would argue that if a million
pounds of taxpayers money is to be spent then all Bristol residents
should be heard.
4. The goals of the pilot are unclear. As a result it will be impossible
to say whether the pilot has been a success or failure. No exercise
should be undertaken without clear goals and measurable success
criteria.
In summary, as was clear from the majority of data collected under the
consultation scheme and from the mood at the public meeting, Bristol
residents do not want this in any area at the current time.
I would urge you to reject this proposal.
Yours,
Gregory Fletcher
STATEMENT C(8) 11
Subject:
Cabinet meeting, 27/11/08. statement -- residents parking.
I will be unable to attend the Cabinet meeting but would like to submit the following
statement to the Cabinet in respect of the residents parking scheme.
I am a resident of High Kingsdown and have experienced difficulty in parking and
accessing my home for many years due to excessive and inconsiderate commuter
parking. I was disappointed when the residents parking scheme proposed some 9 years
ago in our neighbourhood was not progressed in spite of a majority in favour of the
scheme. It is very easy for controversial schemes of this nature to get bogged down in
numerous consultation exercises where it is easy for opponents to sabotage progress.
It's a bit like Ken Livingstone's congestion charge proposal which was initially not
favoured but after implementation was strongly supported and was successful in
achieving the original objectives. This scheme has the majority support of those that
responded to the consultation in the pilot areas. I would strongly urge the Cabinet to
adopt the pilot proposals and authorise officers to work up details as soon as possible.
Let's have the courage of our convictions and get on with the details of the pilots for
implementation at the earliest opportunity.
Diana Kershaw.
STATEMENT C(8) 12
Statement to Cabinet – Residents' Parking Zones
Councillor Neil Harrison (Liberal Democrat, Cotham Ward)
My overwhelming reaction to the report before the Cabinet is that we have managed to
arrive at a sensible solution to the RPZ question. It is just a shame that the route that was
taken has been so torturous and as unnecessarily inflamed and worried so many
residents, businesses and community groups. Had these options been on the table back
in July, we could have had a far more constructive debate as a city. In fact, the proposals
which the Cabinet is considering today are similar to the suggestions which I and other Lib
Dem councillors made back at that time in the face of Labour’s one-size-fits-all imposed
system. What a shame that we were not involved at the outset!
Within the framework that I broadly support the proposals in the report, I would wish to
make the following recommendations :
1. The boundaries of the Kingsdown RPZ are not sensible in many ways and need urgent
review. For example, some houses to the north of Cotham Road are included, but not
all, while only one side out of four in Fremantle Square is included. Also, there is a
‘gap’ between the proposed RPZ and the existing CPZ in the Dove Street area, which
cannot be sensible.
2. The area immediately east of the Kingsdown RPZ (i.e. in the triangle between Cotham
Brow and Cheltenham Road) should be reconsulted to find out whether residents there
would now wish to opt-in. They only narrowly voted ‘no’ on the basis of the original
24/7 system and this is the area which will be most hard hit by the displacement of
commuter vehicles from Kingsdown. I do not know whether they would now wish to be
included, but they should be asked as their views may have changed on the basis they
will now be just outside an RPZ. I could not support the plans as they stand until
this exercise was undertaken due to the potential impact on residents in my
ward.
3. Similarly, other residents just outside the boundaries to the pilot RPZs should be
reconsulted with, partly as their views may have changed, but also as they may have
information about the area which is material to the operation of the zones. It is also
important that they have a say about how the zones operate in order to minimise the
impact on their neighbourhoods. I would expect this to include ward councillors and
residents’ associations.
4. The report is very confused about the status of the two initial RPZs. It refers to them as
‘pilots’, however, there is none of the supporting detail that one would expect to see in
the context of a pilot project. For example, pilots are time-bound and have clear
measures of success. It is not clear that either exist for the RPZs. Surely there needs
to be a process of collecting periodic feedback from residents about the success or
otherwise of the scheme – perhaps after six months and two years. Also, pilot projects
need to have exit strategies if they are unsuccessful. It is not clear how it is proposed
that the pilots would be treated in the result that they were unsuccessful. I do not feel
able to give the plans my full support until this point is clarified in some detail.
Residents need to feel confident that the ‘pilot’ RPZs are exactly that and could be
removed if they are unsuccessful or do not meet residents’ needs.
5. The commitment to Car Clubs in the report is lacklustre and unconvincing. This needs
to be strengthened. In my role as chair of the Sustainable Travel Select Committee, I
was impressed by the role that Car Clubs can have in reducing car ownership and
unnecessary car uses, removing up to 20 vehicles from our streets. The pilot RPZs
should have a specific and timescaled target for the number of Car Club spaces to
install (e.g. one per 200 households). If necessary, this should include supporting the
growth of the supplier market, potentially through short-term subsidies.
6. I am unconvinced by the failure to make a firm commitment to a discount scheme for
low income households and also by the reasons given – the change in permit costs is
marginal. Given the current economic situation, I would support a more generous
approach to supporting people on low incomes who may have strong reasons to
operate a car. The pilot areas are among the most affluent in the city, so the additional
cost of, for example, providing free first permits to benefit-dependent households,
would be minimal.
7. Serious thought needs to be given to the question of how the cars displaced from the
pilot RPZs are managed. There is an obvious danger that they will simply move to
adjacent areas outside the RPZ, exacerbating existing parking difficulties (as
evidenced by the maps showing the distribution of problematic parking). It may be
prudent to invest in additional regulation measures in the immediately adjacent areas at
the same time as the RPZs are progressing. For example, additional yellow lining of
corners and junctions would enable the traffic wardens to monitor these areas to some
extent at the same time as within the RPZ, reducing dangerous and other problematic
parking. This would lessen the negative impact for residents in these adjacent areas. I
would wish to see a commitment to considering this approach as part of the
plans.
STATEMENT C(8) 13
Residents Parking
I would like to apologise to members of Cabinet as a long arranged business commitment will
prevent me from attending the meeting to read this statement in person.
Statement
This statement is supplementary to my statement to the Sustainable Development and Transport
Scrutiny Commission which is rehearsed below for information. It follows the meeting of the
Commission on 24th November.
Democracy: Groups opposing the pilot schemes make much of the supposed lack of democracy in
the process, in particular that students were not consulted due to the holiday. So we should examine
the reality of these “lost” consultees.
The bulk of Bristol and UWE students, in common with most other university students, come to
pursue a 3 year undergraduate course leading to a degree. From the start of the consultation it was
made clear that whatever the result nothing would be ready to be introduced before the end of 2009,
indeed this is still the timetable. Thus, had students been directly consulted, 1/3rd would have been
voting on an issue that would have no effect until after they had left the city; 1/3rd would have been
affected for 1 academic year of perhaps 40 weeks and the remaining 1/3rd would have been asked
their opinion after about 1 month in the city, naturally spent on Freshers Week activities, finding
their way around and getting started on their first assignments.
Students are welcome guests in the city (I hope) but are inevitably part time temporary residents.
As such their interests are represented by the Universities, two of the most powerful lobbyists in
Bristol. Traffic issues and particularly residents parking are long term strategic issues that have
been under discussion for as long as most people can remember. It is therefore right that the student
view should be represented by the organisations that have been part of the city for longer than any
current resident.
This view is quiet clear – students should not bring cars to the inner city. The council should take
note of and assist the Universities efforts to help students by providing safe cycling and walking
facilities and in particular assisting with the UWE bus initiatives.
Meeting Attendance: The Scrutiny Commission was attended by a large number of people who
appeared to be opposed to the principle of Residents Parking anywhere in Bristol and a small
number in favour of it IN THEIR OWN AREA. It would be helpful if the council could make clear
that areas that did not show a majority in favour of a RP scheme will not get one until such time as
some future consultation shows a majority in favour and further that no such further consultation is
currently planned.
Fortunately our democracy does not any more depend on open outcry and Cabinet should continue
to heed the consultation results, both in respect of areas in favour and areas not in favour of RP.
Rehearsed Statement
Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission
24th November 2008 @ 1800hrs
Statement
I am a resident of Cliftonwood, within the Residents’ Parking proposed pilot area. I would like to
welcome wholeheartedly this scheme which is long overdue in our area.
I would challenge the arguments being put against the scheme as follows:
You will not be sure of parking near your home: This is the everyday experience of residents in
this part of Bristol and has been so for several years. Having to walk half a mile is quite common
when returning home in the evening. Gaining control of the parking in the street is the only hope of
improving this situation.
Flawed consultation: Anything done by humans can always in hindsight be better done. However
in this case the major changes made to the initial proposals show that the consultation has worked,
has been effective and the council and its officers have taken note and shown great flexibility.
The scheme as now proposed is subject to further consultation; I look forward to taking part. There
are some details which can still be improved using the knowledge of local residents, particularly in
relation to the detail of the boundaries at the south west corner. The flexibility shown so far
encourages me to believe that this can also be resolved through detailed consultation.
Multi car households: The vast majority of properties in this area front the road with space to park
one car. If one property has several cars they are in effect saying to their neighbours “we are going
to push you out”. This sort of selfish behaviour is not acceptable. I have no problem with people
owning as many cars as they wish but take responsibility and live in a property where you can park
all your vehicles without inconveniencing your neighbours.
Yellow Lines: Safety yellow lining is not, and should not be, tied to residents parking or any other
scheme. We have had numerous instances, the most recent on 1st November, where emergency
vehicles could not get close to a potentially life threatening incident due to junctions blocked by
badly parked cars.
Looking to the future there are three office buildings currently under construction, on
Harbourside, behind the Council House and on the west side of Clifton Triangle, that will between
them add almost 2,000 new commuters within a short walk of our streets. These buildings are pre
let so even in the current market they will be occupied on completion in 2009. Whatever travel
plans they may have submitted does anyone really believe that substantial numbers will not choose
the easy free parking option if it is available?
Beyond them the Harbourside development will in time continue and exert ever greater pressure if
our streets remain free. This may not be apparent if you live in a cosy back street in Clifton Village
but on the “front line” it is only too real.
James Smith
STATEMENT C(8)14
20 November 2008
. .-
.
.
-
Dear Councillors,
Representation t o the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission.
Proposed Residents Parking Scheme
We write to express concern at the residents' parking proposals in the Brandon Hill area. We
are fully in favour of a residents' parking schemegoing ahead in the area, but are extremely
worried that the area being proposed is too small. We urge the Council t o be bold and
significantly extend the residents parking zone to include all Hotwells and Cliftonwood
As residents of Clifton Vale, we fall just outside the proposed area. This is going to have a
severe negative impact on the road in several ways:
Clifton Vale will become, in effect, the first line of daily commuter parking for people
working in the city, ancj approaching from the west.
It will also, inevitably, become the long term free car park.of choice for students
from the halls of residence, who currently park in the "Brandon Hill area".
There will be even more traffic on Clifton Vale, a combination of the rat running
traffic and people looking for parking spaces.
Clifton Vale residents have long been concerned about the levels of parking and through
traffic on the road. This became a very significant issue when the Centre was closed in 1999.
The Council has done nothing t o improve the situation over the past eight years, and will
now create a significantly worse problem i f this proposal goes ahead. There will be an
increase in the volume of traffic looking for parking spaces, there will be fewer passing
places due t o the number of parked vehicles, and it is likely the Clifton Vale, a steep hill with
very tight bend will be log-jammed throughout both morning and evening rushhours. This
will impact on the traffic on Hotwell Road, due to vehicles queuing to get onto Clifton Vale.
We request, that the Commission sends back the current proposals for further work t o
include:
Further detailed consultation and subsequent modification, taking into account the
knock on effects we have described.
a
An undertaking to monitor the impact of this pilot scheme on i t s immediate
neighbouring areas and this to be assessed within the initial three month period, and
ways to be identified to make modifications, within a very short timescale.
The inclusion of traffic management solutions such as no right turn up Clifton Vale
and no right turn across Hotwell Road towards the south of the City. If these two
actions were put in place we believe traffic flow on Hotwell road would be improved
and the rat running reduced.
A timetable for extending the residents parking area to include the rest of Hotwell
and Cliftonwood, and indeed Redland and Cotham, if it cannot be done at once.
We trust you will consider our comments and look forward to working with you on agreeing
some positive solutions to our traffic and congestion problems
Yours sincerely
Sandra and Ian Fryer
APPENDIX A TO STATEMENT 14
STATEMENT C(8) 15
Subject:
Parking
To whom it may concern
I wish to voice my objection to the planned pilot parking schemes for
Kingsdown and Brandon Hill as a counselling practitioner who works locally
this will damage my business as clients will be unable to park and therefore
to attend their 50 minute sessions each week.
Gwen Newman
STATEMENT C(8) 16
Subject:
Residents Parking
I should like to have this statement either read out or noted at the Cabinet Meeting on
Thursday, 27th Nov. I understand the deadline is 12 noon today.
As a Kingsdown resident I would like to voice my support in principle for the propose
residents parking Scheme for Kingsdown. I know there is still detail to be resolved but
at last this seems to be a balanced proposal and long overdue. Bristol must be one of
the last major UK cities not to have such a scheme to benefit local residents.
As always those in opposition make the most noise, If this does not go ahead you
would think everything would be ok from there point of view, well it would not. It is not
only the obvious problem of commuter parking but parking on pavements, corners, zigzag lines etc. blocking streets for emergency and refuse and recycling vehicles.
Something the Police are either unwilling or unable to tackle.
The emphasis on Council Tax payers having priority on purchasing permits is also a
welcome move, if people do not contribute why should they have the benefits. My only
concern is to maintain the local businesses and ask for consideration to be given to the
important hospital staff who have little alternative areas to park, to do jobs we all benefit
from.
I hope the cabinet will hold its nerve and agree to this pilot scheme.
Andrew Yerbury, Portland Street, Kingsdown
CC:
[email protected]
-
STATEMENT C(8) 17
Public Forum Statement Bristol City Council Cabinet Meetinq 27 November
My home is in Bellevue Crescent Clifton Wood, where I've lived for the last 25 years. Same house,
same profession.
My street is on the frontline of the proposed resident's parking scheme.
Although I am well aware none of us has 'a right' per se to park our vehicles on the public highway, I
am overjoyed that some regulation over parkirlg in my neighbourhood might at last become a reality.
A normal term-time day in Bellevue Crescent starts around 7a.m. with commuters cruising down the
street looking for a parking space. The 'regulars' arrive early, usually one person per car, they park,
then with laptops and briefcases in hand go off down the flight of steps at the end of the Crescent to
work in Harbourside & the City.
After 9a.m. the next wave arrives. Small 'hot-hatchbacks', City of Bristol students, young ones at least
trying to be 'green', they'll often be 2 or 3 to a car. (& better parkers too!)
I confess that once or twice I've locked my car and returned to my home in order to avoid a
particularly belligerent driver wishing to park. I don't like being sworn at first thing in the morning.
During the day it's very rare to be able to return home (or even within 2 or 3 streets) to offload
children, shopping, my elderly mother-in-law or my mother who has Alzheimers and cannot simply be
deposited on the pavement and told to wait while I go and find a parking place. She won't be there
when I get back!
I should finish work at 5pm. Yes I use my car for work, I'm a public sector worker with essential-user
status. However there is little point in returning much before 6p.m.l know I'm unlikely to be able to
park until commuters/college students/lecturers have removed their cars. Frustrating on a cold, dark
wet winter's evening.
On recycling and bin-collection days chaos ensues, Inconsiderate parking by many non-residents
frequently prevents the waste-collection vehicles from gaining access to do their job. Despite the
waste collection services utilising the smaller range of vehicles to work in our neighbourhood,
careless parking over advisory 'keep clear' road markings by non-locals seriously impedes access
and results in delays to council services.
At the Council Scrutiny Committee meeting on 24thNOV.any likely improvement to emergency vehicle
access was disputed by those opposing the parking scheme, the most vocal of whom appeared not to
reside within the proposed pilot areas. A very recent example of poor parking preventing access for
the Fire Service occurred 4 weeks ago in Cliftonwood Crescent, resulting in complete destruction of a
resident's vehicle and damage to a neighbouring property. Fortunately this time there were no
casualties.
From personal and from professional experience I am fully aware of how critical a few minutes can be
for emergency services to have unimpeded access. I believe the proposal within this parkirlg scheme
for yellow-lining junctions and corners is possibly the most important element.
Clifton Wood is a small, neighbourly and diverse community. This summer in Bellevue Cres we've
l
Party. Randall Rd & Clifton Wood Crescent enjoy their own parties
celebrated our ~ 7~ n' n~u aStreet
too. The 24 hour street-closure order for our party serves to bring the community closer together by
allowing a brief respite from the rat-run, car-park mentality which prevails for the rest of the year. It's
brilliant!
I would like to ask one question regarding administration of the pilot scheme. Will the proposed further
consultation within the pilot areas be personally addressed to households by using the electoral role?
I ask because I feel it would be the fairest way to canvass opinion of those directly involved within the
areas concerned.
I urge the decision makers amongst you here today; do not be intimidated by the ill-disciplined,
extremely vocal though perhaps less than well-informed minority group who have been organised into
opposing a general parking scheme. Please focus instead on the 54.1% in Clifton Wood and the
51.1% in Kingsdown who have responded positively to these proposals before you, your council
officers acted upon those responses, your Scrutiny Committee colleagues commended the scheme to
you, we are desperate for support now from Council Cabinet.
Helen Tierney.
25, Bellevue Crescent.
Clifton Wood. BS8 4TE
STATEMENT C(8) 18
Statement from
Trevor Blythe
Cabinet Meeting 27th November 2008
Item 8
Residents’ Parking Scheme: Consultation Outcomes
Whilst I am not against Residents’ Parking Schemes per see I believe
that the one originally proposed by the Council is flawed.
The poor quality of the questions and lack of information contained in
the consultation documentation has alienated the residents against
the scheme as witnessed at the Scrutiny Commission Meeting of the
24th November 2008.
If the two pilot areas are to go ahead then firstly the boundaries must
be redrawn to fit naturally existing areas, not the illogical areas shown
on the maps. Secondly every house within the zone must be canvassed
to see if there is majority support within the zone as a whole. If this is the
case then further planning can take place.
A number of matters, that affect the scheme as a whole, still need to
be resolved.
These are:
The cost of permits for local businesses
The number of visitor permits is too low, whether paid for or not
Problems with multi occupancy houses
No resident permits for students so that students do not bring their cars
into Bristol
The first 15 minutes free parking is unenforceable
Car Club spaces
How builders etc will be allowed to park whilst working on a house etc
Lack of proposals to improve public transport to enable employees
and residents to leave their cars at home
Lack of criteria to measure whether the pilot schemes are a success
STATEMENT C(8) 19
Statement to the cabinet 27th Nov. 2008 regarding residents parking
in kingsdown
Please will you read my statement if I am unable to attend the
meeting due to childcare issues.
I live within the proposed pilot resident parking zone of cotham/
Kingsdown.
Around the boundary of my house there is enough room to park nine
cars. During the weekdays I cannot get one space here, or anywhere
within acceptable walking distance of my home. However at evenings
and weekends I have my pick of spaces. Therefore it is very evident
to me that the weekday parking problems are caused by commuters
taking advantage of free parking.
Hence I support a Residents Parking Scheme in Kingsdown. And from
opinions that I have gathered from local friends and neighbours I
believe there to be a lot of support if the scheme is right.
On the current proposal my street, Fremantle road, has a red line
down the middle I have been told that we will be consulted, and I
look forward to this. But, could I also mention that by far the
majority of people on this street have garages at the back of their
houses and therefore these people do not find parking an issue. It
is majority of those who have to rely on street parking that do.
This will also need to be taken into consideration during any further
consultation.
Lastly, I did not approve of the way that Monday’s scrutiny meeting
was taken over by those who live outside the pilot area. Please can
people respect the rights of those that live within the pilot zones
to allow our voices to be heard, to ensure that we get the best
possible outcome for our local community.
Thank you.
Hilary Jelbert
STATEMENT C(8) 20
Statement to Cabinet 27th November 2007
Kingsdown Proposed Pilot Residents’ Parking Zone
I am acutely aware after the Scrutiny Commission meeting on Monday that many areas of
Bristol are opposed to the principle of residents’ parking.
However, I believe it is apparent that the residents of Kingsdown are desperate for the
implementation of a scheme to deal with commuter parking. As such, I want to make clear
my support for the proposed pilot in Kingsdown.
A number of residents in the area have contacted me in recent days to express their
views. These messages were overwhelmingly in favour, and included comments such as:
“I am contacting you to say that I am in support of the proposed residents parking scheme.
I was at the scrutiny meeting on Monday and was disappointed that it was 'hijacked' by
people from outside the currently affected areas. They succeeded in diverting the meeting
from what should have been a proper scrutiny of opinions for and against the results of the
consultation in Kingsdown and Cotham….I do hope the vote goes in favour so that we can
open up a proper debate, within the affected areas, as to how it will operate and where the
boundaries are.”
“I attended the first 2 hours of last night’s meeting....What I became aware of as I sat in the
ante-room was that many of the people were not from the areas involved in the proposed
pilot schemes but elsewhere (the man next to me was from Windmill Hill)....Our needs in
Kingsdown and Cliftonwood may well be different from those in other areas of Bristol. That
should not prohibit those who are in the majority from having our wish put into action in
Kingsdown...Please persevere with RPZ in Kingsdown. I have lived in Kensington &
Chelsea and it does work.”
“We are pleased to see that, in the recent consultation, a majority of residents voted in
favour of that view, with only a small percentage totally against. The next stage, as we
understand it, will be a public consultation on the details of possible implementation and
we would be very pleased to be involved in this to ensure that the scheme is successful
and meets the objectives we conveyed to you at the meeting, which include safe and
unobstructed access for residents of the area, service vehicles and the emergency
services.”
“As a Kingsdown resident I should like to register our support in principle for the proposed
pilot Residents Parking Scheme. Most of the coverage from members of the public seems
to be negative, which is not unusual those against something make the most noise.”
These comments speak for themselves, and coming directly from local residents, are
hopefully more persuasive than anything I might say.
I urge you therefore to proceed with the proposed pilot in Kingsdown.
Alex Woodman
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Cabot
STATEMENT C(8) 21
I would like to make the following statement at the meeting on Thursday 27th
November.
It would seem to me that the initial consultation was flawed, in that the
questions asked did not give the objector the chance to give a definitive
"no" answer and that the questions were leading to say the least, leaving
anyone who did not agree with the scheme to appear to be undecided.
Having lived in an area of London that went through exactly the same
exercise and eventually had the scheme "imposed" against the wishes of the
majority of the residents, I can say with confidence that CPZ's always
result in the availability of parking spaces for residents being reduced.
This is because of the need for yellow lines extending round corners and the
need for "passing place" to name but a few. The scheme turned what was a
parking nuisance into a parking nightmare! What's more neighbouring areas
who did not previously have a parking problem and who did not get a CPZ
imposed suddenly did have a parking problem because those who could not park
in our area had to find alternative places. So it was creeping death!
I attended the meeting at the Council House on 24 Nov 08 and was appalled at
the apparent lack of preparation done by the scrutiny committee, who clearly
had not anticipated the number of attendees and the majority of strong
feeling against the proposal. Having listened to the strength of feeling
against the scheme and agreeing with the majority of arguments against I was
astonished to hear that the committee then agreed that the proposal should
go ahead to the next stage. What on earth is the point of inviting the tax
paying residents and business people to voice their views only to ignore
them and go ahead in any case?
It would seem clear to me that the council should scrap the original
consultation and start again, handing over responsibility for the wording of
the questionnaire to a professional and impartial third party.
Sheila Matthews
STATEMENT C(8) 22
I am writing to you to oppose the plans to introduce permit parking in
Clifton, which I feel very strongly about.
The problem with parking in the area is due to the number of split houses
(ie. flats) in the area and too many cars - this will not be solved by
introducing permit parking. We will still have the same number of cars on
the road. At the moment, you can always find a space either in your street
or a street nearby - I do not want to have to pay to park my car in the
area. I also do not want to have to pay for my friends and visitors to park.
I do not want to see Clifton full of yellow lines, traffic wardens and all
the politics that this brings.
You need to listen to the people who live in the area - most people are
vehemently against it and feel very angry that the council seems to have
already made their mind up about this, before consulting the residents who
this scheme will effect.
We do not want permit parking in Clifton.
I will not be able to make the meeting on Thursday at 4pm as I work, but I'd
appreciate my comments being put forward to the cabinet.
Kind Regards
Gabrielle Kuzak.
STATEMENT C(8) 23
I am a Clifton resident (5 Richmond Park Road) and would like to express
my extreme opposition to this ill-thought out plan.
The point I would like raised relates to the questionnaire which was
recently sent out. Having read the documentation my reaction was
initially favourable. However, it soon became clear that the information
in the pack told only half the story. I wrote to the council via its
website to retract my 'yes' vote yet have heard nothing in response.
Please can you confirm that all those people who have written or write
in the future withdrawing previously given approval, will be counted and
their names moved from the 'yes' column into the 'no' column?
In particular it was not clear to me that once in operation drive ways
would no longer be usable. We live in a house divided into 3 flats. We
have a driveway but it is not wide enough to park a car in easily and in
any case can only fit one car in. Consequently the owners of the flats
share the space between them. This is a valuable resource and ensures
that at least 1 car belonging to the house is able to be park nearby.
Losing this space would be a disaster. Pressure on spaces is already
tight (but manageable) but after the scheme comes in there will be even
fewer. The amount of cars won't reduce. People who need a car now will
need a car next year (unless BCC has some fantastic public transport
scheme afoot) there will just be fewer spaces. And despite a far worse
parking arrangement, we will be forced to pay more (on top of some of
the highest council tax in the country).This is a disgrace
The council represents us and should make sure it listens to us.
Kind regards
Marc
STATEMENT C(8) 24
I have attended the meeting yesterday and consider the action being
considered is not appropriate to bring in the pilot scheme for residence
parking. I have listened to the reasons why and consider the questionnaire
loaded in favour of the scheme. I believe an independent body should be
given the task to creating a survey again that in more fare questions and
answers and publicising the results. There are many answered questions and
MANY objections.
If this residence parking is to create a better parking environment why not
spend the£1.2 million proposed on public transport to elevate the commuters
situation in turn creating parking for the residence as commuters will use
public transport. Residence parking will only push the problem further out
to surrounding regions.
Please put a stop to the unjust scheme. We do not have a parking problem in
Clifton Village. I look forward to your reply.
Charles Halden
STATEMENT C(8) 25
I would like to make the following statement on the subject of
Residents parking at the meeting on Thursday 27th November:
"I am deeply concerned by the lack of due diligence that has been
carried out by the Council on this matter. Despite public
acknowledgment of a flawed consultation, and themselves describing the
scheme as "Draconian", "Crass", and "of poor quality" Council members
still felt happy to cast their votes on the basis of that evidence
with no call for further sound research. At best this is unscientific
and at worst it's unprofessional and undemocratic. This flagrant
disregard for democracy was further exemplified by the time scale
permitted for the public to pose questions and cast statements for the
meeting. I am also staggered that a protest of the scale and
sophistication as has been mounted here can be so completely and
utterly ignored, further making me question the legitimacy of this
Council.
"I would also like to counter the posed arguments in favour of this
scheme: I believe very few streets across Bristol have the problem of
access issues for emergency vehicles, something which could be very
simply solved with two yellow lines down one side of the road. As for
the example of the fire engine unable to access a fire at four in the
morning - it was four in the morning.....how many commuter cars would
have been parked there then? These would have been residents cars and
to presume that in an affluent area like Clifton, a financial penalty
for owning one, two or three cars is going to reduce the number of
cars parked on the streets is utterly naive. It is clear to me that
this is another revenue generating exercise, motorists are being
penalised without the provision of a realistic, viable alternative and
as a motorist I for one am sick of being treated like a cash cow by
Government."
"I think Council members need to be reminded that we provide them with
their position to represent our views. What is being questioned here
is far more significant than parking permits, but the very principle
of democracy and whether our basic human rights have been upheld.
"Finally a question to council - according to the Human Rights Act
1998, if you are the victim of a maladministration by local government
that affects you financially you are entitled to remuneration. If this
affects my business as I suspect it will I would like to know what
compensation I would be entitled to?"
Yours sincerely
Laura Barrell
STATEMENT C(8) 26
I live in Cardiff and commute daily to work on the Whiteladies Road. I struggle to park as it
is. If residents' parking permits are introduced, then I will probably have to give up my job
and work in Wales as I cannot afford to park in the local Sainsbury's car park in addition to
paying for the petrol to drive the 80 mile round trip and the bridge toll of £5.30 each day.
Regards
Liz Crawford
STATEMENT C(8) 27
I live in Backwell and work in Clifton for a firm of surveyors.
If you bring in the resident's parking permits then quite frankly, I will loose my job along
with many others.
There are buses and trains from Backwell to Bristol but not directly to Clifton. The trains
that run to Temple Meads from Clifton do not run frequently enough and at times that
would mean me having to leave my job around an hour earlier. The bus is not an option
because of the amount of traffic running through the city centre, I would miss my train, no
doubt about it. Even more importantly, I need to be able to get home quickly as I have a
daughter. It currently takes me just 30 mins max to get home compared with an 1½ using
public transport. This would mean I would not be able to pick up my daughter in time from
her child minder.
I do not, as with many others, have an option of getting another job as there currently, as
you know, no jobs out there.
The jobs that are, will not pay what I am currently earning and in turn will mean I will not be
able to pay my mortgage and bills which will then lead to me loosing my home.
I have read both sides of the argument and there really does not seem to be any good
reason why the resident's parking should be brought in. It is quite obvious it is just a
money making exercise. In this current economic crisis, it is ludricrous to even think about
loading more expense onto household bills as the cost of these permits will do and forcing
people out of jobs with no jobs to go to is just crazy.
I am not the only person who will suffer, there are lots of people who drive in from towns
outside of Bristol and they too will be put in a situation whereby they will loose their jobs
because of this.
The parking situation is currently absolutely fine the way it is - As people who work in
Clifton drive to work, the people who live in Clifton leave to go to their places or work which
enables us to park. When we leave to go home the residents are on their way home and
they are then able to park. - THERE IS NO PROBLEM!!!!
YOU MUST NOT LET THIS PROPOSAL GO THROUGH - IT IS COMPLETELY
LUDRICROUS AND AN UNACCEPTABLE IDEA THAT NOBODY WANTS.
YOU MUST LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE - MANY PEOPLE WILL LOOSE THEIR JOBS
BECAUSE OF IT AND IN TURN THEY WILL LOOSE THEIR HOMES.
HOW YOU CAN EVEN CONSIDER DOING THIS AT THIS CURRENT TIME IS
ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ME.
Karen Slee
STATEMENT C(8) 28
I have felt compelled to write to you to ask you to review the decision
to impose Car Parking Contolled Zones in Kingsdown and St Michael's
Hill.
Undounbtedly much of the problem in these two areas is down to student
use of car parking, but I appreciate that it is very difficult to
police. However, much of the car parking and congestion issues of North
West Bristol could be alleviated if students did not bring their cars to
Bristol. This however would require a viable public transport
alternative.
CPZ's are a huge threat to businesses. Park Street is a barometer of
the health of the Bristol retail market. Many of the retailers are
teetering on the brink and some are now failing. The loss of access to
the shoppers at a time when Cabot Circus has arrived could be the death
knell for secondary retailing locations such as Park Street and St
Michaels Hill.
The imposition of CPZ's is unfair and will merely increase pressure on
adjoining non-CPZ areas.
I strongly urge you to abandon this wholly unwelcome measure.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Hardwick
STATEMENT C(8) 29
We live in Leigh Road BS8 2DA.
We realise that there is a significant parking problem in Clifton. We
are not opposed to a parking scheme and if there is a modest cost we
accept this.
The questionnaire that we received and returned was poorly
constructed, offering inappropriate options. Decisions should not be
based on this.
Our main concern relates to yellow lines across drives.
In the evenings parking relates to Clifton residents, not commuters or
shoppers. Parking is normally nose to tail even in the evenings
during University terms. If we cannot park across our own drive we
may not be able to park nearby. At least now we can park across our
own drive.
I gather we may have the choice as to whether we have a yellow line or
not across our drive. This is not a satisfactory resolution of the
problem. If some drives have yellow lines across and others do not
then drivers might conclude that it is permitted to park across drives
without yellow lines. Surely all we need is a rule that you do not
block people's drives (whether they happen to be parked in them or
not).
The scheme as proposed deprives us of a space at our own front door.
Please do not let it happen.
Yours sincerely
Michael Butterfield
STATEMENT C(8)30
RESIDENTS' PARKING SCHEME
Maggie Shapland, 97 Princess Victoria St, Clifton BS8 4DD
CPZ will destroy the dynamics of a system that works in the majority of the area, and lose parking
spaces thus causing more problems. I do agree however that something should be done about
emergency vehicle access. What about the effect that implementing pilot areas will have on
neighbouring areas which are all coping at the moment?
• It is depressing that paragraph 30 reads Should any surplus arise, it will, as required by law, be used to
support other transport initiatives such as park & ride. So what happens to the commuters and visitors
who will not be able to park? No more facilities are to be provided for another 6 years or so, if at all. A
huge amount of money is to be spent on this scheme which could be spent on improving public
transport and new parking areas.
• statement 31 is the most telling- doing nothing is not considered an option because it would be contrary to
council policy. This is before it has been discussed at cabinet! It admirably demonstrates that it is a
foregone conclusion despite anyones comments
I Analysis
I am a database consultant so was interested to see the analysis. I wish to reinforce the following points:
• The results demonstrate the Council are pushing through a policy that the majority do not want- look at
all the yellow and brown patches. The maps are pretty and look professional but belie the results.
• I found the analysis very confusing. Results were given which bore no resemblance to what was asked,
and there was not a full analysis of the few questions that were asked. Nor was there a breakdown of
number of responses by area to see if the figures were significant. It demonstrates lack of thought into
the enormity of the decisions about to be made.
• Why not ask in the questionnaire:
• how many permits likely to be required?
• How many cars do you have?
• How many off-street parking spaces do you have
• Figure 3- The graph and title "percent of respondents who ticked no need for a scheme, parking
is not a problem" is misleading. These respondents had disagreed to a scheme. Just because they ticked
a box did not mean to say they wanted something doing about it, far from it.
• percentage values in the text for Kingsdown and Brandon Hill are totally inconsistent with the graphthis is very misleading and gives little confidence in the report. The graph is split by super output areas,
pilot zones cover different areas. There is no rationale and the figures for choosing pilot zones are
very marginal.
• Why not St Mary Redclife that has 56.3% wanting a scheme?
• Why were census area populations and car ownership per household not given in the Council
report?
• Why were not details given about the pilot zones? I realize the areas were chosen by postal code
but we do not know how many in these zones strongly disagreed.
• How many cars can be parked in each pilot zone? Don't know
• Nov pilot 07: This theoretically demonstrates how difficult it will be to park, showing many
spaces will be lost due to change of parking rules. It is difficult to calculate actual loss of
spaces. Pilot zones Kingsdown and west of Jacobs Wells already targeted
• Kingsdown pilot zone has 1600 properties. - encompasses bits of other census areas. The
census shows 1.01 cars per household. Nov 07: .43 spaces per car is proposed here and .39
spaces per household. How will this be reconciled?
• Apparently 51.1 support a 24/7 scheme. hardly a resounding majority and the area is
only enforced during the day so residents who cant park at night are paying for something
that will not protect them
•
•
•
•
figure 2 shows 62.5% east of Jacobs Wells support a 24/7 scheme, an area besieged by
commuters and U WE students during the day and revelers at night, but also significantly where
a lot of new flats have been built with inadequate parking. It is adjacent to a controlled parking
zone. The pilot zone is not here though but west of Jacobs Wells!
Brandon Hill pilot zone(confusing name) has 1700 properties. Encompasses Lower Clifton Hill,
Cliftonwood and part Hotwell East. These areas own on average .99 cars per household. Nov
07: .87 spaces per car is proposed here and .6 spaces per household
• Apparently 54.9% support (55.6% Lower Clifton Hill, but only 49.4% Cliftonwood and 35.6%
Hotwell East
support) - again hardly a resounding majority, and confusing.
The residents west/east of Jacobs Wells need protection from the vibrant night life and
weekend economy but the scheme only goes upto 9pm, and not on Sunday
Note super output sizes and area- Council suggested 300-500 for current 2008 scheme. Now
revised to a minimum of 1000 How many cars can be parked in each zone? What will be the
ratio of cars per space? I show the census figures.
Zone
Kingsdown
Centre+
Harbourside
Cabot
Hotwells E
Populatn
1622
1742
Household
753
754
No car
204
227
1 car
380
385
2 car
137
120
3 car
21
17
4+
11
3
Total cars
764
706
Car/hh
1.01
.94
9604
1522
4122
725
745
516
480
.93
Clifton
10,452
(2004
10,995)
1493
4,670
42
12
(1.66%)
11
(1.48%)
7
(1.36%)
71
(1.52%)
1
1359
121
27
(3.72%)
27
(3.62%)
24
(4.65%)
203
(4.35%)
744
Clifton wood
519
181
(24.97%)
133
(17.85%)
67
(12.98%)
972
(20.81%)
.83
1.18
1485
1820
363
(50.07%)
351
(47.11%)
245
(47.48%)
2,278
(48.8%)
3428
856
Hotwells
1619
142
(19.59%)
223
(29.93%)
173
(33.53%)
1,146
(24.5%)
5,149
1.1
770
10
(1.55%)
72
(1.61%)
530
.82
4,477
24
(3.12%)
10
(1.55%)
188
(4.2%)
1.02
9,538
(2004
9,862)
19,9990
13554
410,500
141
(18.31%)
71
(11.01%)
851
(19.01%)
789
645
411
(53.38%)
315
(48.84%)
2,159
(48.22%)
5 (.65%)
1515
189
(24.55%)
239
(37.05%)
1,207
(27%)
4,758
1.06
2353
2598
46,674
(28.8%)
4437
2922
75,561
(46.62%)
1823
844
32,352
(19.96%)
391
130
5,790
(3.57%)
143
9907
5000+
165,334
1.08
.77
1.02
Queens Rd
Lower Clifton
Hill
Clifton East
BS82001
BS81981
Bristol
9147
6494
162,090
1,713
(1.06%)
2 Parking across garages and driveways
• We want to stop proliferation of new front garden parking. This will encourage it
•
If there is a parking bay across the driveway it is against the law to park there if it will cause
obstruction to the occupier. Several Councils charge twice the normal fine and put up notices to
remind people about obstructing driveways. I hope indicative keep clear will be clear.
• Will there be a check of which dropped kerbs still guard off-street parking?
• Why is it not possible to check from the permit whether it is the owners car outside? Other cities protect
obstruction of garages/driveways without owners permission, why not Bristol? It is against the law and
has always been against the law
The Traffic Management Act of 2004 confirms that it is illegal to park next to a dropped kerb in a special
enforcement area...An exception is when you are parked outside residential premises by or with the consent
(but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises.
In order that residents can decide whether to have yellow lines outside their garage/driveway or keep clear
lines:
Currently if someone obstructs ones garage, it is a Police matter rather than Council matter. I believe it
will become a Council matter once there are enough enforcement officers. If enforcement finishes
after 5pm as proposed in Kingsdown, does this mean no one will remove offending vehicles after that
time if the owner has to get their car out ?
If my garage is obstructed on a Saturday or a Sunday it can be very difficult to get the obstruction
removed to get my car out. I have three bollards and a sign saying No parking at any time. Since the
report says that permits depend on if the residents have off-street parking, they should be helped
more?
If there is a parking bay across the driveway it is against the law to park there if it will cause
obstruction to the occupier. Several Councils charge twice the normal fine and put up notices to
remind people about obstructing driveways. Will this happen in Bristol?
I hope indicative keep clear will be clear to prospective parkers? Or will it just be a different coloured
line? I was originally told that there would only be lines everywhere- yellow to show you cant, beize to
show you can
Will there be a check of which dropped kerbs still guard off-street parking?
If someone has a garage which is no longer usable, or that they can not use it, will the people who
paint the lines make a check before drawing appropriate lines?
who will be responsible for removing obstructing cars- the Council or the Police and what hours will
they operate?
3 Permits
• permits are vehicle specific so:
• if I get a car out of my garage I cannot leave it in the street if I put my car with a permit in
my garage to do some work on it.
• If I hire a car because my car with a permit is away being fixed where can I leave it? Do I have
to pay?
• If you have your own off-street parking you may only be able to purchase one permit regardless of type
of people in the household.
• Type of vehicle should be considered- what if it does not fit into garage- eg a van
• Where are you supposed to keep the second vehicle if it is still needed
• No more definitions in update. Is there a distinction between bedsits and flats?
• Recent developments will not be eligible ,for permits:
• what does recent mean?
• *here re these people supposed to park if they have bought a house with no garageplanners only worry ut cycle spaces with current planning apps in Clifton.
• will this help stop the flood of coach house conversions to houses with no garage? Doubt it
• can we encourage planning apps with garages now? The answer is no- it is against government
policy
• what does business use mean? does it mean business in the zone during the day?
• Is there a limit as to how many business permits can be bought?
4 Zones
• Where is one supposed to park if one cant park in ones own zone?
• Someone who works all over Bristol as an engineer in a van won't be able to park if not in local zone.
5 Clifton Traffic and Parking Study, Severnside Research and Consultancy Unit
Look at the 1991 report of the Clifton Traffic and Parking Group. Comments from that are as much
relevant to today. The surveys that were carried out then should be repeated
• Around 70 per cent of residents supported measures that would provide new or additional parking.
• Businesses tend to use their off-street parking spaces intensively during the day but spaces are
often left empty at night when they could be used by the public..
Please let us have a credible study and let the Cabinet see more detail before they come to a conclusion
STATEMENT C(8) 31
I note that the proposed Residents Parking scheme for Brandon Hill excludes Charlotte St
South and Queen's Parade. This is despite many representations and a petition from the
residents of Charlotte St South (copy enclosed). I would like to ask the Council why they
have decided to exclude these central, but residential, areas of the city.
David Stansbie
Mr G Firth
Parking Services Manager
Bristol City Council
Council House
6, Charlotte St South
Bristol BS1 5QB
01179227006
Bristol
[email protected]
29th April 2008
Proposed Controlled Parking Zones in Bristol
Dear Mr Firth
We are owner occupiers and residents of Charlotte St South and its immediate
environs and welcome the proposal for the introduction of Residents Parking Zones in
BS8 and BS6. However, we hope the scheme will also apply to residential areas of
BS1 such as this. We welcome the reduction of unnecessary use of private cars in the
city centre in accordance with Bristol’s Parking Strategy and hope that this will have a
beneficial effect on noise pollution and air quality. We look forward to: designated
residents parking areas, multiple permits per residence (at differential rates) and a
scheme to enable visitors to park occasionally. We would be happy to be a pilot
scheme for such a proposal and welcome the opportunity to discuss any issues that
might arise.
Yours truly,
Dr & Mrs David Stansbie
Prof & Mrs J Vincent
Mr & Mrs D O’Connell
Mr C Hookey and family
Mrs J Droy and Mrs B Ward
Prof and Mrs N Lieven
STATEMENT C(8) 32
PLEASE READ THIS STATEMENT OUT ON MY BEHALF IF I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND
DUE TO CHILDCARE COMMITMENTS.
I support the proposals for the introduction of a residents parking scheme in Kingsdown.
Many residents have been asking for this for years. It is a relief to know that our voices
are being heard and that Bristol City Council is taking notice of the misery we face as a
result of commuter traffic and parking in our historic neighbourhood.
At previous meetings and through press reports many people may have formed a view that
residents in Kingsdown are almost unanimously against the proposals. Council members
should be aware that this is not the case.
At the Scrutiny meeting on Monday 24th November the majority of representations from
the public were from people who live outside the proposed residents parking zones.
Backed by vocal 'No' campaigners their well rehearsed arguments and occasional
histrionics succeeded in directing attention away from a proper debate about the views,
both for and against, of residents affected by the schemes.
These 'No' campaigners, most of whom also don't live in the proposed areas, are vocal
and articulate and have successfully grabbed press attention. But they do not represent
the views of the people of Kingsdown.
Look beyond the 'No' lobby's hyperbole and you will find there is tremendous support for
these proposals in Kingsdown.
Deborah Davinson
STATEMENT C(8) 33
Attached is an extract from our Neighbourhood Watch newsletter, which I would like to
submit to the Cabinet Meeting this Thursday as a statement and evidence in favour of the
proposed residents pilot scheme
Regards
Stephen Perry
CLIFTON WOOD
NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH
NEWSLETTER
November 2008
HALLOWEEN CRIME WAVE
Clifton Wood was hit by a wave of crime on the night
Halloween. The worst consequence was the distress caused
the residents of Clifton Wood Crescent by a car fire.
happened at 4:30 am on the Saturday morning of
of
to
It
1st
November. As the residents peered out of their top windows
they say they saw a girl and a boy trying to “hotwire” the car
and in doing so cause a spark that set the car alight. The
police told the residents that the youths had shortly afterwards
unsuccessfully tried the same hotwiring technique with another
car a few streets away, this time without setting it alight.
The two houses nearest to the burning car suffered damage
causing paint to peel, cracked panes of glass and inside one
house melted paintwork. It was fortunate that the car did not
cause serious fires in the two houses or the adjacent cars.
The Nissan Micra was owned by another resident in Clifton
Wood Crescent and the fire left only a shell. It was apparently
an hour and a half before fire service was able fully to
extinguish the fire.
FIRE SERVICE HINDERED
One of our street contacts there, Paula Parker, said “there was
damage to the nearby houses and cars, although amazingly
our car was parked next to the burning one and we seem to
have escaped with just a warped number plate.”
“It was quite scary, particularly as it took a while for the fire
brigade to arrive. They couldn't fit the engine up the road, but
ran hoses from Church Lane. They did say, however, if it had
been a house fire then they would have moved/bumped cars
out of the way to get up the road.”
Andrew Woodwark, whose front door was scorched by the fire,
said “it took the Fire Service 10-15 minutes to roll the hoses up
the road. If they’d been able to bring the fire engine up the
road thousands of pounds worth of damage could have been
avoided.”
PLEA TO CAR PARKERS
Andrew Woodwark asked people to think twice before they
park their car and to bear in mind how long it might take the
fire service to put a fire out in their own house if its way is
blocked by badly parked cars.
In our narrow streets it is hard at times for ambulances and fire
fighting teams to gain access. The Council has plans to
introduce more double yellow lines in our area but this will not
happen in the immediate future. In the meanwhile, we need to
take the greatest care not park where it will make access to our
roads difficult for emergency vehicles. Elsewhere, we should
park as close to the pavement as possible. Lives and property
are at stake.
STATEMENT C(8) 34
STATEMENT TO THE CABINET MEETING – 27TH NOVEMBER 2008
I am a resident of Clifton Wood and live in the proposed pilot area for a residents
parking scheme in Brandon Hill and Clifton.
I fully support the proposals being put in front of the Cabinet and consider the
plans to be very well conceived. Our area suffers from chronic car related
difficulties resulting in a serious lack of parking spaces and the consequent lack
of access for emergency and service vehicles. Our area, being adjacent to the
CPZ and having roads that are very narrow and winding, struggles every day with
parking problems exacerbated by shoppers, commuters and multi-occupancy
house with many cars.
Two months ago my wife called the ambulance emergency service for fear I
might be having a heart attack. The ambulance could not gain access to my
road. I was and am very unhappy about this. It was the second such event in
my road within a year and I know there have been many others like it in nearby
roads.
Clifton Wood is not like many other areas of Bristol and has an especially acute
need for a residents parking scheme. We are a special case. I think that if there
had been a vote on the proposals as now amended that the survey result would
have revealed a majority in favour of the scheme that would have been even
more overwhelmingly in favour than it was.
Stephen Perry
STATEMENT C(8) 35
26th November 2008
Dear Councillor Bradshaw,
Bristol City Council Cabinet Meeting 27th November 2008 – Item 8
Residents Parking
As a resident with a young family in one of the proposed pilot parking scheme
areas I am writing to say that I fully support the Council’s approach to this
difficult issue. I look forward to the implementation of the scheme.
Ms. H.D. McCloy
STATEMENT C(8) 36
Keep Parking Free
Statement to Bristol City Council Cabinet Meeting
27 November 2008
Residents’ Parking Scheme Proposals
I listened carefully to the comments by councillors and officers at the Scrutiny
Commission meeting earlier this week and I think anyone there could be
excused for concluding that, in the minds of a number of those councillors and
officers, the plan for a Residents’ Parking scheme across the city is a done
deal. Pilot schemes first, followed by a roll out across the rest of the city,
regardless of the views of everyone who lives and works here.
I hope that is not the case and that this cabinet, at least, is willing to listen to
reason - for that is what democracy is about.
It will be said that the people have spoken and that in the 2 proposed pilot areas
a majority of people are in favour of the scheme. It will be said that there is clear
support from residents for the two schemes being proposed in Kingsdown and
in Clifton Wood.
I cannot see how it is possible properly to reach that understanding.
The only way to reach such a conclusion would be as a result of a well
constructed and fairly conducted consultation. We have not had that.
But you don’t need take my word for it. You can read it in the words of others
and what you have seen with your own eyes.
When the consultation documents were published towards the end of June this
year there was widespread amazement that the executive had not seen fit to
discuss it first with even the councillors who represent the wards affected.
Barbara Janke, the leader of the largest party on the council and councillor for
part of the proposed Clifton pilot zone, complained at a public meeting in front of
more than 200 people that she had not had sight of the consultation documents
before they were sent out.
Simon Cook, former Lord Mayor and also ward councillor for part of the
proposed Clifton pilot zone, has stated publicly that had he seen the document
before it was sent out “it would certainly have not gone out in this form.” He said
it was phrased very poorly and the questions were vague.
Simon has said further that public remarks made by the Executive member
“demonstrate how out of touch this administration is with the residents of Clifton
and other areas that were consulted.”
Neil Harrison, whose Cotham ward includes part of the proposed Kingsdown
pilot area, and who has expertise in the field, has explained at great length
about the quality of the consultation and has described it as “either a sham or a
shambles”.
At the Scrutiny Commission meeting that I mentioned there seemed to be a
general acceptance amongst the councillors who form the Commission that
there were substantive flaws in the consultation. Indeed, in an answer to a
question submitted to the meeting, Cllr Woodman, the Commission's Chair,
stated that he "was disappointed with the quality of the consultation".
We sent the documents to a number of household names in the opinion
research industry – people who are experts in the field of collecting information
on public opinion. Here are some of their comments:
“I ...would agree that there are serious flaws in the questionnaire, that the
exercise lacks objectivity and makes unwarranted assumptions”
“Your concerns are definitely justified. The survey does not appear to be
particularly balanced; only really focusing on the advantages of the scheme
without contextualising the disadvantages. The wording as well suggests people
need to answer the questions a certain way.
”Question 1 is a poor question. It is not at all clear how people should answer if
there is enough space sometimes but not always”
“Question 3 is a bad question – one of the first rules of questionnaire design is
that the answer should match the question!” “The sheer amateurishness of this
and other questions will deter people from completing the questionnaire at all”
“Question 5…is both a leading question and almost an implied threat.”
In short, the quality of the consultation documents – and therefore the validity of
the results – was inadequate.
However, it gets worse.
Bristol has two major universities and a large population – both students and
staff - whose lives revolve around the academic calendar.
There is a belief, at least in some parts, that students should not have cars and
certainly Bristol University discourages students from bringing cars to the city.
However, students and, of course, staff are people and democracy works for
them too. To carry out a consultation, especially in areas substantially occupied
by university students and staff, entirely during the summer vacation beggars
belief! That the consultation started the very day that Bristol University’s
summer vacation started makes it almost impossible to believe this was some
sort of unfortunate accident.
It is not possible to put any reliance on any set of results derived from a
consultation carried out when a significant part of the population was missing.
I would like to say something about the costs of these proposals.
Even if the Council thought the idea of charging residents, visitors and
businesses to park was good 18 months ago, or a year ago, or even 3 months
ago, the situation has changed. We are in the midst of the worst economic
situation this country has seen since the 2nd world war. People are losing their
jobs, their businesses and their homes. Even major corporations are suffering.
Who would have dreamt of the Halifax going bust a year and a half ago?
The Government has responded with unprecedented action – reducing taxes,
bringing interest rates down to historically low levels and a whole range of other
measures.
Yet the Council is considering spending well over £1million and increasing the
cost pressures on huge numbers of people, for something people don’t want
And they don’t want it! Even from the results of this questionnaire an
overwhelming more than 90% of the areas asked said “no”. And yet the report
to this meeting talks of the zones proposed for Clifton and Kingsdown being
“two initial areas for the development of pilot residents’ parking schemes.”
It is hard not to read into this that these two zones are seen as the thin end of
the wedge.
At the October 23rd meeting of the Scrutiny Commission, it was suggested to
members by a senior officer, that anyone who hadn’t returned a form could be
counted as a “yes” vote. Is this really the sort of local government the people of
Bristol deserve? What part of ‘no’ is it hard to understand?
The report to this meeting says that the council should go ahead with this
because not to would be “contrary to council policy”. For whom is council policy
made? Isn’t it us, the citizens of the city? Couldn’t it be that the policy is wrong
and should be changed?
Let me add for the record, by the way, that we are not in any way against
democracy. If the council were to carry out a fair and open consultation, which
took proper account of the views of those who would be affected, then we
would, of course, support and respect this.
So what next?
First, no-one today should in any way be consoled by the thought that if this is
given the go ahead to the next stage there will be further consultation, which will
answer the criticisms that have been levelled at the last one.
If the foundations are faulty, the only way is to fix them before moving on.
In the light of all the evidence of the flaws in this consultation, and the sea
change in the economic situation of the country, there is only one action that is
appropriate.
The Council must go back to the beginning and undertake properly a brand new
consultation.
Thank you
Bernard Cooke
1 Kensington Place, Bristol BS8 3AH
Tel 0117 923 9289
www.keepparkingfree.org
STATEMENT C(8) 37
Public Forum Statement on behalf of the Conservative Group by Councillor Richard Eddy
to the Cabinet, Thursday, 27th November 2008
AGENDA ITEM 8
RESIDENTS PARKING
Leader & Members of the Cabinet
On Monday evening, the Sustainable Development & Transport Scrutiny Commission was
forced to convene in the Council Chamber (with overspill public seating in the Conference
Hall) due to the vast number of Bristolians who were motivated to voice their concerns
over the proposed Residents' Parking Scheme.
As my colleague Councillor Peter Abraham made clear to the Commission, the
Conservative Group has strong objections to these proposals. We believe that they will
not fundamentally address the current parking problems in the pilot areas and will produce
knock-on consequences for neighbouring areas. In truth, this is more an excuse to rip-off
residents. Nevertheless, here today, I will confine myself to the glaring deficiencies in the
public consultation which, in our view, wholly invalidates the case to proceed with these
two pilots.
Anyone who was present, watched the webcast or read press coverage of the SDT
Scrutiny Commission will have noted real anger and have no doubt that the people in
Brandon Hill and Kingsdown felt hugely let-down. It would not be going too far to say
many residents and businesses feel cheated by the poor quality of the consultation
documentation, the biased and slanted questions and, indeed, the totally inadequate
summation of the public feedback.
The shambolic nature of this consultation has been widely recognised, with Ward
Councillors and key stakeholders denied advance notice or the opportunity to make
comments and improve the quality of your questionnaire.
Compounding the howling errors made when the City Centre CPZ was extended to part of
High Kingsdown, the consultation was launched at precisely the time when many students
and university staff were away over the summer vacation, thus disenfranchising them at a
stroke.
The Residents' Parking questionnaire contained 65 tick boxes and space for written
responses. More than 13,000 replies were received, as well as 400 letters, phone calls
and emails, in addition to the 2,000-plus name petition organised by “Keep Parking Free”
(which, curiously, is not mentioned in the report).
From all this data, a huge amount of detailed analysis is possible and yet it seems that
this Labour Administration is afraid of giving us more than scant and superficial statistics.
For example, the report is astonishingly silent on the number of responses which came
from the proposed pilot zones, or even on how many households surveyed owned more
than one car (surely a key factor, particularly when calculating the likely revenue stream).
Why is the Cabinet Member and his Officers so afraid of providing this detailed
information?
It gives me no satisfaction to remind Cabinet of my prophetic words to you on 17th
November 2007, when you approved the Authority's Parking Strategy, which included
clear principles of consultation for Residents' Parking Schemes. At that time, I said:
“As Cabinet will recall, when it was last proposed to extend the Central Controlled Parking
Zone and impose Residents' Parking Schemes several years ago, there was widespread
anger and concern over the way this was handled. Whilst I suspect that the enthusiasm
for RPSs will wane when those most affected appreciate the costs and implications, it is
imperative that there is real democratic community support for such measures...”
Sadly, as is clear from the outrage these proposals have caused, it seems that the Council
has evidently not learned this lesson and this Labour Cabinet appears determined to
bulldoze through pay-to-park irrespective of the views of local people. Moreover, no-one
here is under any illusion that the Brandon Hill and Kingsdown pilots will be the end of the
matter - rather, they will be used as your “Trojan Horse” to roll-out the CPZ to neighbouring
communities north and south of the harbour.
Cabinet, the report before you today makes a travesty of the commitment you gave in
November 2007 to secure genuine popular support before proceeding with such
measures. The Cabinet Member responsible and his Officers should be ashamed of the
sham they have perpetrated. The Conservative Group urges you to reject these pay-topark pilots unless and until they command a clear and democratic mandate.
Councillor Richard Eddy
Leader, Conservative Group
STATEMENT C(8) 38
Bristol City Council Cabinet Meeting - 27th November 2008 @1600 hrs
Statement
My name is Dr Adrian Longstaffe and I have been a resident of Clifton Wood Road for the past 27 years.
1. Summary
I would like to express support for the concept of a residents parking scheme in my area and
support for the proposed changes as outlined in the report tabled by Colin Knight at this
meeting.
2. Problems
I have experienced serious problems in parking both in the daytime and evening in my area for the
last 2 years.
I have concrete evidence that this is in part caused by:
• commuter parking
• parking by residents living within the current CPZ.
3. Students
The relative ease of parking during the summer months would also suggest that much of the
problem is a result of student parking despite the policy of the university to discourage parking by
students living within easy walking distance of the University (see Conflicting Rights below).
Effects
• My daily life is already affected with an inability to park anywhere near my home both in the
daytime after shopping and in the evening -- often requiring up to 1/2 mile walk late at night.
•
At least one of my neighbours no longer uses her car in the evening because of the fear that
she will have to walk some distance unaccompanied late at night -- restricting her lifestyle
considerably.
•
My work and income as a counsellor are also already affected as a result of the difficulty of
parking for my clients -- something which would be resolved by the short-term pay-anddisplay parking proposed in the scheme.
4. Inflexibility and bureaucracy
My fears of Council inflexibility and bureaucracy have been considerably allayed by the
modifications made to the original consultation as a result of discussions with council officers.
Council may however like to note that the apparently draconian and inflexible presentation of the
original consultation document has, at least in part, been responsible for the considerable "anti"
response experienced at the meeting on the 24th of November. I am pleased that the council has
apparently seen through much of the propaganda put forward by the anti residents parking lobby.
5. Conflicting rights
The anti residents parking lobby has made much of the failure to consult with students. I would like
to point out that both universities have clear policies discouraging student parking where students
live within walking distance of the University. On top of this, with a limited number of parking
spaces, the needs of long-term residents should take precedence over students and commuters.
6. Self financing?
Although I am happy with the current charges proposed, I would like to challenge the principle of the
parking scheme being self financing as benefiting residents only. This situation has been produced
by planning policies implemented by both local and central government -- policies which presumably
are seen to benefit the city as a whole. Under these circumstances, it would be proper for the
council to subsidise the resolution of a situation produced by government policy.
John Adrian Longstaffe
11:30 AM 26 November 2008 24 Clifton Wood Road BS8 4TW
STATEMENT C(8) 39
Statement on Residents' Parking Zones
Cllr Mark Wright (Cabot)
I will start with the positives in this paper:
•
I strongly support the ditching of the “one size fits all” principle.
•
I support the reduction in cost of first permit to £30.
•
I strongly support the measure to give residents the choice of marking at the
end of their drive.
•
I support the move to make the first 50 visitors’ permits will be free of charge.
•
I welcome the allocation of a pilot zone to Kingsdown.
Then there are points that need further consideration:
1. I suggest that the RPZ currently called “Clifton (Brandon Hill)” is renamed to a
more appropriate name (e.g. “Clifton Wood”), since it is not actually on Brandon Hill.
I have already had actual residents of Brandon Hill contacting me to ask what is
going on (“are we being transferred from the old CPZ to the new RPZ?”), since they
are already inside the central CPZ, while the new zone is the other side of Jacobs
Wells Road.
2. While I understand and accept that there is a realisation that larger zones may
generally be better, I disagree that it is necessary to have a rule: “Each Zone to
contain a minimum 1000 households”. This has particular implications for west
Redcliffe, which voted strongly in favour of residents' parking, but has been passed
over because it is judged too small. However, west Redcliffe has natural boundaries
of water (on 3 sides) and Redcliffe Hill dual-carriageway, and residents are
extremely unlikely to park further afield. Not only that, but there is over £20,000 of
S106 cash in the bank (from the conversion of the AXA offices) waiting to be used
for residents parking in west Redcliffe. It would be madness not to take advantage of
that, and I hope that officers reconsider and include it as a 3rd pilot.
3. I would like to hear the rationale for the “holes” in controlled parking between the
CPZ and the pilot zone, centred on the bottom of St Michaels Hill and Dove St
South, respectively.
4. I am unclear of the implications of the change suggesting (of Pay & Display bays)
that “After 6pm, a flat rate of £1 will be charged instead of an hourly rate”. This may
or not make sense, depending strongly on the nature and location of the bay – for
example such a regime in a bay outside an evening shopping zone would be
unhelpful to business. More clarification is needed on this please.
5. Extensive work to maximise available spaces and safety was done by officers with
engaged local residents in Kingsdown over the 1999-2001 period for the original
scheme that never materialised. I very much hope that this work has not been “lost”
and still exists and can be used as the basis for the future work. The street layout
has changed little in that time, and including the work would not only save money
and time, but also help with local goodwill towards the scheme.
6. The boundary in the Dove St and Freemantle Square area currently doesn't make
any sense, and I hope that officers will accept significant input from ward members
on this. One problem (anticipated, I'm sure) is that some residents on the boundary
will have different opinions depending on exactly where the boundary is. This will
require lateral thinking to account for.
Finally, I must have an exasperated grumble...
As long ago as 2005 I sent officers an extensive document on the kind of scheme
that would win popular support in Kingsdown, and I sent the same document to the
(then) new executive member in 2007. Needless to say, my suggestions looked
nothing like the first consultation scheme but a lot like this current proposed scheme.
I find this to be a very disappointing case of “I told you so”.
It is very frustrating that in matters of tricky community preference and local
complexity, there is evidently so little priority given to the thoughts of ward members
– they are rarely consulted beforehand, and if they volunteer (i.e. force) their
thoughts beforehand they are given extremely little weight. Ward members do not
enjoy being proved right when it has taken much time, money and effort to get to that
place – we would really rather that officers and the Cabinet just listened to us to start
with so that progress could be quicker and easier.
STATEMENT C(8) 40
Comments from: Laurence Penney
26 November 2008
1. Revenue neutral?
It is claimed that the scheme will be "revenue neutral", i.e. the
council will neither profit nor lose from the scheme. However, there
is still the fact that a considerable sum of money (£1.2m per year?)
will be removed from the local economy. Money spent on permits and
fines is money removed from the local economy.
It is important to realize that, in relation to the effect of
residents' parking schemes on small businesses, this is a separate
point from the direct effect where people cannot park near businesses;
it is a general reduction of the economic spending power of the
community.
2. Traditional double yellow lines only
Traditional double yellow lines without accompanying residents'
parking areas, seem not to be notable by their absence in the scheme
proposals. Have studies been done in relation to using yellow lines
only? In particular, it must be considered how well yellow lines
answer the need to improve access for emergency vehicles in narrow
streets. The relative cheapness of this solution, in targeted streets,
stands out in comparison to a grand scheme.
3. Parking duration for non-residents
The parking duration for non-residents has been mentioned as 15
minutes. This is not enough for a reasonable visit to a friend, nor
all but the most rapid of trips to a shop. Assuming the aim is to
prevent commuters from using the spaces, please consider a much longer
period: what would be wrong with two hours?
4. Unprofessional residents' surveys and definition of "pilot scheme"
Schemes called "pilot schemes" need abandonment mechanisms built-in.
However, like the gambler who's already "in too deep", there is a
danger that the council might be wary about the cost of abandonment:
the scheme might endure, unwanted by almost all, much longer than if
it were cost-free to abandon. If there is a significant chance that
the scheme will be generally regarded as a failure after a year of
operation, then it would be absurd not to have done the consultation
surveys properly. Much doubt has been raised about the professionalism
of the surveys. Given that solving Bristol's parking is not an
emergency, nor are any of the proposals a magic bullet, I urge you to
delay a "yes" decision until a professionally respectable survey of
residents has been performed.
regards,
- Laurence Penney
STATEMENT C(9) 1
Statement to Cabinet 27th November 2008
Agenda item 9: 2nd Tier Restructuring
The Liberal Democrat Group views with considerable concern the proposals to
restructure the 2nd tier of management within the Council.
In particular we cannot support the abolition of an officer with sole responsibility for
Cultural Services and the replacement of this position with a ‘Service Director:
Economic and Cultural Development.’
This can only be seen as a downgrading of the cultural agenda within the City
Council, when all the evidence nationally and internationally is that cultural activity is
paramount to social cohesion, education and crime reduction.
We have made known to the Chief Executive our extreme concern that we were not
consulted at any stage during the drawing up of these proposals, and also that having
subsequently made our views known, these have been ignored. Her response in
Appendix D is not considered adequate.
In the event of our taking office, we will urgently consider alternative arrangements to
address deficiencies described in our submission.
Cllr. Simon Cook
Deputy Leader, Liberal Democrat Group
STATEMENT C (11)1
Jos Clark and I would like to put a statement to Cabinet regarding the proposed Urban
Village at Hengrove Park, Agenda item 11, appendix H.
Statement
Proposed Urban Village at Hengrove Park
Agenda item 11, Appendix H
As local ward councillors we were amazed to discover in the proposal for an Urban Village
deep in the papers for today's meeting that the numbers of housing units had increased to
1200. As far as we are aware this has not been an item on the Hengrove Forum's agenda
or mentioned to us at any briefings we have attended.
While we appreciate the pressure for increased housing in Bristol, the last we heard about
numbers was the increase from 500 to 690 to be achieved by increased density on the
existing allocated land area. May we remind you that the figure of 500 was the result of the
consultation initiated by George Micklewright when he was Labour Leader of the Council
and agreed by all the communities living round the Park.
Our residents are deeply suspicious of the Council's actions and to have their wishes so
blatantly flouted without any further consultation or explanation will only confirm them in
their belief that the Council only exists to make life difficult for them.
We have some concerns about the concept of an Urban Village which strikes us as being
elitist and implies separation from existing communities, when we thought the opposite
would be our aim. While we welcome the prospect of high quality development on the site
we also believe every attempt should be made to integrate the newcomers into the local
community and vice versa.
We are also concerned about the impact of these proposals on the development of the
Park. We have fears that the Park may be another development like the Library, always
promised never materialised. A park, like Victoria Park, Bath was the top of the initial wish
list for the area which seems to have been lost in the mists of time but not forgotten by
local residents.
May we ask to retrieve the situation and engage in meaningful discussion and consultation
with local residents before everything is set in stone and the only things they can influence
are cosmetic touches.
STATEMENT C(11) 2
STATEMENT TO CABINET 27TH NOVEMBER 2008
Agenda Item 11 Capital programme 2008-2011
Dear Councillors,
Despite these times of economic uncertainty, the Council has to respond to the
Regional Spatial Strategy and is preparing the Site Allocations Development Plan
Document identify areas for housing and employment to meet their growth agenda.
The PID for Hengrove Park phase 2 is proposing a housing led scheme and reminds
Cabinet of the housing growth. However, this is only part of the growth agenda.
Employment provision is vital. There is a need to provide employment land to meet
any housing and population growth. The RSS set a target of 92,000 new jobs to be
created in the Bristol Travel to Work area between 2006-2026
If Bristol is forced to accept the higher figure of 36,500 new homes then there will be
a resultant need to provide even more land for employment. The Alder King
Employment Land Study 2007 before the increased growth figure identified am
additional requirement of 24.5 ha of new industrial and warehousing in all areas
except Avonmouth and and 236,000 sqm of new office floorspace. They
recommended a South Bristol focus to provide local jobs in areas such as Filwood
with high socio-economic deprivation. (In top 2% in England for deprivation) It also
recommended maintaining the existing PIWA (principal industrial and warehousing
areas) in South Bristol. This included the PIWA along Whitchurch Lane on which
Constellation Europe are located.
When Constellation Europe wanted to relocate in 2006 to Avonmouth, they
approached ourselves to give them special treatment so that their land could be sold
immediately for housing. This would have been a flouting of the planning laws in this
Country. So instead the Company approached SWRDA who gambled on taxpayers
money and paid a residential price for the land of £750K per acre instead of the
£300K which was the value of employment land. They paid in region of £8m instead
£3.5m. SRWDA are now assuming that by being part of the phase 2 housing led
proposals that they can get their land changed from employment status to housing.
This is an abuse of their position as a development agency.
The existing 5.6 hectares of the Constellation Europe site should remain as
employment land. Equally Hengrove park development should NOT be a housing
led scheme but an economic led scheme to help meet the RSS demand for new
jobs. Phase 1 should have had 4 hectares of employment land but half of this
allocation has been sold for the Skills academy. The potential loss of Constellation
Europe site would mean that the shortfall increased to 30 ha of employment land
outside of Avonmouth.
Computershare are proposing to take approx 5 hectares for their relocation but only
use half of it and land bank the rest. Computershare should not be allowed to land
bank at the Council’s expense and remove valuable land that is required for other
employment uses. Hengrove park development should not be wasteful of land and
end up like Aztec West with pockets of land left over after planning.
Hengrove Park should be the economic driver for the South of the City and the
recent feasibility study by Humberts in 2007 confirms that one can even make the
park element of hengrove site a major source of new jobs, 3000 new jobs and still
maintain the integrity of the site as a park.
I would like this report to be made public and for the Cabinet to agree that jobs are a
vital element of a balanced and sustainable City. More employment opportunities are
needed . NOT a housing led scheme, not so that a Govt quango can get its unwise
investment money back. This Council is in danger of creating a Bradley Stoke of the
South with houses and insufficient local jobs. Please read the employment land
study. See section 3.34 which states” the continued loss of employment land to
alternative uses could harm the future economic potential of Bristol as employment
sites are very difficult to replace once lost”
Hengrove Park can be the economic jewel in the crown surrounded by balanced and
sustainable communities with major employment opportunities on their doorstep.
Think again please.
Thank you
Anne White
STATEMENT C(11) 3
Submission to Cabinet meeting, Thursday 27th November.
Relating to Agenda item 11 capital programme 2008-2011 appendix J
Project Initiation Document – Filwood Broadway Corridor
I had hoped that it would not have been necessary to make a second submission to
the Cabinet in such a short time but it has become very clear from the very existence
of the above agenda item at this point in time that the Council does not intend to
listen to the Knowle West Community. It leaves the words of reassurance given by
the Council leader to my statement at the last Cabinet meeting and the contents of
the follow up letter from Councillor Bradshaw with a completely hollow ring to them.
So much for the Knowle West regeneration framework !
As a community we can no longer be confident that any semblance of democracy,
community participation or empowerment is being offered to or encouraged among
us. The approach that the Council has chosen to follow is both offensive and
demeaning. Yet again, we are being asked to do little more than rubber stamp a
plan that has already been drawn up and approved behind closed doors, totally
independent of the voice, needs and concerns of local people. It is a major insult to
local people and repeats the pattern of dismissive and disempowering behaviour we
have experienced through the years from those we rely on to work with us to make
our community a better place to live in.
This is a community which is described in the document as ‘one of the most intensely
deprived wards in the UK falling into the bottom 3% and is regarded as requiring a
transformational approach.’ It seems from the Council’s pre-emptive planning action
on the Filwood Broadway Corridor that a ‘transformational approach’ means ‘ride
roughshod over the community to ensure that it gets what we, not they, think is best
for them.’
I urge the Cabinet to have the courage to agree not to sign off on this
particular item today and instead wait until the completion of the community
consultation process. This is the only way in which some semblance of good
will and working partnership between the Council and the community can be
maintained.
It seems to me that we are on the verge of a major breakdown in relationship
and loss of good will between the Council and the community.
Alister Palmer
Knowle West Resident
Vicar of the Parish of Filwood Park
and representative of Knowle West Churches Together
STATEMENT C(11) 4
STATEMENT TO CABINET 27TH NOVEMBER 2008
AGENDA ITEM 11 FILWOOD BROADWAY CORRIDOR
Cabinet members
On behalf of Carmel Christian Centre, I presented a statement to Full Council on 14th
October and again to the Quality of Life Scrutiny Commission on 20th October
concerning our desire to purchase the hangar site. A request that we had also made
on several occasions prior to 2007. As yet we have had no response from anyone in
the Council, other than a letter stating that the Hangar site would be sold on the open
market and we would be advised in writing when the council was ready to sell. I have
the letters to hand. We were never notified of the sale of the same site to English
Partnership in spite of the written assurance that we had earlier been given. We
currently have premises on the Bath Road but have been committed to serve the
Filwood community for over 12 years. We run the cafe in Filwood Broadway which
performs a valuable local amenity as well as several other services within the
community including a weekly youth programme.
Our proposal for the site fits in with the desires of the Council to create balanced and
sustainable communities and is a mixed use requirement. To prove my point when
we applied for planning permission for change of use from B1 and B8 uses to the
Carmel Christian Centre, we were initially refused planning permission in order to
safeguard employment sites. On appeal the Inspector agreed that we actually
provided a wide range of uses which included B1 and B8.
It may seem your view of a Church may be a building that is empty 6 days a week.
On the contrary, our building is in use 7 days a week from 7.00am until the evening.
As evidenced by the Appeal granted in February 2003, we employ 26 full time staff,
8 part time, and a host of voluntary staff, many of whom are residents of the Knowle /
Filwood area. We have a volunteer base of over 400. We provide activities which fall
within Classes B1, B8, D1, D2 and A1. The building is used for public worship and
religious instruction; education, both primary and secondary, plus an adult
learning/training facility; production, storage and distribution of recorded music, films
and other publications; collection, storage and distribution of furniture and other
effects; youth and social activities; bookshop and administration offices. Our
intention at the Hangar site is to provide the above and even more services to the
local community including older peoples day centre, serviced office accommodation
for start up businesses, staffed adventure playground, student accommodation and
cafe.
We are disappointed that the Council appears to be disregarding the benefit that a
faith group brings to a community. May I remind you of the 1998 Compact agreed
between Government and the voluntary and community sector in England. I refer to
the Compact as it relates to faith groups, and refer in particular to the heading “value
of involving faith groups”. In the LGA 2002 publication “Faith and Community” it
states that “Local authorities will want to ensure that faith communities, as social
partners, are fully included in the Compact process and feel that their voice is both
heard and reflected in the partnership statement that results in the form of a Local
Compact”
So far this Council has shown contempt and utter disregard to a Christian
organisation which is already contributing to the social and spiritual needs of
Filwood. The PID before you wants regeneration and redevelopment in the area. By
allowing us to purchase the hangar site and agreeing to create a formal park with an
adventure playground you will contribute greatly to regenerating the area by
increasing the local facilities and creating an environment which is more attractive to
incoming residents. Regeneration is not simply about new homes. The PID in its
current form makes a mockery of local community involvement in the Knowle West
Regeneration Framework. Can we have your assurance that we will be part of the
redevelopment and that we can meet with your officers to discuss our proposals
further?
Thank you.
STATEMENT C(11) 5
STATEMENT TO CABINET 27TH OCTOBER 2008
FILWOOD BROADWAY CORRIDOR
I presented a petition to the last Full Council meeting with 438 signatures from local
residents protesting at the sale of Filwood Park to English Partnerships to build
houses. Filwood ward has no formal park and no decent play facilities for children
and young people and Filwood Park should be properly restored as a Park. I further
made a statement to the Quality of Life Scrutiny Commission on 20th October to
express outrage at the proposal to transfer Filwood Park and other sites to a private
housing company without any reference to the Regeneration Framework which is
being started now in Knowle West.
The Council have not had the decency to reply to me regarding the petition or to my
statement. Today hidden under the title Capital Programme, Appendix J you are
proposing to develop at least 300 houses across the hangar site, our local park and
Filwood Broadway. This is most underhand. You are proposing to agree to housing
on Filwood Park and the hangar site without any reference to the Regeneration
Framework which has not even got started let alone consultation with local residents.
If you had no plan you would not be writing a document with a project outcome of
minimum 300 houses. What happens if the consensus is for a formal park with an
adventure playground for Filwood Park and the new primary school to be located on
Filwood Broadway?
This PID is arrogance in the extreme and entirely premature. I have lived in Filwood
all my life and I am most upset that the views of many local people are being totally
ignored.
This time I expect a reply and not one that treats me with disdain.
Janet Rees
150 Creswicke Road
STATEMENT C(14)1
Subject:
Representation for Agenda Item 14 Cabinet meeting 27/11/08 from Mr D
Vincent (son of Mr and Mrs Vincent)
PREFAB REDEVELOPMENT HORFIELD PREFAB SITE CPO
Mr and Mrs F.A.Vincent, freehold owners of the Bungalow at 28 Dorian Road Horfield
have made it clear to the Council from the outset that they did not want to move. No
attempt was made to alter the plans for the development to accommodate their wishes.
Their property is a brick Bungalow, built to comply with building regulations and
approved by Bristol City Council themselves. It is no longer a Prefab or substandard
property.
With reference to the planning layout submitted by the Council: There appears to be 3
terraced houses to be built on the plot presently occupied by 28 Dorian Road, so 3 units
would be lost from the development, not the 18 as stated in the Council risk
assessment document.
There has been no emergency vehicle access to Southmead Hospital due to the daily
double parking of vehicles along the length of Dorian Road for many years. The Council
have not been interested in addressing this until now.
The property is bordered by roads on two sides. When the prefabs are demolished on
the other two sides (one of which is currently empty) there will be access to all the
services surrounding the property.
Is it really in the wider good or public interest for the life of two elderly Bristol citizens to
be ruined for the sake of 3 housing units?
CC:
[email protected]