Download Report

CABINET - 25 FEBRUARY 2010
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS
A.
QUESTIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
None received.
B.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
B.1 Rowena Hayward, GMB - subject: residential futures
B.2 Cllr Tim Kent - subject: CATT community bus
B.3 David Redgewell - subject: ITA / PTE authority work
B.4 Rowena Hayward, Bristol Women's Forum - subject: commissioning of
equalities forums through the voluntary sector.
C.
QUESTIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
None received.
D.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
Re: item 4 - Combating human trafficking - final report and recommendations
D.4.1 Cezaru Nanu
Re: item 7 - Parkinson and Woolaway PRC proposal
D.7.1 David Trivitt, Save Sea Mills Garden Suburb
Re: item 9 - Proposed 20 MPH speed limit in inner south Bristol pilot area
D.9.1 Cllr Charlie Bolton
24 February 2010
STATEMENT B.1
GMB SUBMISSION TO CABINET MEETING – 25 FEBRUARY 2010
The GMB wish to make the following statement on behalf of our members:
The GMB attended a meeting of the Sub JCC on Residential Futures on 11
February 2010. We were informed a report was going to the Health and
Social Care Scrutiny Commission relating to the revised date for Cabinet to
make a decision on the refurbishment of Rockwell and the other associated
issues surrounding the Residential Futures Project.
We asked management for a copy of the report and the date of the Scrutiny
Commission. We were told this was the Director’s report and they would pass
on our request.
The GMB was a little surprised to learn the Scrutiny Commission had taken
place last week (17th February|) and we had not been informed after making a
formal request for this information.
On the surface it may seem insignificant to exclude the GMB from any
information of this nature but we would ask Cabinet to consider the
implications in a deferral of this nature and the impact it will have upon our
members future employment and the financial implications.
Management keep explaining how change should be on a structured
timeframe yet here we have a further deferment relating to the refurbishment
of Rockwell or alternative proposals. We have been informed that Rockwell
refurbishment will cost more than the Bengough proposal - is the Council still
mindful to continue with this? We understand the Residential Futures budget
was in the region of £11.4m to carryout all the upgrade/refurbishment. We
also understand to date that approximately £4.6m has been spent along with
an additional £250k on the refurbishment of Vetchlea.
To date the Residential Futues programme has only managed to achieve one
home closure (Hollybrook) not very successfully and the commencement of
the Vetchlea refurbishment on line to be completed in November 2010 with
residents and staff being transferred in February 2011.
In the report that we were denied a copy of it highlights the changes affecting
the Residential Future Programme as:
•
•
Recession and its impact on both capital and revenue costs
Cost of blocked beds – higher than expected
•
•
•
•
•
Expectation of significant public sector cuts after the election
Re-ablement and the role of resource centres
Personal budgets
Original timeline for changes need to be re-evaluated
Staff reductions are effectively managed
Clearly these have major impact upon our members and we are therefore
somewhat concerned we were not given the opportunity to see and comment
upon the report and given the opportunity to attend the scrutiny commission to
make representation on behalf of our members working in this area.
We have now been informed by the Head of HR and Legal Services the
promise given by two ex Executive Members and one current Executive
Member and Senior Management in Health and Social Care is untrue. They
cannot ‘guarantee’ no compulsory redundancies in this workgroup.
We would therefore ask Cabinet as a matter of urgency what action it intends
to take to ensure our members are not compulsory made redundant through
this process.
Rowena Hayward
Organisation Officer
Cllr Tim Kent, Liberal Democrat Councillor for Whitchurch Park
Ward 106 Hengrove Lane, Bristol. BS14 9DQ
0117 300 5645 [email protected]
Executive Members,
CATT COMMUNITY BUS
The CATT community bus service provides a vital means of transport in the
Hartcliffe and Withywood areas. Over the last few years they have provided a
bus service to and from Morrisons for the community which was funded by
section 106.
That funding has now been exhausted and despite the service run by CATT
being very popular they do face a £25,000 funding gap to continue it.
I know that Officers have received representations on this. I would also like to
thank the Executive Member for his correspondence with me on this and for
meeting with me and discussing the issue.
Through this I know you are very sympathetic to saving this service and so I
hope over the next few weeks when you are considering detailed funding
options as part of the transport budget you will strongly consider supporting
this service that is so well used and relied upon within the Hartcliffe and
Withywood communities.
Cllr Tim Kent
Lib Dem - Whitchurch Park
STATEMENT B.4
STATEMENT FROM THE BRISTOL WOMEN’S FORUM TO
CABINET
25TH FEBRUARY 2010
The Bristol Women’s Forum would like to make the following
statement to Cabinet in relation to a recent paper brought to the
Advisers meeting on Monday, 22nd February 2010.
The Forum have been advised they are to be commissioned to
another voluntary sector (yet to be determined) in order for them to
be more effective and less ‘cosy’ within the Council.
A paper from the Equalities Team Manager was tabled at the
Advisers meeting on the 22nd February (copy attached) giving the
Women’s Forum a timescale when they would be ‘outsourced’.
The Forum is in the process of consulting with its members
(something which the Council appear to have neglected) and will
respond to the proposal in due course.
In the mean time it is ironic the Women’s Forum is being denied
the right to be part of the scrutiny commission process but on the
very commission they do have a seat a report on Human
Trafficking is brought o this very Cabinet meeting with the input
from the Co-optee from the Bristol Women’s Forum. Clearly there
has been a benefit for the Council to have the Bristol Women’s
Forum in place.
It is suggested in the paper we could be part of the Fawcett
Society - this is not possible as they are membership based and
are tied into their national structure and priorities surrounding
research - no approach has been made to the Fawcett Society. It
is also suggested the forum could be linked to the Bristol Feminist
Network – they do not even have a bank account and again have
specific focus within the feminist agenda. Lastly it is suggested we
link to the Single Parent Action Network, again they are a specific
group.
There appears to be some misunderstanding that because we are
Women we are all the same when it comes to Women’s Equality.
There are differences and priorities within each group.
Much to our dismay there appears not to have been an Equality
Impact Assessment undertaken!
We hope you will understand our concerns and the rationale for
making this submission. We are keen to ensure we keep up with
the ever changing structure and priorities but we are concerned
that not enough thought and consideration for the long term impact
has been taken in when this report was tabled and we were
requested to respond on Monday.
We would urge Cabinet to reconsider the benefits of having the
Bristol Women’s Forum as a ‘critical friend’ rather than lose these
volunteers skill, expertise and experience. If this Forum is ‘bolted’
onto a voluntary organisation the fear is the good work of the
Forum will be lost. We would welcome the opportunity to meet
with Cabinet members to discuss this in more detail.
Rowena Hayward
Women’s Adviser
-1-
Proposal to Commission the Equalities Forums Through the
Voluntary Sector
1. Current Position
1.1
1.2
1.3
The Disability Equality Forum plans to become an
independent VCS organisation from 1 April 2010. There
will be a 1 year transition period during which the DEF
office will remain within council accommodation. This will
allow time for the forum to work to attract other resources
and identify a long term base. The Development Worker
will transfer to the new organisation within this period (with
a secondment arrangement until this happens).
The Race Forum (RF) and Women’s Forum (WF) are still
within the council .
The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Forum, Multi-faith Forum
and Older People’s Forum are all independent VCS
organisations. These forums are able to have more
impact and attract wider resourcing because of their
independent status.
2. Moving the remaining forums to the voluntary sector
2.1 We are now proposing that all equalities forums should be
independent of the council. The benefits are that the forums would
:
a) Provide more effective challenge to the council e.g. through
equalities impact assessments, consultation on policy/service
provision
b) Be in a position to challenge organisations as well as the council
and work across a wider range of policy issues i.e. not constrained
to local government.
c) Be seen as independent so may be able to engage more
effectively with their communities.
d) Apply for funding on their own behalf from all the sources
available to independent charities including the Lottery, Trusts,
Equalities and Human Rights Commission etc.
e) improve their credibility with the community
f) have more freedom to act as campaigning bodies without risking
any conflict of interest
g) be able to drive their own priorities to a greater degree rather
than being reactive to just the council’s agenda
S:\Reports\2009-10\Executives 2009-2010\CABINET\Public forum\10 - 25 Feb
10\statements\B - non agenda related statements\B.4b - womens.doc
1
-2-
2.2 Historically the RF and WF have been resistant to becoming
independent because of fears about capacity, security of funding,
and access to council structures being reduced (e.g. scrutiny).
However our view is that these forums are more hampered by their
in-house status and would have the potential to make greater
impact and deliver greater value for money if located in the
voluntary sector.
3. Commissioning Priorities
Examples of outcomes the council would want to commission from
the RF and WF
Widen and increase the engagement of Black and Minority
Ethnic communities/women in policy-making, equalities
impact assessments and decision-making
The development of equalities ‘sparkplugs’ who are trained
on equalities legislation/practice and engagement in policy
and decision-making – who champion the agenda and are
able to provide forum leadership
Increase the influence of BME groups/women on service
providers to reduce inequalities faced by these groups
Deliver at least one campaign a year on an issue of
importance to local BME communities/women and
demonstrate change as a result of this campaign
Undertake at least one research project each year that
provides new intelligence about the experiences/needs/views
of these groups
Provide equalities representatives at Neighbourhood
Partnerships and other relevant partnerships (working as a
consortium with all equality es forums)
It is proposed that the forums be commissioned through a process
that invites existing voluntary organisations with equalities
expertise to bid for the work. It is not seen as viable for the RF and
WF to launch themselves as independent bodies, given their
current capacity although this might be an option in the future once
a host organisation has developed and strengthened the role.
S:\Reports\2009-10\Executives 2009-2010\CABINET\Public forum\10 - 25 Feb
10\statements\B - non agenda related statements\B.4b - womens.doc
2
-3-
4. Resources and Staffing
The council would allocate grants in line with the current resource
used to support the forums through Community Development.
Other public bodies are encouraged to invest in the process but
are more likely to contribute once the forums are up and running in
the voluntary sector.
Current spend :
RF £35k
WF £35k
The staff currently working to the forums will need to be consulted.
The preferred option is not to transfer the staff to the voluntary
sector but to allow the successful bidding organisation to design
and allocate their own staffing structure based on the outcomes
that we require to be delivered. This will give the host organisation
greater flexibility about how they deliver e.g. most of the
independent forums do not have a separate member of staff for
forum development and for administrative tasks – these are
combined in 1 post.
HR advice is required in respect of whether this is possible and the
rights of existing staff.
5. Issues to be considered
The need to build in to service agreements clear outputs and
outcomes that we expect to see delivered – based on evidence of
inequality and the need to close the gap
The relationship with other organisations led by BME groups and
women or with a strong equalities ethos and the potential for these
organisations to host the forums, develop joint working or even
merge. In the area of women’s equality this might include Bristol
Fawcett Society, Bristol Feminist Network and Single Parent
Action Network. In the area of race equality this could include
Consortium of Black Groups (supported by Black Development
Agency), and BDA itself. It is however anticipated that the
application process would be open.
S:\Reports\2009-10\Executives 2009-2010\CABINET\Public forum\10 - 25 Feb
10\statements\B - non agenda related statements\B.4b - womens.doc
3
-4-
The Race Forum (education) operated separately to the Race
Forum but ceased to meet about 3 years ago. This comprised
BME organisations expert in education. We need to consider
whether to resurrect this consultative group through this
commissioning process (e.g. as a subgroup of the New Race
Forum).
Ensuring there is no detriment to the existing membership and
advisors. The transfer of the forums will not result in any
disadvantage to existing participants who will continue to be
involved and will have the same rights of engagement as when the
forums wre in-house to the council. It is expected that the number
and diversity of
Process and timescale
Consultation with existing membership on the proposal (this is not
a new issue and was discussed most recently with the Forums in
November 2009)
Publicise application process and specification – March 2010
Applications received and evaluated – May 2010
Decision made about provider(s) – May 2010
Funding agreements start - 1 July 2010
S:\Reports\2009-10\Executives 2009-2010\CABINET\Public forum\10 - 25 Feb
10\statements\B - non agenda related statements\B.4b - womens.doc
4
STATEMENT D.4.1
Trafficking in human beings is a severe violation of human rights and a
contemporary form of slavery taking place worldwide, and neither the UK, nor Bristol
are an exception. We are delighted to see that the Bristol City Council is taking this
issue seriously and willing to move things forward in terms of housing for victims of
trafficking and support to migrants vulnerable to exploitation and abuse in slavery
like conditions. In 2009, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
recommended its member states to involve local authorities as key agents of anti
trafficking policies and programmers. Bristol is quickly becoming a pioneer of this
good practice.
We are delighted for the support the Bristol City Council has given to getting together
and establishing a coalition for counter trafficking in Bristol – with members from
local government, civil society, community groups, churches, etc. The last meeting of
the coalition was on February 5, and members are currently talking about organizing
joint events for Anti Trafficking Day in October. It is inspiring to see so many forces
come together to address this problem, and see how Bristol is making such progress
on addressing severe violations of human rights. We look forward to the Council
honoring the commitment made to the European convention and actively supporting
counter trafficking through protection of trafficked persons and long term prevention
by making human rights accessible to vulnerable migrants as well as investing in
training and awareness raising through knowledge exchange with local experts and
stakeholders.
Cezara Nanu
STATEMENT D.7.1
SAVE SEA MILLS GARDEN SUBURB
Statement to the Cabinet Meeting of 25th February 2010
Agenda Item No. 7 - PARKINSON & WOOLAWAY PRC PROPOSAL
We congratulate the current administration on formulating an infinitely better solution for
the Parkinson PRC houses in Sea Mills than the previous proposals. The Lib Dem
commitment to both the tenants of Sea Mills and the Sea Mills Conservation Area is very
clear. We thank you for this.
We welcome the fact that the proposed scheme will enable more Council homes to be
retained in Council ownership than the previous scheme; that all tenants in the Sea Mills
Parkinson houses will be able to stay in their own homes; and that our community will be
saved from the break-up that would have ensued had the previous scheme been
implemented.
We welcome the fact that this scheme respects the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area and will avoid the harm that, in our view, would have resulted from the
previous proposals.
We also welcome the enormous environmental benefits of this scheme which will save
hundreds of demolished houses from going to landfill.
Whilst we wholeheartedly support the proposals to repair the PRC houses in Sea Mills and
the decision not to redevelop any part of Sea Mills, we would have preferred a repair
solution that would have given the houses a 60 year extended life instead of the 30 year
life proposed. However, we are aware of the Council's concerns regarding the potential
financial loss and loss of Council housing stock that could result from the exercising of the
right-to-buy under the current Government's rules.
Suggested Amendments to the Report.
We request that the Cabinet consider the following amendments to the Report:1. New Windows: A Golden Opportunity to Enhance the Conservation Area.
The 249 Council-owned unrepaired Parkinson PRC houses in Sea Mills comprise roughly
20% of the total of the 1279 original houses of the Garden Suburb. This means that the
repair of these houses is a golden and exciting opportunity to enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
Appendix B of the Report states that "All windows will be renewed to the Councils agreed
specification".
We request that the Council specify that the new windows be identical in design and
materials, as far as possible, to the original windows, respectively, of each of the three
types of Parkinson PRC houses. This will very greatly enhance the character and
appearance of the Sea Mills Conservation Area.
2. Conservation Area Consent for Demolition.
The Report estimates that 10% of the PRC houses may prove, as a result of structural
surveys, to be unrepairable. Within the Sea Mills Conservation Area, the estimate is 25
houses.
However, Conservation Area Consent for Demolition can only be granted if the three tests
of the Government's Planning Policy Guidance 15 Planning and the Historic Environment
para 3.19 are met. Since the application for Conservation Area Consent cannot be
determined by the Council but has first to be referred to the Secretary of State for his
approval, it has to be demonstrated to the Secretary of State that the houses are
unrepairable by any potential repair solution, not just the unmortageable solution the
Council proposes. A more robust repair solution, or potential repair solution, may be able
to save many houses which an unmortgageable repair solution may not.
In addition, PPG 15 para 3.19 i states that "Any assessment should also take account of
the possibility of tax allowances and exemptions and of grants from public or charitable
sources". The Secretary of State will need to be convinced that these matters have also
been fully investigated before the Council's case for the demolition of the houses has been
made.
PPG15 para 3.19 ii addresses the adequacy of efforts that should be made to retain a
building in use. Consent for demolition would not be granted unless "real efforts have been
made without success to continue the present use or to find compatible alternative uses
for the building. This should include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on
the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition".
If the Council were not prepared to consider a mortgageable repair option that might save
a house from demolition, then a new buyer might. Consequently, the Council may find
itself in a position of having to sell off Council properties if it is unwilling to consider all
possible options for repair.
Consequently, we request that the Council considers more robust potential mortgageable
repair solutions to meet this eventuality.
We accept, of course, that there may be houses that are unrepairable by any known or
potential repair solution.
3. Design of Rebuilt Houses.
If it can be demonstrated that it is absolutely essential to demolish any of the houses in the
Conservation Area, then we request that the replacement houses be rebuilt on the same
footprint as the original houses. This was the case with the 1990s replacement houses.
We also request that a company and architect that understands the architecture and
character of the Garden Suburb be engaged to design any replacement houses.
4. Para 5.12 Assistance Package to Owners of Private Defective PRC Properties.
Whilst we appreciate the intentions behind the proposed assistance package to owners of
private defective properties, we believe it is unlikely that many owners would take up this
offer as the proposed repairs would render their houses unmortgageable and hence
unsaleable. This would tie the owner or family to living in the same property, probably for
the rest of their lives, without the option to move away should they wish.
We request that where Council and private unrepaired PRC properties are adjoined, that a
60 year mortgageable repair solution be considered. Whilst this would entail a small
financial risk for the Council with regard to the potential right-to-buy of its own property, we
believe that private owners of unrepaired PRC houses would be much more likely to take
up the option of a mortgageable repair solution than an unmortgageable one.
5. Order of Repair
We request that the needs of the tenants should establish the priority of repairs. We
request that the forthcoming surveys should identify where repairs are most urgently
needed, so that those occupied repairable houses most in need of repair be repaired first.
We therefore ask that the Cabinet either amends the Report to include the above requests
or that it recommends that these requests be considered and addressed in the version of
the Report to be presented to the Cabinet in October 2010.
David Trivitt
Chairman
SAVE SEA MILLS GARDEN SUBURB
STATEMENT D.9.1
From Cllr Charlie Bolton re: item 9 - Proposed Pilot for 20 mph speed limit in inner south
Bristol:
"I wish to register my strong support for this proposal."