Download Report

CABINET - 30 JULY 2009
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC FORUM QUESTIONS / ANSWERS
Questions which, on this occasion, do not relate to agenda items, have
been received from:
1.
Cllrs Beynon, Bolton, Bradshaw & Colin Smith - subject:
swimming pool provision - questions to Cllr Simon Cook.
2.
Fraser Bridgeford - subject: Castle Park town green application.
The full text of the questions, and answers will be set out in a separate
document, which will be available at this meeting.
B.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA
ITEMS
1.
David Willingham - subject: ATOC consultation - “Connecting
communities - expanding access to the rail network”
2.
Stephen Perry - subject: Pilot residents parking zones
3.
Suzanne Gardner - subject: Residents parking zone for Clifton
Wood
4.
Hilary and Ian Abrahams - subject: Kingsdown residents parking zone
5.
Helen Tierney - subject: Clifton Wood residents parking zone
6.
Dr Adrian Longstaffe - subject: Pilot residents parking zones
7.
Mark & Liz FitzGerald - subject: Kingsdown residents parking zone
8.
Liz Dunn - subject: Kingsdown residents parking zone
9.
Linda Ewles & Jim Pimpernell - subject: Kingsdown residents parking
zone
10. Ashton Vale Heritage Group - subject: damage to hedgerow in
Ashton Vale fields
C.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
Re: item 5 - Residential Futures
C.5.1
Bristol UNISON
C.5.2
Ann Maccabee & George Silverthorne
C.5.3
Liz Bebbington & Rowena Hayward, GMB
C.5.4
Cllr Lesley Alexander
C.5.5
Cllr Tim Kent
Re: item 7 - Suggestions received under the Sustainable
Communities Act
C.7.1
Mike Primarolo
C.7.2
Cllr Mark Bradshaw
Re: item 8 - Transport capital programme amendments 2009/10 2011/12
C.8.1
Cllr Mark Bradshaw
C.8.2
Nancy Carlton
Re: item 10 - Junction 3 creative learning centre
C.10.1
Cllr Brenda Hugill
Re: item 11 - Bristol allotments strategy 2009-10 - improving
the provision and use of allotments across the city
C.11.1
Stephen Pill
C.11.2
Cllr Ron Stone
C.11.3
Cllr Richard Eddy
CABINET - 30 JULY 2009
A.
ITEM 1
PUBLIC FORUM - QUESTIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
The following questions have been received for this meeting of the
Cabinet, which do not relate specifically to agenda items (full text of the
questions received attached):
A1.
Cllrs Beynon, Bolton, Bradshaw & Colin Smith - subject: swimming pool
provision - questions to Cllr Simon Cook, Deputy Leader & Executive
Member for Culture, Sport and Capital Projects
A2.
Fraser Bridgeford - subject: Castle Park town green application
QUESTION A 1
Questions for Cllr Simon Cook from Cllr Sean Beynon:
These questions are presented on behalf of myself, Cllr Bolton, Cllr Bradshaw and Colin
Smith. At Full Council, Councillor Cook indicated that officers were conducting a study into
the possibility of a new swimming pool in East Bristol. Can the Executive Member tell us:
Q1.
When he expects the pool in Bristol East to be built?
A.
My reply to Cllr. Stone's questions stated: 'officers have been asked to
research a site for a new pool in East Bristol and possible funding streams,
but this work is not yet complete.' I anticipate this work will not be completed
until sometime in the Autumn.
Q2.
When he expects the complete refurbishment of Bristol South Pool to be
completed?
A.
The full refurbishment of Bristol South Pool will rely on the Council's ability to
raise direct funding: in the current economic climate, it is difficult to tell when
this will be.
Q3.
When will a decision be made on these projects, and by whom?
A.
A decision will be made by Cabinet at the appropriate time after officers have
reported back to me with regard to a site in East Bristol and possible funding
streams for both projects. We are committed to the future of Bristol South and
will maintain maintenance at a high level.
Q4.
We support the principle of a new pool in Bristol East, to replace a pool which was
previously closed by the Liberal Democrats. Can he confirm, however, that any
proposals for a new pool will not adversely affect or delay refurbishment of Bristol
South?
A.
The closure of Speedwell Pool was clearly recommended by the all-party
Swimming Working Party chaired by Alderman Pat Roberts and provision for
East Bristol was to be Easton Pool. We brought the closure order forward to
bring the budget back into balance following the £300K deficit left by the
Labour Administration in 2005. Depending on the state of the economy under
this Labour Government - and the availability or not of both public and private
finance - we would hope to progress both projects.
Q5.
At a meeting of Friends of Bristol South Pool in 2007, a Liberal Democrat Councillor
suggested that the complete refurbishment of the pool would have been in the
capital plan had the Liberal Democrats been running the Council. Has it been put
into the capital plan now? If not, why not?
A.
I know of no undertakings given by any Liberal Democrat councillor at any
such meeting and thus do not feel able to comment.
QUESTION A 2
Question from Fraser Bridgeford:
Q.
What is the financial impact to the Council if the town green application for Castle
Park is accepted or rejected ?
A.
(from Cllr Mike Popham on behalf of the Cabinet)
The Public Rights of Way and Greens Committee is to consider the Inspectors
recommendation for refusal of the application on 3 August 2009. If the Committee
were to accept the application, against the inspector’s recommendation, there would
be financial implications for the Council.
The proposed development at the west end of Castle Park would not take place.
Development is expected to raise a significant capital receipt and rental for the
Council. In addition there would be a substantial section 106 planning contribution.
Both of these funding sources are proposed to contribute to the major
improvements (capital and revenue) being considered for Castle Park open space.
The three existing office buildings on the site are obsolete and only one is
occupied. The surrounding environment is in need of improvement. If the
application was not refused these two significant city centre buildings are likely to
remain vacant and undeveloped for the foreseeable future. It is unlikely it would be
economical to refurbish them for re-letting. This high profile entrance to the old city
across Bristol Bridge would remain unchanged.
The Council’s development partner, Deeley Freed Estates (a major local firm),
remains committed to development of the site.
STATEMENT B 1
I attach a statement that I would like to make to the meeting of Cabinet on 30th July 2009.
However, it refers to an informal consultation that would prefer to receive responses by
31st July 2009. So, I would be very grateful if it could be sent to the Executive Member
and Officers to allow them the longest possible opportunity to consider
if they would be willing to respond on behalf of the Council.
The statement is as follows:
ATOC have produced a document called "Connecting Communities - Expanding Access to
The Rail Network". It can be found as a link from ATOC's website ( http://www.atoc.org/ ).
It is an informal consultation that requests responses be emailed to
russ.cunningham@atoc.org by 31st July 2009.
I believe that this document contains two schemes that Bristol City Council should request
that ATOC promotes, but that for many residents of Bristol who live close to a railway line,
but not close to a railway station, this document has failed to identify potential locations of
new urban railway stations in Bristol.
The two schemes that ATOC have documented that I believe Bristol City Council should
strongly urge ATOC to implement are the links to Portishead and Thornbury (along with
intermediate stations). I appreciate that both these termini are in adjoining unitary
authorities, but there is little doubt that the re-opening of rail links to these
towns would benefit Bristol.
In addition to the two links identified by ATOC, I would suggest that there are several
locations within Bristol where ATOC should be urged to investigate the viability of reopening former station sites that were closed, probably as a consequence of the Beeching
report. These are listed below:
1) Ashley Hill Station
Located between Stapleton Road and Filton Abbey Wood Stations. As well as serving the
local community, which has expanded substantially due to a large house building
programme in this area, this station would provide rail access to within walking distance of
the Memorial Stadium (Bristol Rugby & Bristol Rovers FC) and the County Cricket Stadium
(Gloucestershire County Cricket Club). The opening of a station on this site was proposed
in 2003 by Westbury Homes in connection with their development of the Ashley Down site.
2) Horfield Station, Bristol.
Also located between Stapleton Road and Filton Abbey Wood. This station would serve
the local community, which again is expanding due to house building in the area.
3) Henbury Station as well as other possible station sites in South Gloucestershire on the
St Andrew's Road to Bristol Parkway Line. As well as improving public transport for the
local community, re-opening these stations could substantially relieve traffic in the area.
There is also the potential to provide a rail service with short bus link to enhance access to
the Cribbs Causeway shopping mall.
I have already made a personal response to this informal consultation and would ask
Bristol City Council if they would please do the same.
kind regards, David Willingham
STATEMENT B 2
STATEMENT TO CABINET COMMITTEE – 30TH JULY 2009 PILOT RESIDENTS PARKING ZONES The closing date for answers to the survey conducted by the Council in the two pilot RPZs of Clifton Wood (Brandon Hill) and Kingsdown was in early May of this year. In spite of the low level of response, the results of this survey have not yet been made public nor are there any draft proposals for the parking schemes ready to be placed in front of the residents of those areas. The original schedule given by officials in the Transport department said these steps would by now have been taken. It was planned that the public vote would also have taken place in July and that the outcome would be brought to Cabinet in early September. This is now impossible. While I acknowledge that it is important for the proposals to be well thought through and well conceived, it is time for our political leaders to set some goals. I urge that the RPZ pilots be put on the agenda of the Cabinet this Autumn. This is needed to focus the attention of all those involved with the schemes to get on with it. Progress at a snail’s pace is letting the public down. The excuses from officials that will be given for the delay will include the need for officers to make a physical inspection of the streets. That’s good, but we don’t have many streets to inspect and this cannot take more than a few days. It will also be argued that a street by street analysis will be required. Again I can’t understand how this can take months to achieve. The Council has been considering these pilot schemes since last year. Devising RPZ schemes is not cutting edge. Every other major and many, many minor cities and towns already have them. Bath has been running schemes for 10 years. Other Councils who already have schemes are not being consulted by Bristol City Council officials and the advancement of this project is taking too long. Stephen Perry democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk <democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk> STATEMENT B 3
25th July 2009
STATEMENT TO CABINET MEETING 30TH JULY 2009
democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk
We have heard nothing from the Council about progress on the RPZ for Clifton Wood since
we received the questionnaire. I feel it is time to give this matter a public airing again before
it gets forgotten.
I get the impression that the team whose job it is to formulate a scheme feels it has to reinvent the wheel. They don’t have to. Bristol is the last large city in the country that does not
have a scheme. The team only has to request a visit to Bath to see how a scheme works.
This absence of a scheme conflicts directly with the Council’s published strategic transport
plan.
If the team that has the task of preparing the scheme is afraid to act then the Council must
give it some leadership and deadlines.
I request that this matter be put on the agenda of a Cabinet Meeting at the earliest possible
date.
Suzanne Gardner
STATEMENT B 4
STATEMENT TO CABINET COMMITTEE – 30TH JULY 2009
KINGSDOWN RESIDENTS PARKING ZONE
Earlier this year, the proposals for 2 pilot Residents Parking Zones were called in to
a Council Scrutiny meeting. At this meeting, the call in was defeated due to an
overwhelming response by local residents and it was agreed that a survey would be
carried out and plans formulated on the basis of the results. The Council has known
the results since May, but they have not yet been made public nor are there any draft
proposals for the parking schemes ready to be placed in front of the residents of
those areas.
At the Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership meeting in the
Spring, officials in the Transport Department stated that, following the survey,
detailed proposals would be put to local consultation, followed by a final public vote
in July and that the outcome would be brought to Cabinet in early September.
Subject to approval and legal procedures, the scheme would then be operative by
January 2010.
This is now clearly impossible, indeed, at a recent Kingsdown PACT meeting, the
same official was indicating a major slippage on these dates, due to other priorities
being set by the new administration. This further delay is just not acceptable. The
strength of feeling in favour of the Kingsdown scheme was demonstrated at the call
in meeting and, since then, the parking situation has, if anything, deteriorated.
We urge that the RPZ pilots be put on the agenda of the Cabinet this Autumn
in order to focus the attention of all those involved with the schemes.
Residents Parking Schemes for Bristol have been considered and deferred time after
time. Many cities and towns across the UK already have them. Bath has been
running successful and popular schemes for 10 years. Why not Kingsdown – the
citizens deserve and demand a scheme NOW
Hilary and Ian Abrahams
STATEMENT B 5
Statement to Cabinet Meeting – 30th July 2009
I write to request the topic of Clifton Wood Resident’s Parking (pilot scheme) be
included on the agenda for discussion at the above meeting, as well as for the full
Council meeting in mid- August and the Scrutiny Committee meeting at the end of
August.
In April this year the resident’s of Clifton Wood were asked, by BCC Traffic
Management Team, to provide information relating to the current problems of parking
in our streets. The purpose was to help the team to draw up a detailed design for
individual streets.
We were told that once the design was available there would be more correspondance
with us, supported by meetings & discussions, in order to ensure that the best scheme
for our neighbourhood is developed.
I would like to ask Cabinet whether the resident’s who took the trouble to complete
the Parking Survey are likely to have any response from, or discussion with, the
Traffic Management Team in the near future regarding progression of the Resident’s
Parking Pilot Scheme in Clifton Wood?
Helen Tierney
STATEMENT B 6
STATEMENT TO CABINET COMMITTEE – 30TH JULY 2009
PILOT RESIDENTS PARKING ZONES
Concern about the length of time taken to come up with proposals
As a resident in the proposed Cliftonwood RPZ, I am concerned that the schedule for local
consultation and submission of proposals from the Council (which called for residents to vote
in July) has slipped. While I recognise that these proposals have to be crafted with care, I
am concerned that for whatever reason, council officers are failing to capitalise on the very
extensive experience in the setting up of RPZs available to them in other councils, notably
Bath.
Concern that the extensive experience of RPZs in Bath is not being leveraged
One of my neighbours and I spent an afternoon consulting with the BANES officer in charge
of RPZs -- she has many years experience and this has resulted in a group of sophisticated
schemes, some of which have been used to 10 years, which are popular with local residents
associations (with whom we consulted independently). We submitted a report to the council
which is also available On http://www.yestorpz.info/bath_01.htm
Aspects of the schemes in Bath which would make it more likely that an RPZ would be
attractive to local residents (and therefore voted for) include:
• electronic visitor permits which allow use by the hour as well as by the day
• limited waiting instead of pay and display -- thus reducing the need for expensive
investment and maintenance of machines as well as avoiding ugly street furniture
(after deducting costs, it is arguable as to whether these machines would produce
significant income – certainly BANES seem to think so)
• permission from the Department of Transport not to mark bays in areas of limited
access
Other evidence of their experience was seen in the surveys which take place and their
willingness to run residents workshops so that the residents themselves could take
ownership of decisions made.
I would strongly recommend that full use is made of this very considerable
experience -- the Banes official made it clear that she would be willing to help. There
is nothing particularly different about Bristol in this respect. The easiest way forward would
simply be to clone what demonstrably works in Bath for the pilot zones. This would require
less investment in council officer time and considerably less financial investment on the part
of the council.
I urge that the RPZ pilots be put on the agenda of the Cabinet this Autumn in order to
address these concerns.
Dr Adrian Longstaffe
STATEMENT B 7
Dear Sirs
To our dismay, we have just been informed that there is now going to be a
further delay in the implementation of the RPZ pilot shemes.
We really do find this unacceptable in the circumstances and question the
purpose of the consultation that has already taken place. Thousands of
pounds were spent when residents were consulted first time round in 2000.
This proved to be a total waste of public money and it looks as though this
latest round of consultation is going the same way. Schemes operate quite
successfully elsewhere in the country and the Council is aware that the
majority of residents are in favour of a scheme being implemented but still
there is prevarication.
We are residents of Kingsdown Parade where the parking situation is clearly
intolerable as it stands. Could you please make our views known at the
forthcoming Cabinet meeting on 30th July and request that some urgency is
put back into this already long overdue process.
Yours faithfully
Mark and Liz FitzGerald
STATEMENT B 8
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE HIGHBURY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
The Highbury Residents Association (HRA) represents the views of the
residents of Highbury Villas and Tyndalls Park Mews, areas that
overwhelmingly support the introduction of the Kingsdown RPZ as an
answer to the intolerable parking pressures that we face on a daily
basis.
The HRA understood that the Council was progressing detailed proposals
that would be considered by the Council's Cabinet in September. We now
understand that this may be delayed.
Kingsdown residents have already waited too long for the Council to take
action to tackle the parking problems in this area and any further
delays to the progression and implementation of the RPZ are
unacceptable. Such delays will not result in a better scheme, but
instead will ensure that the proposals are dragged down in administrative
red tape.
We urge the Council to move forward with the RPZ pilots as soon as
possible, listen to the overwhelming majority of residents and take some
real action to tackle the parking problems in Kingsdown. Controlled
parking works in cities across the country. It will work in Bristol.
Yours
Liz Dunn
Chair- Highbury Residents Association
STATEMENT B 9
We have heard that there is yet more slippage on the plans to introduce
Residents' Parking in Kingsdown. We completed our consultation forms back in
April and are still waiting for the next stage of detailed plans. This is a
pressing issue for us - we've waited YEARS for some action from the Council!
Please do all you can to make the Residents' Parking Scheme happen without
further delay.
Thank you
Linda Ewles & Jim Pimpernell
STATEMENT B 10
STATEMENT TO BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL CABINET
ON BEHALF OF
ASHTON VALE HERITAGE GROUP
THURSDAY 30TH JULY 2009
Re: Damage to Hedgerow in Ashton Vale Fields ‐ September 2008 AVHG wish to make a statement to convey their concern at the length of time it is taking to have any feedback on the current status of the investigation into the illegal grubbing out and destruction of Hedgerow in Ashton Vale Fields in September 2008 which contravened the Hedgerow Regulations (1997). AVHG have made in excess of ten enquiries by letter, email and phone call to BCC to ask about the progress of this complaint. To date they have not received any formal acknowledgement of the complaint or the status of the investigation. AVHG are concerned that the apparent lack of action by BCC may set a worrying precedent to other developers who might consider that BCC are unlikely to pursue any action in similar circumstances thereby encouraging similar behaviour. Ashton Vale Heritage Group mail@ashtonvaleheritage.co.uk STATEMENT C.5.1
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL -- CABINET MEETING 30TH JULY 2009
AGENDA NUMBER 5 – “RESIDENTIAL FUTURES”
COMMENTS OF UNISON
The report of the Interim Strategic Director for Health and Social Care is noted by
UNISON, and the following observations are made:1. Cabinet are being asked to approve 3 recommendations. UNISON notes that
members are asked to approve the closure of Hollybrook EPH and to withdraw
from the potential of the Bengough House project in North Bristol. Provided
that the existing staff based in Hollybrook House will still hold a post of a
similar nature broadly on the same existing terms and conditions in another
EPH within the City Council, then UNISON will not put forward any
objections to these proposals.
2. Cabinet are being asked to approve further options contained in the report,
regarding exploratory work being conducted on the feasibility of extensions to
Rockwell and Coombe EPH’s. If funding is approved for the projects, then
this should create additional residential homes for vulnerable adults with
dementia. This is one issue which UNISON does have reservations over.
During a special JCC with the Trade Unions on the 23rd July 2009 where the
contents of the cabinet report was shared with the unions, when asked as to
how the building projects for both Rockwell and Coombe were to be
resourced, the response given by senior management was that:a) Funding would have to be found for these projects as there is a clear
need for a Residential Home in the north of the City for vulnerable
adults with dementia.
b) It was likely that the funding would come at the expense of other
anticipated expenditure.
c) The most likely resource for the funding would come at the expense of
the Day Care Service.
What concerns UNISON, is the potential reference to point 2 (c) above. Already
cabinet has given approval for the closure of The Bush RAC (expected September
2009), and as far as UNISON is aware, the anticipated income generated from the sale
of land surrounding The Bush has already been accounted for. If the City Council is
indicating that further RAC closures are anticipated in order to resource the
Residential Service building projects, then it should declare the matter as soon as
possible, as clearly their will be severe staffing implications on an already vulnerable
service, as highlighted by the decision to close The Bush. It should be further pointed
out that the plans for Rockwell to include a Resource Facility, could put the future of
the other proposed resource facilities in doubt, at a time when real concerns exist over
making a business case for the number already proposed.
The numbers of vacant posts across the authority are extremely low, due to mainly
The “Transforming Bristol’s Services Review”, but have increased recently through
other service area reviews including The Bush.
The other are of concern surrounding the funding of the building projects, is that it is
already publicly known that the City Council will some £30 million short of its
projected spending over the next 3 years, and savings have to be made from the civic
budget. UNISON holds the view that there is unlikely to be any additional resource
allocated to the building projects without cuts being made in the service elsewhere.
UNISON can confirm that discussions on the selection criteria is on going in respect
of the Residential Staff, and notes the proposed actions of Human Resources to
concentrate on the selection criteria for Hollybrook Staff and to hold ongoing
discussions with the Trades Unions on future Residential Homes, as and when they
face closure. UNISON will verbally provide its response at cabinet to this proposal, as
there will have been insufficient time to have consulted with our members who are
affected.
UNISON Bristol Branch
6th Floor
Tower House
Fairfax Street
Bristol BS1 3BN
Tel. 0117 9405002
e-mail bristol.unison@bristolunison.co.uk
STATEMENT C.5.3
South Western Region
28 July 2009
Cabinet Meeting – 30th July 2009
Residential Futures Report
The GMB wish to make the following statement to Cabinet:
Whilst Bristol City Council made an ‘in principle’ decision on 4 September
2008 it was agreed that for each home closure would be brought back to
Cabinet for ratification.
The GMB cannot therefore understand why a report which was agreed ‘in
principle’ should have been shrouded in so much mystery and secrecy. We
were not allowed to receive a copy of the draft report until Wednesday, 22nd
July by attending the Scrutiny Commission meeting.
The reason for the secrecy appears to have been because the report was
changed and amendments made to the proposals contained within the
original report.
Bengough House owned by Bristol Charities is no longer a viable proposal.
Although there is some uncertainty when this was actually known.
At the Cabinet meeting on the 4th September 2008 the then executive
member brought out of his top pocket a Memorandum of Understanding and
indicated to David Jones (Bristol Charities Chief Executive) sat in the public
gallery they had a deal. Managers were then instructed to go away and sort
things out by December 2008.
The current executive member informed the Scrutiny Commission on Monday
(27th July) that he only became aware that something was wrong in March
2009. The unions were being told in April/May 2009 that Bengough may not
be a runner but when the unions pressed Management about what other
option(s) were being considered we were told it was unclear at this stage.
The GMB is pleased the site at Rockwell has been identified as a potential
joint EMI/Resource Centre for Dementia sufferers. But why was Rockwell
discounted in 2008 by the surveyors as ‘medium sized restricted site with
large level differences. Limited parking and delivery space, no room for future
expansion. 1980’s building is now below current energy and performance
standards.’
The Scrutiny Commission were told on Monday the surveyors had made an
‘error’. How many more ‘errors’ have they made and how much have we paid
them for their shoddy work?
If Bengough did not meet fire regulations, how could they have operated as a
residential home? How does the restriction of parking facilities fit with the City
Council’s green agenda and travel programme? Bengough House already
has en-suite facilities.
The GMB understand there are currently 16 parking places at Rockwell – how
many after the refurbishment?
What advice from Health and Safety/HSE have been sought to enable staff,
residents and relatives to continue to use the existing EMI (PwD) home whilst
the building work is undertaken? One of the proposals is to keep the existing
home at Rockwell the same without any refurbishment until a much later date
– this has been agreed by CQC/CSCI.
Of course the response is – management are seeking approval to ditch
Bengough House and undertake a feasibility study on Rockwell as an
alternative site in the North of Bristol.
How much is this ‘feasibility study’ going to cost; how much has the aborted
Bengough proposal cost? There is no mention of any proper financial
costings (broken down) in the report. This information is not commercially
sensitive but keeps being withheld - why?
What happens if the Rockwell option is not viable?
At the Scrutiny Commission, the GMB asked if Bristol had considered using
Bengough House as a resource centre – we were told yes but it was not
suitable. Yet in the Council’s written response to GMB questions, it states
‘no’. What actually is the correct answer?
Has anyone considered the Brentry site as a dementia home rather than a
resource centre? In the original flawed surveyors report it states that Brentry
is a ‘large sized site but with limited future growth potential if existing retained.
Level changes are accommodated currently and could be for new build
options although not ideal. Good access, parking and delivery space.’
If Rockwell does not work out will Cabinet then have another report back and
another request to look at alternatives?
When will Coombe get its new roof – it has been promised this for as long as I
can remember. How much is this actually going to cost. There is an
approximate costing but nothing specific or broken down relating to financial
implications for roof and upgrading six bedrooms.
If the new build at Rockwell is used as a resource provision what happens to
Coombe’s staff and residents?
This is a shambles!
Closure of Hollybrook
If an ‘in principle’ decision can be made to close a residential home some 10
months before the actual decision is made. Why can’t staff be given an ‘in
principle’ job offer at the same time. It is the GMB’s understanding that one
person at Hollybrook has secured alternative employment. What about the
other 28?
Money is being spent to transport staff from the city to the new Somerfield
building but what about our members who potentially face a two/three bus ride
to another home in the south area. Talks are on-going with HR but if Vetchlea
is anything to go by it will be too little too late.
Vetchlea was the last home to close. Staff had to pay their bus fares up front
(period of between 3-6 months) before being able to claim it back. A ceiling
was put on the travelling allowance – management imposed a restriction that
only staff upto BG4/5 were eligible. The period the assistance was available
for was six-nine months.
By the time the GMB had put in appeals (heard some considerable time after
relocation) one of our officer members had been walking from Redfield to
Horfield (St Peters, because she was unable to pay the fares) for over a year.
She is also a primary carer. Agreement was reached that whilst she did not
qualify for reimbursement she could claim for a taxi in extreme circumstances,
as she was covered under the DDA. She has only taken this up on very few
occasions as she is unclear what is meant by ‘extreme’ circumstances. She
was forced into this situation because she was offered eight hours work per
week at Broomhill, her contracted hours were 37 per week. She needed to
stay in paid employment as she is the sole provider in her household and
therefore had no other choice but to take up the post at St Peters. The way in
which Vetchlea was closed – once the decision was made, residents moved
out and the place was closed within a very short time after the decision was
made by Cabinet.
Two other members were ‘shoe horned’ into posts at Fishponds (Gleeson) – it
was deemed reasonable that although both had difficulty walking they could
catch a bus which meant they had a 30 to 40 minute walk at the end/start of
their shift - working a three shift pattern. Needless to say they left as they
could not cope with the additional cost, time and physical pressure.
The GMB can give you more examples. We do not want the same thing
happening to our members at Hollybrook or any other home up for closure in
the future. The Council must move forward not continue to make the same
mistakes.
The GMB is currently in dispute with the City Council over the management of
change process. The GMB proposed that all staff (officers, care assistants,
domestics, night care assistants, handy persons, cooks) should be placed in a
geographical ring fence. This would enable all staff to be on the ‘at risk’
register and apply for the new posts within that geographical areas as they
came on line. We felt this was the fairest and most equitable way to proceed.
Any individual who wished to ‘swop’ area could be dealt with on an individual
basis. This proposal was refused.
We now have a situation where all officers are on the ‘at risk’ register for the
duration of the residential futures programme (five years) and staff only on
until they are redeployed. This means that Hollybrook staff who opt for
Maesknoll will not be eligible to apply (on an ‘at risk’ status) for a post back at
Hollybrook in 2011 as Maesknoll does not close until 2012. The only way
they could apply would be through an open competitive recruitment process.
If staff opt to move to Greville which closes when Hollybrook comes on line,
they will have to catch upto two/three buses. Resulting in something around
£120 per month additional expense plus the additional travelling time.
Currently we understand Greville has five day care assistants, three
domestics and one cook vacancies. What about the remaining nineteen
staff?
What happens to those staff who are in homes that are not up for closure –
Westleigh, Broomhill, Bowmead, Brentry and Rockwell? They will not be ‘at
risk’ and therefore will not be treated as a priority when their home changes to
a resource centre – what happens to these staff. The GMB consider the
current management change process to be totally unfair and does not
address the key issues for staff.
Hollybrook staff have undergone one to one interviews over the last ten days.
They are being asked where they want to work in the future – how can they
answer that question when they have not been given the new job
documentation (job descriptions, employee specifications/competency
criteria). No-one working in residential care has received any documentation
about the ‘new’ residential futures programme and these new posts!
Equally in spite of the Cabinet recommendation in September 2008 and
various assurances from various executive members – no staff training has
been undertaken. Yet again the GMB have been pushing for this to be sorted
out as quickly as possible and we are now working with management. But the
fact remains that our members heard from all political groups what a good job
they do and how valued they are and yet when it comes to delivery of the
most basic training this is sadly missing – especially for Hollybrook staff who
are the first affected.
We have asked that staff be given the opportunity to go into office to
undertake admin duties – in some homes this is being undertaken, however,
in others temporary admin staff are being used. This is a good opportunity to
train staff (who express and interest) in widening their skills and experience –
why is this not being fully offered along with an appropriate training package
across the workforce?
We keep hearing Bristol talk about a change of culture – please put these
words into action NOW!
The GMB would therefore request Cabinet to defer the closure date for a
very short period of time until these key HR issues are sorted out.
Yet again there is no financial information available. The GMB understand
there is a budget overspend of £4.5m. Provision for care in the community
has increased by 23% but surely this was included in the budget
forecast/projection? It stands to reason if you are stopping people going into
residential care through bed blocking etc. If there is insufficient VSH
accommodation available, people have no other option but to stay in their own
home and they need this provision.
What exactly is the cost of a medium to high care package provided in the
home – on a par with residential care? Obviously this comparator has been
considered before closing Bristol’s homes so why is it not in the report going
to Cabinet?
What is the comparator cost for refurbishing Benghough House v Rockwell.
What is the comparator cost of changing Bengough House into a resource
centre? The GMB would like to see a proper financial breakdown of these
costs.
The GMB consider this report has significantly changed from the original ‘in
principle’ decision taken by Cabinet in September 2008 and not fulfilled
Cabinet’s instruction. Therefore we consider there has been insufficient
consultation or information in relation to staffing; other alternatives to
Bengough House/Rockwell should that also prove unacceptable and
insufficient financial information in determining why Bengough House is not a
suitable option.
In conclusion the GMB do not have any trust or confidence in the way this
whole process is being managed. If Bristol City Council can treat the Bristol
Charities Commission with such contempt – when it purports to want to work
with external stakeholders – what confidence do we have our members and
their future employment rights will be treated any differently?
Liz Bebbington
Branch Secretary
Rowena Hayward
Organisation Officer
Bristol Office: 4 Hide Market, Waterloo Street, Bristol, BS2 0BH
Telephone: (0117) 9554470
Fax: (0117) 9554409
STATEMENT C.5.4
Public Forum Statement by Councillor Lesley Alexander
to the Cabinet Meeting of 30th July 2009
ITEM 5 RESIDENTIAL FUTURES
As Cabinet will be aware, the Residential Futures report before you today was due to be
discussed at the Annual Meeting of the Health & Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission
meeting on 22nd July.
Regrettably, the Commission did not have the opportunity to have prior sight to the report
and therefore we adjourned to reconsider the matter on Monday, 27th July.
I feel I must place on record the completely unsatisfactory nature of the release of the full
report. Whilst I fully understand the need to ensure that residents, relatives and staff are
properly informed about the proposals, it is equally essential that Scrutiny is in possession
of the information to properly evaluate the implications of these far reaching changes. The
blatant withholding of this bulky and lengthy report until the day of Scrutiny Meeting was
completely unacceptable.
Turning to the specific recommendations, I wish to make the following observations:(1)
I believe it is entirely premature to press ahead with the closure of Hollybrook EPH
when there has been completely inadequate arrangements made for the redeployment of
our dedicated staff at the home. At a time when this Administration has endorsed
significant cut-backs in the supported bus services, it is ludicrous to expect people on very
modest salaries to make multiple changes of buses, especially in the very early morning
and late at night.
(2)
I am very disappointed with Officers' dismissal of the potential of Bengough House
as a residential home for people with dementia in North Bristol. Opposition Members of
the Scrutiny Commission felt that we were being asked to rubber-stamp this about-turn on
the basis of very limited and inadequate information. This reversal of policy represents a
betrayal of the previous Cabinet pledges and our discussions, which were conducted in
good faith, with Bristol Charities.
I am convinced that other, more imaginative, alternatives have not been considered. For
example, Brentry House (which is due to be an evolving Resource Centre) could
accommodate between 40 and 60 beds for a dementia home and therefore the possibility
of developing Bengough House as a resource centre is still an option well worth pursuing.
(3)
It is also clear that not all viable options for serving older people with dementia in
North Bristol have been properly explored and that other sites - besides Rockwell - could
be considered in close conjunction with Ward Councillors and other affected parties.
In conclusion, I am all too conscious that the remodelling of Bristol's residential care
service has been the cause of much anxiety and uncertainty. We need to be able to
assure all residents and families, our hardworking staff and the people of Bristol that the
Residential Futures strategy will meet our care demands now and into the future and is not
simply an expedient cost-cutting exercise. Sadly, based upon the report before you today,
I do not believe the Authority has achieved the best solution to this challenge and I urge
Cabinet to properly address these concerns.
Councillor Lesley Alexander
STATEMENT C.5.5
STATEMENT TO CABINET, JULY 30
Re: Closure of Hollybrook EPH
As the local ward member, I attended a meeting of residents and relatives of Hollybrook
Elderly People's Home. Many were upset at the decision to consult on the closure of their
home, where strong friendships between residents and staff have developed.
I recognise that the number of permanent residents has fallen to under a dozen since the
decision to seek closure was made by the former Labour cabinet. This, though, is because
the council has decided not to place residents in the home.
Such decisions always cause distress but this does more so because some of the
residents were moved to Hollybrook following previous closures and were given written
assurances that there were no plans to close Hollybrook.
I recognise that the Residential Futures project is about ensuring we have facilities that
better suit the demands of the future.
But we must also recognise the pain and distress caused to those that we currently have a
responsibility for.
I'm sure cabinet will bear in mind that when talking about this closure we are talking about
the home of some of my oldest and most vulnerable residents to whom we have a duty of
care.
COUNCILLOR TIM KENT
WHITCHURCH PARK
STATEMENT C.7.1
For the attention of:
Cllr. Dr. Jon Rogers, Transport and Sustainability Executive Member
From: Mike Primarolo
Re: Cabinet Meeting 30th July 2009,
Agenda Item no 7: Sustainable Communities Act; Appendix A: Summary of short-list
suggestions.
Suggestion G:
Reduce VAT on property refurbishment and Brownfield site development to zero %
Proposal: A parallel process to reduce further relevant goods and services to 5% with UK
government and via EU to zero %
Reasons:
•
EU law requires that the standard VAT rate must be at least 15% and the reduced rate
at least 5% (only for supplies of goods and services referred to in an exhaustive list).
•
Actual rates applied vary between Member States and between certain types of
products.
•
Certain Member States, including UK, have retained separate rules in specific areas.
•
The UK Government can reduce the standard rate to the lowest rate 5% on particular
good and services, providing it does not breach EU competition rules, (See relevant
examples below).
•
It is a difficult process and unlikely to persuade the EU to allow a zero rate on goods
and services that currently are subject to VAT at the lowest rate or standard rate. (See
relevant examples below).
Notes
5% VAT Rate relevant examples
Altering an empty residential building; Converting premises into different living accommodation;
Renovating an empty residential building; Air source heat pumps (installation); Boilers - wood fuelled
(installation); Central heating controls (installation); Draught stripping (installation); Energy saving
materials installed in residential or charity premises; Insulation (installation); Micro combined heat and
power units; Solar panels (installation); Wind turbines (installation); Water turbines (installation) and
Security items - grant-funded installations. Relevant documents: HMRC VAT Notice 708 and VAT
Notice 708/6
0% VAT Rate relevant examples
Construction and sale of new buildings for a charitable purpose; Construction and sale of new
buildings for communal residential purposes; Construction and sale of new domestic buildings;
Approved alterations to a listed building or scheduled monument and Building services for disabled
people. Relevant documents: HMRC VAT Notice 708 and ‘Building services for disabled people’.
Exempt supplies
These are all activities that are specified as exempt by VAT legislation and include broad categories
such as health and education, including many of the activities of charities.
Zero-rated supplies
Some activities are taxable, but at zero rate. These are listed in a schedule to the VAT legislation,
which is amended form time to time. There are some broad areas, which apply to everyone, such as
unprepared food and children’s clothing. There are some activities that are zero-rated when
undertaken by charities.
Standard-rated supplies
Most sales of goods and services will be standard-rated, even if they are supplied by a charity.
Assume that an activity will be standard-rated unless you can establish that it is non-business, exempt
or zero-rated.
At the moment there are three different rates. They are:
1. standard rate - see below
2. reduced rate – 5%
3. zero rate – 0%
Standard rate is:
17.5% up to and including 30 November 2008
15% from 1 December 2008 to 31 December 2009
17.5% from 1 January 2010
European Council
See: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards
reduced rates of value added tax, (three pages) – came into force in June 2009.
The optional use of reduced VAT rates in certain sectors is one of the actions identified by the
economic recovery plan approved by the European Council in December 2008.
Reduced rates on labour-intensive local services have so far only been allowed on a temporary basis.
Under the directive adopted by the Council, member states that so wish may apply reduced VAT
rates, on a permanent basis, to:
The following labour-intensive local services:
• minor repairs of bicycles, shoes and leather goods, clothing and household linen (including
mending and alteration);
• window cleaning and cleaning in private households;
• domestic care services such as home help and care of the young, elderly, sick or disabled;
• hairdressing;
• the renovation and repair of private dwellings, excluding materials which account for a
significant part of the value of the service supplied;
•
restaurant and catering services.
STATEMENT C.7.2
STATEMENT TO CABINET ON THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
This groundbreaking legislation received all party support in Parliament and I
believe this to be the case in Bristol. The Labour Administration started the
programme of work leading to today’s report and my colleague, Terry Cook,
was the Executive Member Champion in our Cabinet. Our belief is that the
Sustainable Communities Act (SCA) can help reconnect local residents to
local government by offering practical suggestions for enhancing quality of life
and tackling our key challenges. Also, it is useful in explaining the practical,
legal and financial challenges associated with particular proposals.
Bristolians are to be congratulated in putting forward over 100 suggestions for
consideration.
The Act restricts short listed proposals to those not currently permitted by
legislation. Many suggestions received from the public are ones that could be
implemented under existing Council powers. It is important that residents
putting forward ideas in this category receive proper feedback on proposed
action, if any. Clarification of the process for evaluating and, if appropriate,
implementing proposals in this category would be welcome. I suggest they are
referred to OSM and the relevant scrutiny commissions.
I took part in the SCA Local Panel session on 8th June and agreed that each
of the short-listed proposals is a potentially valuable contributor to enhancing
the quality of life in our city.
While recognising that weak existing council powers over the commercial
waste stream remain a hindrance to improving levels of waste reduction,
reuse and recycling, the full financial impact of this proposal needs to be
investigated, as Bristol lacks a clear strategy to avoid Landfill Tax liabilities for
municipal waste following the breakdown of joint procurement of a post-2015
solution (phase 3). Bristol is about to procure a long-term municipal waste
collection (and possibly disposal) contract effective from 2011 onwards.
Bristol needs to be clear about its requirements to get the best value for the
council taxpayer.
Cllr Mark Bradshaw
Deputy Leader – Labour Group
Spokesperson on sustainability & transport
STATEMENT C.8.1
STATEMENT TO CABINET ON THE TRANSPORT CAPITAL
PROGRAMME AMENDMENTS 2009/10 – 2011/12
The transport capital programme set out in the Cabinet papers follows that
agreed by the Labour Administration on 2nd February 2009. We set out an
ambitious and deliverable programme for transforming travel in Bristol,
maintaining and improving the city environs and enhancing accessibility for
our residents. Enabling investment by the Council can also complement that
by other public and private sector bodies, for example, at Hengrove Park.
I am pleased to see that, barring one or two adjustments, the broad direction
of our policies is retained and that significant investment in integrated
transport is still viewed as a priority. As is increasing spend on smart travel
choices.
It is vital to offer residents, commuters and visitors real affordable choice
when travelling and this can only come about by investing in existing and new
modes. It is in this context that we welcome the Labour Government’s recent
announcement of funding the rapid transit route from Ashton Vale to Temple
Meads. This £42m scheme will make a big difference in everyday travel into
and across Bristol, especially when complemented by the full BRT network;
Hengrove to North Fringe and Temple Meads to Emerson’s Green (preferably
using the M32 and Avon Link Road, connecting to the proposed new park and
ride).
The GBBN programme is a key component in meeting the needs of our city
and the A4 scheme needs to be progressed after full and detailed community
engagement. The £70m awarded to the West of England Partnership by
Government last year was a clear signal that in the city region we have
strong, unified proposals for tackling congestion and air pollution (unlike
avoiding landfill tax). However, surely Cabinet must recognise that a better
travel information facility for Bristol is needed and not the desk tucked away in
the corner of the First & National Express Bus station.
Continued investment in our traffic management capability makes perfect
sense and I saw at first hand what this could do in relation to managing traffic
pressures associated with Cabot Circus and giving increased priority to public
transport. Making our roads and streets safer is a priority all would support;
whether the increased number of VAS deployed, the new Watchman cameras
or the awaited 20 mph pilots.
The award of Cycling City status to Bristol in June 2008 was a major
achievement and has led to some quality initiatives. The focus should be on
encouraging people who do not cycle regularly, or at all, to take part. To date,
I feel we have yet to grasp the full opportunity of being England’s first and only
Cycling City. Local infrastructure and the correction of outdated or poor quality
measures need to have priority alongside the keynote strategic projects.
It would have been good to see some indication of further progress towards
enhancing our local rail facilities, following Bristol’s investment in new services
on the Severn Beach Line in May 2008. This investment, negotiated with
FGW and implemented when Labour formed the Administration, has helped
build passenger numbers – over 30%, but more needs to be done to make
stations safer and more accessible. There is also an opportunity to exploit
better integration at Portway Park & Ride with a rail platform (I discussed this
with Network Rail) and improved access at Lawrence Hill and Parson St. Our
investment, with FGW and Network Rail, to facilitate the Clifton Down ‘turn
back’ signals has helped make the service more reliable and other
opportunities exist to strengthen the resilience of our local rail services.
As we move towards JLTP3, there is also an important role for scrutiny (both
Bristol and West of England) to support new thinking and innovation in
tackling our shared travel opportunities and challenges.
Cllr Mark Bradshaw
Deputy Leader – Labour Group
Spokesperson on sustainability & transport
STATEMENT C.8.2
Representation to Bristol City Council Meeting, 30 July 2009
Re: Agenda Item No. 8 - Transport Capital Programmes Amendments
The papers published for this Cabinet meeting give no details about how/if any of the
increased allocation to the Transport Capital Programme will be spent on the proposed
Hengrove-City Centre BRT route. Residents of Windmill Hill would like to have
reassurance that the Hengrove-City Centre Rapid Transit Route or any other BRT routes
will not be built on any of our green corridors, and on the Malago Greenway in particular.
Nancy Carlton
STATEMENT C.10.1
Statement to Cabinet - Junction 3 Creative Learning Centre.
I welcome the recommendation that Cabinet agrees to enter into the proposed
development scheme at Junction 3 and support the scheme by form of undervalue land
transfer.
The Labour administration when in control backed the development and I ask the Liberal
Democrat administration to also provide support for such a much needed mixed use
development that will bring social benefit to a deprived area.
The need for such a development is evident. The area at Baptist Mills is derelict and
furthermore abused by crime. The community needs educational resources, which are
currently not provided adequately enough by the Trinity Road Library. The community
needs Social Housing for larger families, currently at a premium in the area.
This development is also recognised as supporting central priorities in the corporate plan,
some of which include safer communities and better neighbourhoods, all of which
Lawrence Hill needs desperately.
I welcome the commitment of partner funders in making this development a reality.
After much consultation with local residents, there is huge support for such a development,
which brings together every single member of the community regardless of age or cultural
background.
I urge the Liberal Democrat administration to support the Learning Centre, as the previous
Labour Administration did, to give the residents of Lawrence Hill a much needed resource.
Failure to agree to such a course of action will result in a loss of lottery funding amounting
to £2 million and a continuation of minimal cultural provision in Lawrence Hill.
Cllr Brenda Hugill
STATEMENT C.11.1
First, about the waiting times for allotments - the articles cited the Metford Road site,
whose waiting list I manage. The figures in detail:
When I took over as site representative 3 years ago, and after a validation check to
confirm contactability and continuing interest that removed half their number, 30 people
remained on the waiting list. Since then, I have let 36 plots and removed a further 52 from
the waiting list - for reasons such as: taking a plot elsewhere (29); moving away (8); lost
interest (5); no response (5) and other (5).
You'd think that would cut the waiting list length down a bit...to less than zero, in fact.....but
the actual sums are: 30-(36+52) = 134!
Of course this doesn't make sense - unless you appreciate that 192 new people have put
their names on my waiting list in the last 3 years (16 in the last 2 months). This is a
veritable tsunami of interest that has still not reached its peak, and what it means is that
the waiting time for an allotment is rapidly accelerating.
Currently I am giving plots to people waiting 2.5 yr, but with the rate of addition to the list,
the 8yr waiting time estimate in the article is almost certainly too low for people applying
now.
The number of plots let in the 3yr (36) has been inflated by one-off factors - creating 12
new plots from uncultivated areas and subdividing larger plots to create more smaller
ones. This process is coming to an end, and I estimate the long term average turnover of
plots to be 2-3 a year. So if no-one was to lose interest, die, move away or to take a plot
elsewhere, the woman who complained to the papers may have lost five years by delaying
her application 2 months, and may not remain alive long enough to take up an allotment
plot.
Re: the allotments strategy.
I've seen a little of the strategy in its development through my membership of the Allotment
panel, a council advisory group where I represent the interests of the Redland Allotments
association and seven other associations. I think the strategy proposed to be a good one but with a single flaw that obliges it to lack ambition. The flaw is that it has been devised
under the absolute constraint that no Council money be spent on allotments - they are
expected to be entirely self-funding. And the missing ambitions that follow are the
expansion of allotment provision necessary to catch up with demand, and the development
of benefits allotments offer beyond simple food production. Examples I could elaborate on
might include horticultural therapy to give life skills to disaffected youth and helping
integration of ethnic migrants with agricultural traditions.
The funding constraint is a policy matter that I believe should be contested - a process that
starts with all of us influencing our councillors to see things differently from the way they
currently do. The current policy arises from allotments having a very low priority in the
council - while physical and mental health, education, antisocial behaviour and life skills
are all recognised as important.
The fact that allotments make a substantial contribution to all these areas (and with
suitable support could do more) is not recognised by either the individual councillors or by
the accounting processes. A small example: I have helped the Westbury Park Juniors
school secure a plot at our site and the school have made a great success of it, winning in
their first year the prize for best school's allotment. This allotment gives an unarguable
educational benefit to the children from the school and so to their parents and to the city.
But the costs of this fall upon the allotment office - there is no transfer from the educational
budget to reflect the educational benefit - and even the rent is waived because it is a
school.
The press release, though not untruthful, certainly does not give an accurate impression.
The 1.75M fund comes not from the Council as a reader might suppose - it is from the sale
of allotment lands - the family silver, you might say. The allotment office have certainly
done a good job in pinpointing the allotment land on which there is currently least pressure
(St George area) and it is certainly under-used there today. But if the populace in Redland
and central Bristol wake up to the fact that it may take over a decade of waiting for a local
allotment, they will start to take plots in surrounding areas. And if the early adopters in
Redland are followed in their interests in the peripheral areas of Bristol, the local demand
will pick up there as well, creating a perfect storm if the land has already been sold.
Are norms or benchmarks any help in judging how many allotments the city needs? Yes, I
would say so - if we were in a steady state - but No, not at all, when the demand for
allotments is rapidly increasing.
The 'norm' that is used to judge sufficiency of allotment provision in Bristol (7 plots per
1000 population) is arbitrarily set at the current national average, and is way below the
levels seen in the past when allotments were recognised as a vital food source for the
country. If the current interest persists in its upward trend (and why should it not since the
real cost of energy and food will rise further as the planetary plague of humans gobble up
more from the decreasing cultivable area of land available) the current 'norm' will be
stranded far behind the rising curve of demand.
I should mention also that the press release makes comforting but vague noises about
increasing allotment provision, and misleadingly places this immediately after the
statement confirming long waiting lists in some areas, as if the two were connected. But
there is not the slightest chance this strategy as it stands will produce more land for
allotments in central Bristol and so help anyone waiting in Redland. The additional
designated plots it plans for will be those on the pasture land that is proposed to be sold
off. And it will be 10 years before this strategy is history and can be followed by a better
funded one.
So my view is that Jon Rogers and Gary Hopkins and other cabinet members should not
be waving the allotments strategy through 'as is', but should be reflecting on the rapidly
rising demand for allotments in your and their constituencies and the fact that during the
lifetime of this strategy, the balance of supply and demand will change substantially. This
change renders invalid the assumption that today's unused land will remain so, and makes
inappropriate a decision to dispose of arable land within urban areas that can never
afterwards be reclaimed. For this reason, and for the fact that allotments contribute
unseen to many of the agendas that are dear to councillors' hearts, funding should be
found for their needs from the general purse, and not from forcing a sale of allotment land
in a recession.
Stephen Pill
STATEMENT C.11.2
Statement to Cabinet - Bristol Allotments Strategy 2009-2012 - Improving the Provision
and use of Allotments across the City.
I welcome the recommendation that Cabinet agrees to adopt the Allotments Strategy as a
10 year programme for service improvement. The last ten years has seen big changes in
allotments in Bristol, with a massive investment of £4million in the city's first allotment
strategy started under a Labour administration in 1999. Many of the city allotments have
been transformed with secure fencing, new water tanks, asphalted paths, proper
landscaping and terracing, and new sheds. As a result letting take up has risen from 53%
to 90%. It may be harder to get an allotment now that it was - but surely that is a measure
of a successful strategy.
It is vital that the Council, and the Liberal Democrat administration, continues to reinforce
this success story. The Labour Party welcomes the revised strategy which enhances on
the previous strategy of 1999-2004, which it was responsible for. The strategy proves
Labour's plan for Bristol's allotment strategy was the correct approach.
The increase in revenue generated for the rent increases and increased lettings must be
used to pay for maintenance as stated in the report to make rent increases more palatable
to allotment users. However I am disappointed that the revenue projections show annual
deficits of between £76,000 and £149,000 across the ten year period 2009-2019. The
deficit is supposedly covered by allotment sites identified as surplus being sold, and
interest thus being generated by an endowment fund. However in the uncertainty of the
current economic climate, in both interest rates and land prices means that such a plan
may not be financially sound and cannot be dependent on the recession picking up.
If there is any additional financial pressure on the allotment strategy, it must be met as
stated by existing budgets. The strategy must not have funding reduced, in consideration
of the 50% rent increase, it is important for allotment users that they feel they are getting
value for money. Also, if there is such a budget hole, it should be considered that more
money be redirected from the selling of surplus land, rather than the mere 50% being
reinvested currently.
It is integral that the new strategy encourages public interest in organic food , supports
families wanting to cut costs in the current economic climate and promotes local social
enterprise, and increases local food supply. I therefore feel that such initiatives require
more funding then is currently being provided.
The new allotment strategy contains provisions for the identification of derelict or surplus
otherwise earmarked for disposal to be used for allotment used. This plan must be
followed through to allow for the Council waiting list to be reduced and fulfil the Labour
strategy of a minimum of 7 plots per 1,000 population in any ward. However it must be
acknowledged that in some wards this may not be possible due to derelict and surplus
land being at a premium, the new strategy must incorporate plans for such an instance.
The new Allotment Strategy continue to deliver, based on previous Labour Party success
and understand that more needs to be done to improve plot provision, maintenance, public
interest and any financial shortfall.
Cllr Ron Stone
STATEMENT C.11.3
Statement by Councillor Richard Eddy to the Cabinet Meeting of Thursday, 30th July, 2009
ITEM 11 BRISTOL ALLOTMENTS STRATEGY 2009-19
IMPROVING THE PROVISION AND USE OF ALLOTMENTS ACROSS THE CITY
I welcome the intention of the Bristol Allotments Strategy report, which you are being
asked to endorse today, in seeking to set out a clear development plan and investment
strategy for the next 10 years.
There can be little doubt that there is a huge interest in growing one's own inexpensive
food and demand for allotment sites across the city now considerably outstrips supply.
This was the case prior to the onset of the recession and I suspect that Bristolians'
rekindled desire to have their own plot will continue to grow over the years ahead.
However, I do have a number of concerns about the proposed Allotment Strategy:
(1)
It would have been helpful to have a clear indication of the scale of the present
problem of unmet demand for allotments - including sites not managed by the Authority.
Whilst there is some piecemeal information available via the Council website, this is not
presented in a comprehensive and coherent form and I do think this stark omission needs
to be remedied in this important document.
(2)
The realisation of the ambition of replacing sold allotments with plots in areas of
high demand strikes me as fundamentally flawed. Whilst well-intentioned, the Authority
will never be able to purchase like-for-like lost allotment land because the revenues raised
on low-value land will be insufficient to purchase space in more expensive neighbourhoods
unless the Council commits to adding-in additional land parcels.
(3)
Moreover, for a City with genuine aspirations to be a “Green Capital”, the
Conservative Group is disappointed that we only propose to ring-fence 50% of allotment
proceeds in the proposed reinvestment programme. There was, rightly in our view, major
opposition to the current Parks & Green Spaces Strategy until the miserly 50%
reinvestment threshold was increased to the current 70%. The Conservative Group feels
that this would be a more appropriate figure for the Allotments Strategy and would help
incentivise allotment-holders and local communities to work with the Council in identifying
surplus land for disposal.
Unless the level of demand for allotment places is accurately accessed and we make a
conscious commitment to tackle this - at the same time remedying the potential flaws in
the proposed strategy - I fear that waiting lists of almost a decade for some will remain,
and indeed, worsen.
I hope that the Cabinet will take on board these concerns and seek to address them in an
suitably amended and improved Strategy.
Councillor Richard Eddy
Leader, Conservative Group
Conservative Lead on Quality of Life Scrutiny Commission