Issue - meetings

The report recommends funding decision on submitted Full Proposal for approval of S106 Tree planting funds.

The Community Resources Manager presented this report and highlighted the following points:

·       [Para 3] There will be 6-month updates on all previously approved projects and legacy neighbourhood partnership projects. The next report will be published publicly by the end of August. 

·       [Para 4.c] Note that the previous cost of tree replacement of £765.21 per tree has increased to £1041.66. That has been held since 2013 due to Tree Bristol subsidising the price increases. 

·       [Para 4.d] A Bristol resident made a complaint to the ombudsman about the process for the informal Area Committee meetings as it is not clear why proposals are accepted or rejected. We will now publish the results and reasons after they are made at the informal meetings.

·       It is notable that the principle of making these decisions outside of a public meeting was supported. The informal meetings are to set the agenda for the formal decision making meeting.

·       [Para 5] This sets out CIL funding as of end June 2022. £116k of this is allocated for Hengrove Park, meaning only £37k is available. 

Discussion Notes:

·       [Para 5.b.iii] Members noted there is no existing zebra crossing on Airport Road.

·       Members noted the delay in delivery of some highways-based projects. They were reassured that they would happen as they have funding allocated, but this does not guarantee a timeframe. Estimated times will form part of the 6-month update published in August.

The Tree Bristol Officer joined the meeting to present Para 6, Tree Bristol:

·       The proposal is to use unspent funds from last year to plant 2 trees in Stockwood and Hengrove.

·       Trees for Climate Fund: The team has been very busy over the last week to try and identify sites for tree planting. Some Cllrs have been recommending sites, but the team would welcome more suggestions. Locations will need a minimum of 10 trees in 1/10 hectare.

Discussion Notes:

·       Members congratulated the Tree Bristol team for their excellent delivery over recent years and the positive impact it has on the city.

·       Trees for Climate Fund tree planting locations are a minimum of 10 trees planted at least 20m from each other. 1/10 hectare is around 2 football pitches. Officers can measure the area by request. Empty green spaces or wide verges are good examples but should be tempered with the need for open space.

·       This can include school land, and the parks team has already worked with some schools, such as the maze at Four Acres.

·       Some members commented that they are unaware of what tree projects are going on and would appreciate more communications from the parks team. This can cause issues, such as trees being planted without local residents being aware. Officers confirmed they can inform members on new tree planting proposals. There is also a major report on tree planting being published in the next few weeks. 

·       Members queried the 1k cost for a tree planting and requested a breakdown. This cost includes the tree itself, which can be up to £300 depending on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

The report recommends funding decisions on submitted proposals for CIL and S106 funding; decisions on previously-allocated sums of S106 and CIL which are either underspent or have not been drawn-down; a decision on a proposal to ‘pair wards’ within the AC area.

The Community Resources Manager presented this report. He explained that 6-monthly updates were previously published  in August 2021 and would be provided to Councillors in February 2022. The Community Development team are working to produce some more in depth videos about particular projects which would be provided to support the Committee publicise their work.

A number of Councillors expressed concern that no representative of transport was available at today’s meeting since a number of projects had not been completed as transport officers had originally indicated that they would be, such as at Inns Court. In some cases, it was noted that the schemes would not now be delivered until March 2022  and were approximately three or four years old.

The Community Resources Manager noted the importance of the accuracy of comments made in the report about when schemes would be delivered. He confirmed that Transport   officers had indicated that no new schemes would be commenced until Summer 2022 when it was anticipated all existing schemes would be completed and would need to ensure the February 2022 update reflected this.

It was also noted that this issue had been raised by other Area Committees. ACTION: Keith Houghton to advise Mark Sperduty to ensure Area Committee 6 Councillors are properly advised in the February 2022 update concerning the status of transport schemes

Filwood councillors noted that, in relation to the MUGA in Filwood Broadway area project, that was not invited to come forward with a Full Proposal, the notes in the report should read that ‘councillors seek alternative funding’, not ‘suggested following up alternative funding’

The Community Resources Manager drew attention to the following:

•            At the end of October 2021 there was an overall sum of £567,278.84 available to   Area Committee 6, which breaks down as follows:

For General AC6 expenditure: £229,441.25

For Hengrove Neighbourhood Development Plan expenditure: £337,837

•            The Section 106 (S106) available to the Area Committee totalled at the end of October 2021 £53,961.62 of uncommitted Section 106 agreement monies available for Area Committee 6 - of this sum £9,864.14 is for Transport-focused work; £24,097.48 is for Libraries and £9,864.14 remains for Parks and Green Spaces work

If the Committee approves all the requests for CIL funding at Item 6 a total of CIL would remain as follows:

For General AC6 expenditure: - £77,824.75

For Hengrove Neighbourhood Development Plan expenditure: £102,837.59

In discussion about the General AC6 CIL overcommitment it was noted that the Our Whitchurch and Hengrove Community Group had indicated that they were prepared to accept that the request for £30,000 for Project 13, the St Augustine’s Park Improvements Scheme is withdrawn from this year’s allocations on the basis that they would not be able to meet the commitment to provide these within a year. In addition that Project 7, Community Defibrillators would be funded from the Hengrove Neighbourood Development Plan CIL monies, not the General AC6 CIL monies.

The Committee agreed to the principle of overcommitment of funding where required on the understanding that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11

The report recommends funding decisions on submitted proposals for CIL and S106 funding; decisions on previously-allocated sums of S106 and CIL which are either underspent or have not been drawn-down; a decision on a proposal to ‘pair wards’ within the AC area.

The Community Resources Manager presented the report and drew attention to the following:

a.      The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) available to the Area Committee totalled £1,412,364.54 (£714,234.78 General Expenditure, £698,129.76 Old Market Neighbourhood Development Plan).

b.      The Section 106 (S106) available to the Area Committee totalled £328,016.71

c.       The following projects were invited to submit stage 2 full proposals:

An outline was provided to Committee on the proposals detailed in the table above.

In response to questions from Councillors the CRM clarified that:

a. Due to officer error, the Architecture Centre and Recliffe Gardening Group proposals were unable to be brought forward to this committee. These proposals could be presented at an additional meeting of the Committee or be pushed into next year.

ACTION KH to schedule meeting for end of January or early February. This should ideally combine the two outstanding proposals, the tree allocation and the policy / strategy issues raised in this meeting. 

b. There were 18 proposals, if the Committee approved all of them there would be a budget overspend of £75,000. It was not uncommon to have overspend at these meetings as more funding would be coming in.

RESOLVED Committee approved an overspend of £75,000 (with one abstention).

c. The Committee would welcome more applications from underrepresented groups. An away day / workshop for Members would be helpful to discuss how to achieve this. The Mayoral Commissions could be invited to assist.

d. Regarding proposal 2 (Montpelier Park), Members queried why the bid was for two green spaces where other parks proposals were generally on an individual basis. These two greens are very small, so officers recommended that they should be combined.   

e. Regarding proposal 4 (Soundwell Road). This was a difficult road presenting many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

The Community Resources Manager introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·           The proposals included tree planting in the adjacent Area Committee 1 and 5 areas due to the lack of planting opportunities in the 1 mile radius of the time limited S106 agreements in relation to the former Police Station, New Bridewell Street, City Centre;

·           The money proposed to be spent out of area amounted to approx. £6,900.

The following comments were made by Councillors:

·         Concern that not all the money could be used for tree planting in the Area Committee 4 area and that the 1 mile radius prevented the monies from being used in other parts of Area Committee 4, such as St George;

·         Consideration needed to be given to creative and innovative solutions such as the use of planters where it was not possible to identify sites for tree planting;

·         The risk of the S106 monies being subject to clawback by the developer if not spent within the time limit was low;

·         The Area Committee boundaries would not be recognised by local residents and it may be better to use the monies to plant trees elsewhere rather than risk losing it.

In considering the tree planting project proposals, Members agreed that the project be partially funded to deliver the projects within Area Committee 4 area.

In considering the tree planting proposals outside Area Committee 4, Councillor Ruth Pickersgill proposed that planting in adjacent Area Committee 1 and Area Committee 5 areas with available Area Committee 4 S106 monies be approved.  This was seconded by Councillor Steve Pearce and on being put to the vote was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour and 6 against).

Councillor Asher Craig proposed that the proposed planting in adjacent Area Committee 1 and Area Committee 5 areas with Area Committee 4 S106 monies be rejected and the outstanding monies be set aside for future creative and innovative planting proposals within the Area Committee 4, noting there was a small risk that the S106 monies would be the subject of clawback by the developer.  This was seconded and on being put to the vote was CARRIED.

RESOLVED that

(1)   the that the tree planting project proposals be partially funded to deliver the projects within Area Committee 4 area as follows;

(a) 19 trees using 13/00452 / Former Magistrates Court, Nelson Street, City Centre using all remaining funding for that contribution save for £59.03 residue which could be added to revenue fund for future maintenance;

The Community Resources Manager introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·         Members would receive an update by the end of August on progress on previously approved Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) transport, parks and community projects;

·         A decision had been taken to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement so works could start in the 20/21 planting season;

·         Members were asked to consider the request for the award of an additional sum from CIL to enable delivery of the Eastwood Farm Park renovation project approved at the AC’s 2019 meeting;

·         There was currently a CIL deficit of -£21,545.68 due to decisions made by the Committee at its meeting on 19th September 2019 and it was agreed that no new projects would be funded as a result of the deficit;

·         Members were asked to consider the proposed tree planting and replacement scheme using the available £17,599.83  to plant 23 trees and, if approved, to further consider if the residue of £29.34 should be added to the maintenance budget or keep in the existing S106 tree planting budget

In considering the request for additional CIL funding to meet the £10-12k shortfall to deliver the Eastwood Farm park renovation project, Members noted the current situation and money already secured by the community.  It was moved by Cllr Rippington and seconded by Cllr Carey that Community Infrastructure Levy funding up to the value of £10,000 be put towards the Eastwood Farm Park renovation project, on condition that only the required funding be drawn down if additional funds are secured from other community funding.

The Tree Bristol Officer confirmed that the proposals were for replanting trees rather than new trees and, following a request from Members, undertook to look into the suggestion of planting in Victor Road.  He also welcomed any suggestions about other new sites for tree planting and confirmed that future proposals would include a map and the common, rather than Latin, names of the trees.

In relation to future meetings, the Community Resources Manager undertook to talk to Chairs of the 6 Area Committees with a view to considering a similar timetable to the one agreed in the previous year with Councillors engaging with communities about proposals prior to a decision in the autumn. It was agreed that if any Members had a view on the timescale they should contact the Chair directly.

RESOLVED that

(1)   the proposed updating of progress on previously-approved projects in the light of Covid-19 impacts be noted;

(2)   the decision to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement be noted;

(3)   the CIL and S106 monies available at 30th June 2020 and the 2 S106 contributions which are at risk as outside their ‘committed by’ date be noted;

(4)   the funding for the S106 Tree Proposal submitted from the following S106 allocations be approved as follows:

·         23 Tree Replacements =  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

The Community Resources Manager introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·         Members would receive an update by the end of August on progress on previously approved Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL) transport, parks and community projects;

·         A decision had been taken to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement so works could start in the 20/21 planting season;

·         Members were asked to consider the proposed tree planting and replacement scheme using the available £37,188.22 to plant 48 trees and, if approved, to further consider if the residue of £458.14 should be added to the maintenance budget or keep in the existing S106 tree planting budget and identify an additional £307.07 for another tree.

Members gave an update on previously approved schemes as follows:

·         The Vench: the kitchen area had been updated and improvements made to the to play area;

·         The Old Library, Muller Road: quotes were being taken for the improvements agreed last year in relation to a disabled toilet; ramp; permanent fencing; etc;

·         Fishponds Park: play area was being built and works were ongoing;

·         Hillfields Community Hub: windows and doors had been replaced

In response to questions about progress on other projects, including the Scout Hut; Royate Hill; the Community Resources Manager undertook to include this information in the update report being circulated to Members at the end of August.  He also confirmed that all trees allocated last year had been planted although there was a need to replace those that had failed/been vandalised.

In relation to future meetings, the Community Resources Manager undertook to talk to Chairs of the 6 Area Committees with a view to considering a similar timetable to the one agreed in the previous year with Councillors engaging with communities about proposals prior to a decision in the autumn.

The Tree Bristol Officer confirmed that the proposals were for replanting trees rather than new trees but undertook to look into the suggestion of future new planting in the Frenchay Park Road/Stoke Park Lane area.  He also reported that future proposals would include a map and the common, rather than Latin, names of the trees.

Members unanimously agreed the tree planting proposals and further agreed that the residue should be added to the tree maintenance fund;

RESOLVED that

(1)   the proposed updating of progress on previously-approved projects in the light of Covid-19 impacts be noted;

(2)   the decision to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement be noted;

(3)   the CIL and S106 monies available at 30th June 2020 and the 2 S106 contributions which are at risk as outside their ‘committed by’ date be noted;

(4)   the funding for the S106 Tree Proposal submitted from the following S106 allocations be approved as follows:

·         48 Tree Replacements = £36,730.08

·         Residue of £458.14 to be added to the tree maintenance fund;

The Community Resources Manager introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·       Members would receive an update by the end of August on progress on previously approved Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) transport, parks and community projects;

·       A decision had been taken to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement so works could start in the 20/21 planting season;

Councillors then provided the following updates on the projects they were aware of within their wards:

·       In relation to Hartcliffe and Withywood, Councillor Holland reported that the Creative Workspace toilets renovation and the BMX track in Wilmott Park had both been completed;

·       With reference to Bishopston, Councillor Eddy reported that tree planting in Uplands had taken place.  He requested an update regarding the allocation for Crox Bottom signage.  ;

·       In relation to Stockwood, Hengrove and Whitchurch Park, Councillor Morris reported that no money had been spent from CIL funds.  He requested updates regarding projects in Cottle Road Play Park, Mowberry Road and streetscene improvements at Stockwood shops;

·       With reference to Filwood ward, Councillor Jackson reported that benches had been installed in the park from the 2018/19 allocation, the Novers Park goal net covers had been installed.  Children’s play equipment was hoped for September;

The Community Resources Manager continued to present the report and drew attention to the following:

·       There was currently a CIL fund total of £160,440.11;

·       There was a total of £100,621.50 uncommitted Section 106 agreement monies of which £46,659.88 was specifically assigned to tree planting or replacement as outlined in the report to the meeting;

·       Members were asked to consider the proposed tree planting and replacement scheme using the £46,659.88 available plant 60 trees across the ward of Area Committee 6 and, if approved, to further consider if the residue of £747.28 should be added to the maintenance budget or keep in the existing S106 tree planting budget;

·       There were a further four planting locations proposed which were within the boundary of Area Committee 5 in Brislington West Ward;

·       It was clarified that S106 would continue to be negotiated individually with each new individual development and therefore could be set for any area within the whole Area Committee boundary which complies with the legal conditions within each S106.  On the other hand, CIL generated within the Hengrove and Whitchurch Neighbourhood Development Area was restricted.  Only if projects fit with their Neighbourhood Development Plan and they agreed to, could it be spent outside of their boundary.

In response to questions from Councillors, the Tree Bristol Officer clarified the following points:

·       Future proposals would include a map and the common, rather than Latin, names of the trees.

·       The four plots in the Area Committee 5 area had been chosen as locations when options within the relevant Area Committee 6 area had been exhausted.  They were very close to the boundary and those in the development would continue to benefit from the planting;

·       It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

The Community Resources Manager introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·       Members would receive an update by the end of August on progress on previously approved Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) transport, parks and community projects;

·       A decision had been taken to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement so works could start in the 20/21 planting season;

The Community Resources Manager continued to present the report and drew attention to the following:

·       There was currently a CIL fund total of £368,329.05, which was broken down as a deficit of -£5,557.10 for general expenditure and a surplus from the Old Market ND Plan area;

·       There was a total of £447,301.94 uncommitted Section 106 agreement monies of which £257,534.58 was specifically assigned to tree planting or replacement as outlined in the report to the meeting;

·       Members were asked to consider the proposed tree planting and replacement scheme using the £81,877.47 available to plant 94 trees across the wards of Area Committee 4 and, if approved, to further consider if the residue of £292.13 should be added to the maintenance budget or keep in the existing S106 tree planting budget;

·       There were a further six planting locations proposed which were within the boundary of Area Committee 3 and seven planting locations within the boundary of Area Committee 5;

·       There were two time-limited S106 allocations (Nelson Street and Bridewell Street) at risk if not allocated;

In response to questions from Councillors, the Tree Bristol Officer clarified the following points:

·       Future proposals would include a map and the common, rather than Latin, names of the trees;

·       A new tree plot required a consultation process, service checks, equality requirements for pavement widths, highways quality assurances and installation; 

·       Planters were suited to specific trees often with a shorter life and there was often significantly more maintenance required;

·       Current post-Covid work in the City Centre presented an opportunity to engineer more new pits however the process continued to be lengthy and costly;

·       There had been difficulties identifying known and safe tree pit sites for the City Centre area around the developments in Nelson Street and Bridewell Street;

·       It was clarified that use of S106 Tree Planting contributions did not include general ‘greening’ measures, ‘commemorative plaques’ attached to existing trees or ‘Smart Trees’ (although the legal definition of that could be checked) but did include Tree Planters;

·       Officers continued to work on a resolution for issues with the three large trees causing issues for residents off Fernwood/ Dundridge Park.  The seven new trees proposed were suitable for their location;

·       The Urban Tree Challenge Fund had awarded a grant for trees in the Area Committee area and plans would be shared with Ward Councillors.

The following comments were made by Councillors:

·       The pedestrianisation of the Old City could be an opportunity to use planters within the City Centre where new tree pits were difficult to establish.  Officers and Councillors would set up  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21

The Community Resources Manager introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·       Members would receive an update by the end of August on progress on previously approved Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) transport, parks and community projects;

·       A decision had been taken to pause 2020 CIL and S106 decisions with the exception of S106 monies specified for tree planting and replacement so works could start in the 20/21 planting season;

The Community Resources Manager continued to present the report and drew attention to the following:

·       There was currently a CIL deficit of -£24,105.69 for general AC1 spend due to decisions made by the Committee at its meeting on 26th November 2019; the Lawrence Weston NDP area has £3,399.90 available at end June 2020

·       There was a total of £83,718.61 uncommitted Section 106 agreement monies of which £79,607.14 was specifically assigned to tree planting or replacement as outlined in the report to the meeting;

·       Members were asked to consider the proposed tree planting and replacement scheme using the £33,669.24 available plant 29 trees across the ward of Area Committee 1 and, if approved, to further consider if the residue of £562.80 should be added to the maintenance budget or keep in the existing S106 tree planting budget.

·       There were a further 15 planting locations proposed which were within the boundary of Area Committee 2.  This equated to £11,478.15 of the S106 spend available to Area Committee 1.  It was noted that Area Committee 2 only had £900 available for their area.

In response to questions from Councillors, the Tree Bristol Officer clarified the following points:

·       Future proposals would include a map and the common, rather than Latin, names of the trees.

·       A new tree plot required a consultation process, nine service checks, equality requirements for pavement widths, highways quality assurances and installation.  The majority of the S106 funds were spent on replacement plots. 

·       S106 was not the only tree funds in Bristol as there were other schemes; Tree Bristol, the One Tree per Child project and Urban Challenge Trees. 

·       Officers were very conscious of ‘Ash Die Back’, however, the proportion of Ash Trees to Street Trees was very small.

·       With reference to the trees allocated to sites within Area Committee 2, officers confirmed that the development was on the boundary between the two Area Committee areas and up to £40k remained in the pot for potential new tree pits.  In response, it was suggested that a policy could be developed for when a development affected Area Committee boundaries.

The following comments were made regarding the general processes for Area Committees:

·       Councillor Sergeant expressed her dismay that residents who lived on the Portway had paid for trees to be replaced by sponsoring them outside their properties in the past and then others had been replaced for free from AC1 S106 or CIL monies.

·       It was suggested that in order to achieve a net gain of trees following developments, focus needed to be placed on how to establish more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23