Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed all attendees to the meeting and explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Amirah Cole, Cllr Barry Parsons and John Smith, Executive Director: Growth and Regeneration.

It was also noted that Cllr Tony Dyer was substituting for Cllr Parsons.

To note any declarations of interest from councillors. They are asked to

indicate the relevant agenda item, the nature of the interest and in particular

whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Any declaration of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of

interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

None.

The minutes of the meeting of the Communities Scrutiny Commission held on 20 November 2023 were confirmed as a correct record.

The Chair commented that, as had been the case with regard to the previous two meetings of the Commission held across the 2023/24 council year, the items of business to be discussed at this meeting presented members with an opportunity to flag issues and/or recommendations that could be forwarded to the relevant policy committee(s) for consideration in setting their work programmes under the committee governance system that would take effect from May 2024.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Any member of the public or councillor may participate in Public Forum. The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda. Public Forum items should be emailed to scrutiny@bristol.gov.uk

and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:

Questions - Written questions must be received at least 3 clear working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5.00 pm on Wednesday 21 February 2024

Petitions and Statements - Petitions or written statements must be received at latest by 12.00 noon on the working day prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that petitions or statements must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on Monday 26 February 2024

Please also note:

Questions, petitions and statements must relate to the remit of the Communities Scrutiny Commission.

Members of the press and public who plan to attend a public meeting at City Hall are advised that you will be required to sign in when you arrive. Please note that you will be issued with a visitor pass which you will need to display at all times.

The Commission noted that the following public forum items had been received:

Public Questions:

1. Joanna Mellors re: Agenda item 9 - Communities Scrutiny comments on Cabinet report on allotment rents and water charges

2. Dan Ackroyd re: Agenda item 9 - Communities Scrutiny comments on Cabinet report on allotment rents and water charges

3. Katy Ladbrook re: Agenda item 9 - Communities Scrutiny comments on Cabinet report on allotment rents and water charges

Public Statements:

1. Suzanne Audrey: Update on Bristol City Council’s Ecological Emergency Action Plan (agenda item 7)

2. Dan Ackroyd: Update on Bristol City Council’s Ecological Emergency Action Plan (agenda item 7)

3. Christopher Faulkner Gibson: Allotment rents and water charges (agenda item 9)

4. Ruth Hecht: Allotment rents and water charges (agenda item 9)

5. Steve Sayers: Saving community spaces (agenda item 10)

Note: Public forum items were received at the start of each relevant agenda item (see below).

Report enclosed.

The Commission considered a report setting out an update on progress on the delivery of the Council’s Ecological Emergency Action Plan.

Public Statements:

The Commission noted that public statements had been submitted by:

1. Suzanne Audrey

2. Dan Ackroyd

Suzanne Audrey and Dan Ackroyd were in attendance at the meeting and presented their respective statements.

Key points highlighted by officers in presenting the report:

1. The Bristol City Council Ecological Emergency Action Plan was a council-wide programme of activities to deliver on the ambitions of the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy and relevant aspects of the One City Climate Strategy. The Council had adopted the key targets from these strategies and embedded them as key performance indicators that were reported on annually.  The targets covered the following areas: land managed for nature;

pesticides reduction; tree canopy; water quality.

2. Good progress was being made across the 77 specific actions included in the action plan: With one update awaited, in terms of RAG rating, 18 actions were completed fully, 51 were Green ranked (i.e. progressing well or embedded as business as usual), 5 were Amber ranked (requiring some specific action to get them on track) with 2 Red ranked and held up at this stage.

3. Key successes included:

a. Inclusion of new environmental policies in new key strategic work: Local Plan, Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

b. Production of the Sustainable Procurement Policy and guidance.

c. An established citywide approach to tree planting and ash dieback.

d. Habitat creation and enhancement opportunities on Parks land had been identified; the Council had also successfully passed the ‘Expression of Interest’ stage for securing Green Recovery Fund resources from the Combined Authority to potentially support delivery of phase 1 of the plans.

e. An 18% reduction in the use of pesticides across the Council.

4. A challenge to delivery had been faced in relation to staff recruitment, with the Ecological Emergency Co-ordinator post having been held vacant for 13 months, although these issues were now being resolved. A further key challenge was around continuing to explore all opportunities for external funding given the general pressure on council budgets.

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion:

1. It was noted that the public statements submitted to the meeting had highlighted concerns about the trimming of an ancient hedge at Yew Tree Farm.  It was suggested that in terms of public perception, actions such as this did not sit well in the context of the overall good progress being reported on the Ecological Emergency Action Plan and could potentially lead to a degree of public scepticism about the Council’s ongoing commitment to delivering on the ecological agenda.  In response to questions, it was clarified by officers that the land in question at Yew Tree Farm was privately owned land and the work carried out had accordingly not been authorised by the Council.  The Cabinet member for Public Health and Communities commented that in her view, there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Report enclosed.

The Commission considered the Bristol Community Safety Partnership report 2022/23.

Key points highlighted by officers in presenting the report:

1. An update/overview was provided on the structure of the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership (KBSP) arrangements and on the respective duties of partners under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.  It was noted two of the partnership sub-groups in particular remained very strong in their delivery against the partnership’s priorities, those being the Strategic Partnership Against Hate Crime and the Combatting Drugs Partnership.

2. A summary was also outlined in terms of crime and disorder data for 2022/23. It was noted that in future, it was expected that in-year data summaries would be available.

3. The key priorities for KBSP moving forwards included:

a. Taking forward the Bristol Serious Violence Framework.

b. Continuing to strengthen data analytics.

c. Co-creating and taking forward a local Reducing Reoffending Strategy.

d. Strengthening the Keeping Communities Safety Group’s oversight and reporting schedule.

e. Community engagement and tackling disproportionality.

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion:

1. It was noted that the report provided assurance for the Commission on the effectiveness of the partnership working in place around community safety.

2. There was a discussion about the impacts from recent very serious knife crime incidents in Bristol, noting that this had raised significant concerns and anxiety around safety in those communities affected.  It was noted that a range of actions had been/were being taken in response to the recent incidents, in line with the Bristol Safer Options approach to serious youth violence. Work was also taking place to support schools across the city. It was also recognised that the problem of knife crime was not one that the police could solve alone; a city response and effective multi-agency approach was required involving the police, the Council and other partners working with and for young people and with the communities affected. 

3. It was noted that a review of the immediate actions taken in response to the recent serious knife crime incidents would be undertaken from a ‘lessons learned’ perspective; this would include a review of the protocol around ensuring that ward councillors were provided with all appropriate information.

4. It was noted that the BCSP was planning to produce an annual report covering the period April 2023 - March 2024 by the end of summer 2024.  The intention was that this report would be presented to the relevant new policy committee in September 2024.  Reports could also be provided over the next year to that committee on ‘deep dives’ into particular areas of interest.

On 5 March, the Cabinet will be considering a report seeking approval of updated rents and water charges for allotments.

Members of the Communities Scrutiny Commission received a detailed briefing on 15 February on the financial and service background to the proposals, including details of the rationale for the proposed increases, the results of benchmarking with other authorities, and the proposed extension to concessions offered.

The 5 March Cabinet report is due to be published on 26 February and will be forwarded to Commission members as soon as available. In the meantime, background information on the proposals is set out in the enclosed slide presentation, as shared with Commission members on 15 February.

At this meeting, the Commission is asked to formulate any comments on the Cabinet report for submission to the Cabinet meeting on 5 March.

Please note: Communities Scrutiny Commission members are aware that further to the recent public consultation, the Council’s administration has decided, and communicated widely to stakeholders that other proposed allotment changes, particularly in relation to tenancy rules, are not being taken forward at this time (for background, a copy of the letter sent to allotment stakeholders by the Cabinet member for Public Health and Communities is enclosed).

At this meeting on 27 February, the Communities Scrutiny Commission will solely be commenting on the Cabinet report seeking approval of updated rents and water charges for allotments.

The Commission considered the report on allotment rents and water charges that was being submitted to the Cabinet on 5 March 2024.

The following public forum items were noted in relation to this matter:

Public Questions:

The Commission noted that public questions had been submitted by:

1. Joanna Mellors

2. Dan Ackroyd

3. Katy Ladbrook

It was noted that written responses to these questions had been provided and published in advance of this meeting.

Dan Ackroyd was in attendance and raised supplementary questions about:

- the detail of the buildings and infrastructure costs in relation to allotments.

- the extent to which other statutory services were required to meet corporate income targets.

Public Statements:

The Commission noted that public statements had been submitted by:

1. Christopher Faulkner Gibson

2. Ruth Hecht

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion:

1. The Chair reminded members that on 15 February, they had received a briefing on the allotment rent and water charges proposals. 

[Note: Members had raised the following points at that briefing:

a. Clarity had been sought on the scale of increased fees and the impact on council-managed allotments plus the situation on council sites managed by associations.

b. Clarification had been given at the briefing on the distribution of allotment sizes and tenancies and about how many people would be affected; the information given confirmed the most common sized plots, the standard reference size plot, and the larger plots used by some community groups. 

c. Members had discussed benchmarking and rent levels in comparator urban authorities and others being used for comparison, and also comments on the disparity in rises being quoted by allotment tenant groups.

d. After discussion on the current service budget, members had requested better explanation of the allotment team’s actual income and expenditure including a breakdown on the maintenance and infrastructure aspects; members had recommended better communication with tenants to ensure a fuller understanding plus budget transparency so the shortfall could be understood.

e. Members had queried the annual ‘corporate income target’ and asked for that to be explained; the service clearly didn’t meet this from income.

f. Members had noted that if the increased rents and water charges were approved by the Cabinet, there would still be a significant shortfall from the team budget.  This shortfall had been met from the departmental budget and would continue to be a burden on the wider department budget; this would need to be communicated effectively.

g. Members had expressed concern at the shortfall in actual rent payments received and the cost of issuing reminders; it was felt that easier, direct ways to pay and payment in stages such as via direct debit were now needed and it was noted that this had been acknowledged.]

2. The Chair commented that the Cabinet report had subsequently been published at 4pm on 27 February (i.e. one hour in advance of today’s Communities Scrutiny Commission meeting).  The report was now recommending that:

a. there should be no increase in allotment rents/water  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Report enclosed.

The Commission considered a report setting out an update on the current approach to community asset transfers.

Public Statement:

The Commission noted that a public statement had been submitted by Steve Sayers.

Steve Sayers was in attendance at the meeting and presented his statement.

Key points highlighted by officers in presenting the report:

1. The report presented an overview of the existing process for Community Asset Transfer (CAT) and set out some areas where policy changes and improvements could potentially be made. These included:

a. Measuring Social Value - an easy-to-use social value tool was needed and should be incorporated into the application process for CAT; the value to the community should be captured so that it could be measured at periodic review meetings with the CAT tenant.

b. Including an option of freehold sales at full market value: these could be restricted to VCSE organisations that had funding to acquire a freehold asset, possibly linked to the Community Right to Bid.

c. Removing the 'first refusal' option (section 2.3 in the current Policy): this could be treated solely through the Community Right to Bid.

d. Ensuring more clarity from the outset on assets that were excluded from CAT, e.g. Housing Revenue Account assets or properties that formed part of the commercial estate.

2. The report highlighted good case-study examples (Hartcliffe City Farm; Jabob’s Wells Baths; The Coach House, St Pauls) of recent CAT transactions that demonstrated good

collaboration, effective partnership working and the achievement of good social value outcomes.

3. The report contained an exempt appendix; this appendix was not available for public inspection as it contained commercially sensitive information. 

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion:

1. It was noted that the public forum statement presented by Steve Sayers had indicated that community anchor organisations in Bristol had produced a manifesto under the ‘Roots of Resilience: Saving Community Spaces’ campaign calling for further, transformative action from the Council to protect and enhance shared spaces/assets for the benefit of local communities.  It was noted that the suggestions for further action included requests for the Council to:

a. Review the CAT process, to enable more community organisations to consider this route.

b. Adopt a target and strategy for increasing the number of community owned assets, in line with the One City Plan.

c. Delegate leadership for community assets to a member of the Cabinet or to a committee, recognising the sector’s role across Council departments.

The comments presented in the public forum statement were generally welcomed.  It was agreed that it would be appropriate for the Commission to recommend that, post-May, the relevant new policy committee should give consideration to the authority entering into a dialogue around these proposals; it was noted that the community anchor organisations felt that the Council had generally made good progress on CAT but that there was also an opportunity for Bristol to become an exemplar authority in this regard.

2. It was noted that CAT was an integral part of the effective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The Commission received a report setting out the progress to date made against delivering the Business Plan performance metrics and actions relevant to the Communities Scrutiny Commission remit.

The Commission noted the report.