Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed the attendees. The meeting was conducted via video conference.

No apologies were received.

To note any declarations of interest from the 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 declarations of interest made at the meeting which is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

No declarations were made.

Minutes of the OSMB meeting held on 8^th July 2020 to be

considered for approval.

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED; that the minutes of 8th July 2020 be approved as a correct record.

To note any announcements from the Chair

There was no Chair’s business.

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 democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 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 5pm on Thursday 20^th August 20

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon onTuesday 25^th August 20

Members of the public who wish to present their public forum in person during the video conference must register their interest by giving at least two clear working days’ notice prior to the meeting, therefore by 2.30pm on Friday 21st August 20

Public Forum questions and statements were published prior to the meeting and can be viewed here:  Public Forum OSMB 26 August 2020

Question 1. Suzanne Audrey asked why under Performance measures a target has been included for visitors to museums, galleries and archives, but not for attendances at leisure centres and swimming pools.

A written response was provided.

Question 2. Suzanne Audrey asked if a medium CAZ was now being ruled out.

A written response was provided, and Officers added that further modelling work on a medium CAZ was  not taking place at the current time for the reasons set out.

Statement 1 and 2. David Redgewell (South West Transport Network and Railfuture Severnside) presented a statement regarding the CAZ, and an additional statement raising concerns around the planned XR event at Harbourside for the Bank Holiday weekend, in view of the requirement to maintain social distancing.

Statement 3. Christina Biggs (Bristol Clean Air Alliance) presented a statement in support of the recent and planned traffic reduction initiatives.

RESOLVED; That the public forum business be noted.

To approve the Scrutiny Work Programme for 20/21

The Head of Democratic Engagement presented the draft Scrutiny Work Programme for the 20/21 Municipal Year.

The Chair of the Communities Scrutiny Commission added that a revised scope for the Working Group had been discussed with Lead members and a more focused approach would now be adopted.

The Chair of the Resources Scrutiny Commission highlighted the IT Transformation Project Item that was listed as ‘TBC’, and reported that discussions had been held on whether this should be received by Scrutiny or by the Audit Committee. Members agreed that duplication should be avoided and suggested a joint meeting as one option.

There were no further comments from Members and the Work Programme was approved as set out.   It was agreed that the Work Programme would be referred to the next meeting of the Cabinet (on 1st September 20) for information purposes.

RESOLVED; That the draft Work Programme for 20/21 be approved and  referred to the Cabinet meeting on 1st September 20 for information purposes.

•          The Head of Insight Performance and Intelligence presented the Q1 Performance Measures report and responded to queries from Members.  The key points were as follows; Some targets had been suspended due to the impact of Covid-19.

•          BCPB502 - the measure to increase the percentage of invoices paid on time was over target, although Members queried the backlog for this.

•          BCPB307 - There had been a significant fall in the number of disabled people enabled to live independently through home adaptations.  It was agreed that additional details would be provide to the Board.

•          BCPB503 - Members queried whether targets such as Council Tax collection were lowered this year in anticipation of the impact of Covid-19. Officers agreed to add additional details in future reports.

•          The appropriateness of some targets in light of the impact of Covid was debated. Some had been altered where it was known they could not be met.

RESOLVED; That Officers clarify indicator BCPB502 and provide information on the invoice backlog to be discussed outside of the meeting; and

That Officers provide further information on indicator BCPB307; and

That Officers add additional context to measure BCPB503 in future reports.

•          The Director for Policy, Strategy and Partnerships presented the Council’s revised Business Plan, which had been updated in view of Covid-19, and responded to questions from Members, setting out that; a strategic plan had not been published on April 1st as intended, but instead all the core aspects of the previous plan were revisited by the Mayor, Cabinet and Senior Officers to confirm priorities and what would be possible in light of Covid.

•          The report was presented in the standard format, although demonstrating continued uncertainty with certain caveats. Flexibility to adapt would be needed. A ‘change log’ had been included to track amendments.

•          There was an error on p44 around the number of actions, which should be 160.

•          Some staff continued to be redeployed across the Council to assist with the response to Covid-19.  It was agreed that officers would provide details of the number of employees affected.

•          Members would like to see any further information on the development of Temple Quarter when that’s available.

•          Officers agreed that a ‘success criterion’ relating to reskilling would need to be looked at as a key measure of success in the future.

•          Departmental ownership of an action relating to fuel poverty would be checked for accuracy.

•          Unspent funds remained in the apprenticeship levy and steps would be taken to utilise the available resource if possible in support of actions around skills and employment.

•          Future reports would benefit from the inclusion of an executive summary.

Officers were thanked for an impressive and substantial piece of work.

RESOLVED; That Officers examine the redeployment figures to give an approximation of the number of staff who had returned to ‘Business As Usual’; and

That the potential error on p91 regarding the placement of the Warmer Homes objective be looked into.

This report will follow on Friday 21^st August, after the publication of the papers for the Cabinet meeting on 1^st September.

The Head of Strategic Transport presented the report updating the Board on the position relating to the Clean Air proposals. Members went on to consider and comment on the information provided.  The key points were as follows;

•          Members commented that the recent closures of Baldwin Street and Bristol Bridge had affected access to the Old Vic and Welsh Back, and that Google continued to direct traffic through closures. Officers confirmed that discussions with affected organisations had been ongoing.

•          Whilst fines would be issued for non-compliance with the aforementioned road closures, a ‘light touch’ approach would be taken in the early stages.

•          Officers clarified that the paper was not a Full Business Case, but an updated position. £12million had been awarded from central government to facilitate delivery of the clean air zones

•          Members queried whether there would be an opportunity for funds set aside for CAZ projects to be moved to other long term alternative active travel solutions. Officers stated that this would be dependent on timing and direction from central government; it would be difficult to change funds directed by JAQU. Some funds would also be obtained from the DFT Emergency Active Travel Fund and other funds that would be released in due course.

•          A question was raised over whether modelling for changes of behaviour around commuting and travel to  schools had been factored in to the revised model Officers stated that there was an inherent uncertainty around future trends, hence the preferred ‘test and learn’ approach. 

•          A request was made for clarity over the messaging around the changes made in view of the impact of social distancing and the longer term impacts of the pandemic Officers agreed and confirmed that greater engagement and consultation would take place once preferred models had been agreed with JAQU.

•          Modelling would be sent to JAQU in December, with implementation by October 2021 of a clean air zone if required.

•          Members asked how the approval or rejection of temporary projects would affect the Full Business Case. Officers confirmed the development of the CAZ D and CAZ C alongside these works, and advised these would remain regardless of the other projects if modelling showed them as necessary. Projects would be committed with the finalisation of the Full Business Case.

•          Concern was raised over the impact of travel (and subsequently business) flow from the North to South of the City , and the potential for reduced access to places of interest such as cultural centres

•          Members asked if pavement widening and other social distancing measures would be retained and were advised that communities would be asked for input, and measures retained if wanted.

•          It was unknown whether perceptions around reduced safety on public transport had affected vehicle use, although the additional measures in place to reduce risks on buses was emphasised.  Patronage of buses was around 30-40% of previous use. Members requested sight of the DFT public safety advice.

•          Any queries regarding the Active  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This is an opportunity for OSMB Members to raise any queries relating to the Cabinet agenda

for 1^st September 20, following publication of the papers for that meeting (on 21^st August 20).

This item was scheduled as an opportunity for OSMB Members to raise any queries relating to the Cabinet agenda for 1st September 20, following publication of the papers for that meeting on 21st August 20). No issues were raised.

Noted.

Recent minutes not available at the time of publication.

Noted.

Noted.