Modern.gov Breadcrumb

Modern.gov Content

Agenda item

Motions

Meeting of Full Council, Tuesday, 8th December, 2020 2.00 pm (Item 76.)

Important note:

Under the Council’s constitution, 30 minutes are available for the consideration of motions. In practice, this realistically means that there is usually only time for one, or possibly two motions to be considered. With the agreement of the Lord Mayor, motion 1 below will be considered at this meeting, and motion 2 is likely to be considered, subject to time.

Details of other motions submitted, (which, due to time constraints, are very unlikely to be considered at this meeting) are also set out for information.

Golden Motion: Protect the Next Generation – Stop Bristol Airport Expansion

Full Council notes that:

· Bristol City Council has led the way in declaring climate and ecological emergencies.

· The proposed expansion of Bristol Airport is one of the biggest carbon decisions in the region for the coming decade.

Full Council:

· Opposes the proposed expansion of Bristol Airport.

· Calls on Bristol’s Mayor to publicly oppose the proposed expansion and write to the planning inspector hearing the appeal to formally object to the airport’s expansion plans.

Background Notes

The proposed expansion of Bristol Airport is the biggest carbon decision in the region for the coming decade. By way of context, the internal carbon emissions of Bristol (Scope 1 and 2) are 1.6 million tonnes per year. The growth in carbon emissions from the proposed airport expansion is around 1 million tonnes per year, which is over 50% of Bristol’s current carbon emissions (1). Although Bristol City Council has declared climate and ecological emergencies, Bristol’s Mayor previously declared his support for the expansion (2) and lodged a letter of support in the original planning application.

Airport expansion has never been discussed or voted on by Bristol’s councillors.

The airport submitted plans to expand in 2018 which were turned down in Feb 2020; they have now appealed against this refusal. Their plans would mean an extra 23,600 flights per year and two million passengers a year (as well as an extra 10,000 car movements a day and a multi-storey car park on green belt land).

Although the Bristol Mayor and Bristol City Council are not the decision makers they are important voices in this decision making process and any objection they make to these plans could make a real difference to the outcome of the appeal.

References:

https://www.isonomia.co.uk/just-plane-wrong-bristol-airports-expansion-application/

https://thebristolmayor.com/2018/11/01/up-up-and-away-2/

Motion to be moved by: Councillor Jerome Thomas, Green Group

Date of submission: 26th November 2020

Silver Motion:End our cladding and EWS1 scandal

Council notes that:

a. Following the human tragedy of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire taking 72 lives blamed on Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding, this has rightfully led to a focus on fire safety in buildings across the country.

b. The Government banned the use of all combustible materials on the walls of new high rises in November 2018 (MHCLG, Government bans combustible materials on high-rise homes, 29 November 2018) meaning the problem has now extended beyond ACM cladding to buildings decorated with other materials that could be flammable - including balconies, and wooden panels. However, it did not legislate for building owners to take action or provide sufficient compensation funds to cover all situations.

c. In parallel, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the UK Council of Mortgage Lenders agreed the industry External Wall System fire review and certification process resulting in what is known as an EWS1 form. Only circa 300 professional fire safety engineers nationally are qualified to issue these - creating a bottleneck across the country including in Bristol.

d. Without an EWS1 form, many lenders are now refusing to provide mortgages. As there is no Government legislation forcing owners to produce EWS1 forms or to take remedial action, many leaseholders are having to battle with owners whether their Local Authority, Housing Associations or private landlords. Remediation costs are also skyrocketing in the £100Ks and many owners are forcing this back on leaseholders via financially ruinous service charges – including impacting those in shared ownership.

e. Subsequently, residents and leaseholders through no fault of their own are being left in potentially ruinous limbo unable to mortgage properties, re-mortgage and therefore unable to buy and sell. Additionally residents are living in fear in homes with no idea if they are safe. This is fundamentally holding up people’s lives, costing our residents money they shouldn’t have to pay and leaving a huge mental health impact.

Council therefore calls on Cabinet to:

a. Sign up the Council to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign: endourcladdingscandal@gmail.com.

b. Consider options on advice and support including establishing a Cladding Hub by March 2021 to provide assistance to all Bristol residents associations regardless of housing tenure ie Council, Housing Association, Shared Ownership or private. The aim being to assist such resident associations in lobbying developers, building owners and claiming Government funds to urgently rectify their buildings. This support team should be proactive rather than reactive.

c. Investigate options such as to redeploy and upskill staff, support and upskill surveyors or other suitable professionals as appropriate, in order to perform more EWS1 assessments. The aim being to accelerate remediation and certification. This may also have a longer term benefit to increasing job opportunities in Bristol.

d. Lobby all private building owners and Housing Associations in Bristol to act immediately in rectifying issues and achieve EWS1 certification – noting that some of these owners may not be the original developer and therefore will need the Council’s assistance to engage and trace such developers or other routes to remedy to avoid any cost to their Leaseholders.

e. Explore ways to delay approving planning applications where the applicant has outstanding snagging or EWS1 certification issues in Bristol and include a condition to be discharged on all future planning applications to provide an EWS1 form before first occupation.

f. Lobby and work with the MPs, MHCLG and the Mayor of Bristol to:

i. Devolve powers to Bristol Council in order to have jurisdiction over enforcing remediation of housing of all tenures and to obtain local control over the relevant compensation funds from the Government for Bristol so the Council can actively support affected residents in Bristol of all tenures.

ii. Adopt the sensible recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee that the EWS1 process could be reformed to urgently revise and implement a process (at no cost to leaseholders) that offers clarity to lenders, insurers and peace of mind for homeowners and buyers to re-instate re-mortgaging and property sales provided there is no immediate danger.

iii. Adopt the 10 asks of the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign.

Motion to be presented by: Cllr. Mark Wright (Hotwells & Harbourside LibDem councillor)

Submitted: 26^th November 2020

3. Proportional Representation

In the 2019 General Election, Full Council notes that the 'First Past the Post' voting system:

1. Has again failed to elect a government representing the majority of voters, with the Conservative party winning 43% of the popular vote, yet gaining over half of the seats in parliament.

2. Has again yielded a wildly disproportionate allocation of seats with, for example, the Democratic Unionist Party gaining 8 seats from 244,127 votes compared with 11 seats from 3.6 million votes for the Liberal Democrats.

3. Has spectacularly failed to match votes to seats with, for example, only 25,882 Scottish National Party votes cast for each SNP MP elected, compared with over 800,000 Green votes resulting in the election of one Green Party MP.

4. Has resulted in 70.8% of votes being ‘wasted’ i.e. having no effect on the outcome of the election. The largest number of ignored votes in any UK constituency was in Bristol West with 56,718 votes being ignored (either votes cast for a losing candidate or surplus votes).

Full Council further notes:

1. That worldwide, FPTP systems inherited from colonial rule cause the under-representation of minority groups, contributing to ethnic tensions and instability [1].

2. That no country using FPTP achieves greater than 40% female representation in parliament. [2]

3. That there is a statistically significant link between countries using proportional election systems and having lower levels of income inequality [3], and scoring more highly on the United Nations Index of Human Development [4].

4. That the Single Transferable Vote system is already used for local elections in Scotland, where it has led to an increase in turnout and voter confidence in the electoral process [5], and in both Northern Irish local elections and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Other proportional electoral systems are used to elect the devolved parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London.

5. That support for proportional representation is official policy of the Green Party, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats; polling shows three quarters of Labour members want their party to campaign for it [6].

Full Council believes:

1. That a Parliament that more accurately reflects the views of the nation is more likely to develop an economic, social and environmental agenda that benefits Bristol’s residents;

2. That enabling people to feel that their votes count would increase voter engagement and participation;

3. That a robust democracy must include a fair voting system and that nobody should be disenfranchised because of where they live.

Therefore, Full Council:

1. Applauds the many groups and organisations campaigning for fair votes including the Electoral Reform Society, Make Votes Matter and the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform;

2. Calls for the introduction of a proportional voting system

a. for local elections in England and Wales;

b. for Westminster elections;

3. Requests for Bristol to be allowed to pilot the holding of local elections under a proportional system.

Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor to:

1. Publicly support proportional representation for local elections in Bristol and as the national electoral system;

2. Inform local MPs and the media of this decision and work with them in support of this campaign;

3. Forward a copy of this motion to the Leaders of all political parties represented in the UK Parliament, and to all Bristol MPs.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Eleanor Combley, Green Group

Date of submission: 25^th Nov 2020

4 Introduce a ‘Low Carbon Advertising Policy’

Full Council notes:

· That Bristol City Council currently holds an Advertising Concession Agreement (ACA) with Clear Channel UK involving the upkeep and maintenance of over 300 bus stops across the city, many of which include digital advertising screens. This contract is due to come to an end soon and a new one will need to be re-tendered. [1]

· That advertising prohibitions and restrictions already exist regarding all tobacco products and e-cigarettes, guns and offensive weapons, breath testing and products designed to mask the effects of alcohol, ‘pyramid schemes’, prostitution services, ‘obscene material’ as well as other rules regarding marketing to children, high fat sugar and salt products, medical and health claims, religion, financial products, and pornography. [2]

· That a double-sided digital bus stop advertising screen uses four times the electricity of the average British home. [3]

· That Bristol City Council declared a Climate Emergency in November 2018, which included a commitment for Bristol to go carbon neutral by 2030.

· That Bristol’s One City Climate Strategy includes a plan to create ‘advertising standards and restrictions to support responsible consumption.’ [4]

Full Council believes:

· That the very purpose of advertising is to stimulate demand for goods and services.

· That some advertising content undermines the council's objectives regarding public health, air pollution and sustainable consumption. For example: High Fat Sugar and Salt (HFSS) products undermine health objectives, petrol and diesel car adverts (especially for Sports Utility Vehicles) undermine air quality objectives, and airline advertising undermines carbon emission targets.

Full Council resolves:

· To call on the Cabinet member for Transport to review the Advertising Concession Agreement immediately, to investigate the possibility of amending the set of prohibitions and restrictions to include products that contribute to climate change and air pollution, to take effect when the ACA is re-tendered.

· To call on the Cabinet member for Planning to implement a Low Carbon Advertising Policy as part of the council's planning policies, to apply to bus stops, billboards and advertising spaces in the city within the jurisdiction of the local planning area.

· To call on all Cabinet members to look into the possibility of an overarching Bristol City Council advertising policy that links the One City Climate Strategy, Local Plan and public health objectives by setting targets, expectations or restrictions on all advertising in the city that interacts with the Council’s objectives on public health, air pollution, climate change and sustainable consumption.

References:

1. https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=12821

2. https://www.badverts.org/case-studies

3. http://adblockbristol.org.uk/2019/11/the-electricity-cost-of-digital-advert

4. https://www.bristolonecity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/one-city-climate-strategy.pdf, page 46

Motion to be moved by: Councillor Carla Denyer, Green Group

Submitted: 25^th November 2020

5 Mobilise community investments to tackle climate change

Full Council notes:

1. That this council unanimously declared a climate emergency in November 2018 following a Green Motion to Council

2. The motion committed the city to achieve net zero carbon impact by 2030 and there are now 10 years left to this target date

3. The council has been progressing a package of low carbon opportunities called City Leap since May 2018. City Leap is still subject to a procurement process since a new process was started in 2020.

4. A new low risk model called Community Municipal Investments [CMI] has been developed by Leeds University and Abundance Investments platform with UK Government and EU support. This had the support of 4 local authorities including Bristol City Council. [1]

5. This new concept is a way to channel local savings into local projects with low risk and a modest return to investors [2].

Full Council believes:

1. That offering local savers a way to support the city’s journey to carbon neutrality should be developed.

2. That offering security and a modest rate of interest through municipal bonds is an established way to develop local infrastructure [3]. This could complement other projects such as the successful Bristol Energy Cooperative.

3. That CMIs can help us develop a low carbon city now in partnership with others.

4. The Mayor should prioritise CMIs as part of the package of investments that will create positive economic opportunities and carbon neutrality

5. Bristol should join the other 3 pioneers of CMI in developing local opportunities for local investors [e.g. 4]

Full Council resolves:

1. To call on the Mayor to begin development of Community Municipal Investments for the city.

2. That the Mayor promote CMI as a way residents and institutions can contribute to a new zero carbon city.

3. To request officers to identify carbon saving projects suited to CMI investment in conjunction with city partners.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Martin Fodor, Green Group

Date of submission: 25^th Nov 2020

References:

1. The report supported by Bristol: https://baumaninstitute.leeds.ac.uk/research/financing-for-society/

2. Initial proposed interest rate is 1.2%. See: Your questions answered on Green Community Bonds | Abundance Blog
https://medium.abundanceinvestment.com/community-municipal-investments-your-questions-answered-25218ed4d2cb

3. https://medium.abundanceinvestment.com/community-municipal-investments-the-new-option-for-your-low-risk-money-a9cc5d72e03a?source=post_internal_links---------1------------------

4. These are: Leeds Council, Warrington, and West Berkshire. Eg Invest now: https://info.westberks.gov.uk/wbcmi; https://www.abundanceinvestment.com/invest-now/warrington-2025

6 A Universal Basic Income Trial for Bristol

This council notes:

1. The drastic impacts of the Covid pandemic on employment and household incomes in the city;

2. The threat to income and employment from automation and artificial intelligence, which could affect a great many more jobs in future;

3. The development of universal basic income (UBI) trials in other countries, which offer a non-means-tested sum paid by the state to cover the basic cost of living, which is paid to all citizens individually, regardless of employment status, wealth, or marital status, which has been widely debated in recent months;

4. That a trial of UBI was promised by the Labour party had the party won the last general election;

5. The resolutions of other local authorities including Sheffield, Birmingham, Lewes, and Brighton and Hove [with cross party support] calling for trials of UBI;

6. A network of Universal Basic Income Labs has been set up and works with local authorities across the UK developing UBI proposals to address problems such as poverty, inequality, discrimination and environmental damage, long-term and immediately, in relation to coronavirus. One is operating in Bristol.

7. Birmingham City Council has issued a briefing on UBI (1)

8. UBI has been Green Party Policy since about 1973 and more recently taken up by other parties

This council believes:

1. That the current benefit system is failing citizens, with Universal Credit causing hardship to many communities;

2. A UBI is the fairest, most effective way to mitigate the effects of coronavirus on people’s incomes as it does not discriminate between employment status, caring responsibilities, age, or disability when providing basic support;

3. There is a danger of increasing numbers of people facing poverty as a result of the coronavirus crisis;

4. Testing a UBI is needed, as a UBI has the potential to help address key challenges such as inequality, poverty, precarious employment, loss of community, and breach of planetary boundaries through:

i. Giving employers a more flexible workforce whilst giving employees greater freedom to change their jobs;

ii. Valuing unpaid work, such as caring for family members and voluntary work;

iii. Removing the negative impacts of benefit sanctions and conditionality; and

iv. Giving people more equal resources within the family, workplace and society;

v. Breaking the link between work and consumption, thus helping reduce strain on the environment in line with the One City Climate Strategy;

vi. Enabling greater opportunities for people to work in community and cultural activities or to train or reskill in areas that will be needed to transition to a lower-carbon economy.

5. The success of a UBI pilot should not be measured only by impact upon take-up of paid work, but also the impact upon communities and what the people within them do, how they feel, and how they relate to others and the environment around them; and

6. Given its history of social innovation, wealth of expertise, and active networks across community, business and public services, Bristol is ideally placed to pilot a UBI.

This council calls on the Mayor to:

1. Send a joint letter with the other party leaders to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the leader of the party in Government, their counterparts in all opposition political parties in parliament, and all local MPs, asking for a trial of Universal Basic Income in the city citing the above reasons.

Sources: https://birmingham.cmis.uk.com/Birmingham/Document.ashx

Motion to be moved by: Martin Fodor, Redland Ward Green Party Councillor

Date submitted: 25^th November 2020

7 Transparency over Bristol Energy Fiasco

This Council notes that following the sale of its domestic customer base, the curtain has finally come down on Bristol Energy, a hugely costly commercial failure.

The move follows a similar sale of a council-owned enterprise Robin Hood Energy Limited in Nottingham. A company which also managed to rack up substantial financial losses. However, the Labour leadership in that city has promised to “very shortly” make public all the facts and circumstances surrounding its disposal. In addition, their external auditors have already released a damning report on that Council’s governance arrangements for that enterprise.

Accordingly, in the interests of openness and transparency, Council calls on the Mayor to make a commitment to publish a full account and timeline of decisions taken in relation to Bristol Energy, together with a statement on the impact this will have on the Authority’s reserves. This explanation to be published by the end of December 2020, in order that Bristol taxpayers can judge for themselves who to hold responsible for this colossal waste of public money.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Goulandris, Conservative Group

Date of submission: 26^th November 2020

8 Growing Provision of Allotments across the city

This Council recognises the long established benefits derived from the provision of small agricultural holdings and allotments to individuals and families. These sites give people the chance to take productive exercise and grow cheap food but, also, are valued for other reasons such as providing educational opportunities, help to build communities and offer some protection to the local environment.

Council notes the commitment previously given by the Mayor to ‘have community gardens and allotments in every ward’ but is anxious to ensure that such rhetoric translates into action.

At present, the Authority has 497 vacancies with a waiting list of 5665 people. Council is concerned that much suitable land held by the Authority for this purpose is either underutilised or could be de-registered for development, ironically, when there is likely to be a growing desire and demand to maintain an allotment.

Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to pledge to preserve, protect and promote existing sites; to increase the size of this network; extend the number which are accorded (limited) ‘statutory’ protection under current legislation; and ensure that all those who want access to a plot, are able to do so.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Morris, Conservative Group

Date of submission: 26^th November 2020

9 Expanding Adult Training Programmes

This Council welcomes the recent adult training initiatives introduced by Government such as the National Retraining Scheme and, regionally, the WECA Employment & Skills Plan, designed to help adults access better jobs or pursue new careers due to changes in the economy.

“Whilst the social and economic impact of the Corona virus has yet to unfold over the months and possibly years ahead, it is vital that all those who are unfortunately made unemployed as a result of this crisis have access to full-time, vocational, technical or traditional craft apprenticeships.

“Council believes that this challenge could best be met by a revival in city-based learning hubs like the often wrongly maligned former polytechnics and Government industrial training centres. Sadly, provision such as the Skillscentre network closed in 1993 but they served as a highly effective means or bridge into employment. Restoration of these institutions can equip people with the skills needed to adapt to the new world of work and help fill any identified skills gaps in the regional workforce.

“Accordingly, Council calls in the Mayor to work through WECA to make the urgent case to Government for a greatly expanded and accelerated investment programme, to create additional sites in the city to cater for the anticipated surge in demand for these services, at least in the short to medium term.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Melias, Conservative Group

Date of submission: 26^th November 2020

10 Ten point plan for a green industrial revolution

Council welcomes the Government’s recently announced ten point plan for a green industrial revolution.

In addition to the commitment to create and support 250,000 jobs, this ambitious programme includes the promise of substantial capital investment (£12billion in public funding alone) in a comprehensive range of innovative technologies and infrastructure.

Delivery of each of these elements aims to put the UK at the forefront of green technology and finance as well as help the country to meet its net zero carbon emissions target by 2050.

This Council rightly prides itself on its response to the challenges of climate change, arising first from its status as European Green Capital, followed by the landmark Climate Emergency Declaration, through to the Mayor’s Climate Emergency Action Plan which seeks to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.

In order to retain our position at the forefront of local authorities dealing with these important environmental issues, Council calls on the Mayor to contact the appropriate Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity to identify how best our city can play a full part in this new industrial strategy.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Hiscott, Conservative Group

Date of submission: 26^th November 2020

11 The government’s White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’

This Council:

· appreciates the merit of the present hierarchy of planning in the UK. Where it works well the system allows for local neighbourhood plans and for consultation and engagement with the preparation of Local Plans and the Sub-Regional joint Spatial Plan

· accepts the need for such plans to be approved, and sometimes overruled, by central government to comply with overall national criteria

· acknowledges the necessity for certain infrastructure works to be subject to special Permitted Development rules where government restricts local consultation and democracy for strategic reasons

· recognises the value of transparency and fairness throughout the planning system so that citizens voices can be heard amid the wider assembly of guidance for the justification for new development and how this can or cannot be reasonably accommodated within suitable local policy frameworks formed from national guidance and approved for use by central government

· supports the high target it has set for new housebuilding in and around Bristol to sustain its local growth and is generally satisfied with the way it has administered the present planning system to approve a high percentage of developers planning applications.

Council further notes that the Government Planning White Paper ‘Planning for the Future‘ dated 6^th August 2020 proposes:

· Local Plans are to be produced under government direction and with targets set nationally, even extending to local areas

· that areas are to be classified as Growth, Renewal or Protected with designated Conservation Areas not automatically ‘protected’.

· No planning consent will be required in Growth areas and only minimal checks will be required in Renewal areas.

· Domestic houses will be allowed up to two storey extensions with no approvals or objection from neighbours

· local planning committees will be effectively abolished or rendered toothless so inappropriate siting, quality, design and other impacts will no longer be capable of challenge

· buildings can be removed and replaced with poor quality housing without checks on reasonable space standards or even natural light so sanctioning worsening public health for volume housing and the creation of ‘modern slums’ *

· The present overall development tax, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is to be nationally restructured so that it no longer reflects a locally-fair contribution; the individual development mitigation arrangements (S106), are to be abolished.

· no alternative is indicated to replace the affordable housing (currently 26,800 nationally or 50% of the affordable housing built last year) which was achieved through S106 arrangements, that are to be abandoned

· the size of development that requires a proportion of affordable housing is to be downgraded from 10 to 50 units which will seriously reduce the best source of essential affordable housing

Council regrets:

· the proposals do not address the fundamental acknowledged blocks, stemming from land valuation, finance and tenure limitations, particularly prevalent in the UK, to increasing the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing

· the government’s belief that the planning system is the cause of delay in building new housing whereas instead it is the way that housebuilding is financed within this country that encourages developers to use planning permissions as a means of adding value over time

· the proposals restrict rather than enhance the present opportunities to provide much-needed affordable housing of an acceptable standard

· there is no acknowledgement, or attempt to resolve, the ‘log-jam’ to building which is the hoarding of planning permissions by developers due to the unrealistic relationship of land price to sales value and the reluctance of financiers to embrace large-scale rented development

· the escalation in Permitted Development Rights with its removal of sensible controls and enforcement over development that has already exposed poor quality and reduced numbers of affordable housing

· the proposals presage a very different relationship across the country between local and national government and a compact with the people with a clear loss of local and regional democracy

· this democracy and community support built in to the present system is being sacrificed because of a misapprehension that the current seven year cycle of Local Plans, derived from government timetables, is a block to development rather than a constantly evolving resource

· the proposals ignore the hard-to-improve results from the system at present: 90% of all developments are approved within the current planning system; 65% of refusals that go to appeal are turned down by the inspector

· nationally 1, 000, 000 homes granted planning permission in the last 10 years are still unbuilt despite, in some cases, having been required to be resubmitted for approval three times. This is twice the five years quoted by the Minister as the delay caused by the planning system “”to getting a spade in the ground”

· The proposals make no attempt to address this virtually automatic serial re-approval with no penalty or requirement to complete the permitted development within the period of the permission

· the Local Government Association, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects should all have seen the need to condemn the proposals

Council resolves to request the Mayor:

· to make early representations to government along with other members of the Core Cities Group and fellow planning authorities within WECA, leading the way for other councils around the country expressing concerns about the removal of local democratic control promised by previous governments as part of the benefits of adopting a mayoral system

· to instruct officers to prepare a strong response to the consultation across the areas of governance, democracy, local knowledge, quality control and reduction in affordable housing delivered, and any others that become apparent during this process

· to advertise the consultation and invite representations from the Bristol public to the government

· to strive to maintain the consensus within this council to explore creative opportunities for maximising the delivery of sustainable housing, independently and with others, affordable by all our citizens whatever their need and circumstance.

Notes: * a government commissioned study published in July 2020 (carried out by University College, London and the University of Liverpool) has shown that poorer quality homes are being created from Permitted Development than through the existing planning system. They are less likely to achieve national space standards, are more likely to be deficient with natural daylight

Motion to be presented by Cllr. Anthony Negus (Cotham, LibDem councillor)

Motion Submitted: 26^th November 2020

12 Energy Efficiency Support for every Householder in Bristol: making ideas work.

Council notes:

• the Climate and Ecological Emergency Programme and its component documents set out where the city needs to go and what it seeks to achieve but not at this stage how this is to be accomplished

• addressing the poor energy performance of our current buildings, particularly homes, that will save energy, reduce carbon emissions and alleviate fuel poverty is crucial to achieving Bristol’s adopted 2030 Climate Emergency resolutions

• the up-grading of the huge majority of our domestic buildings has been sporadic and piecemeal to date.. Technical and financial advice can be accessed but multifaceted interventions are challenging and a disincentive.

• the easier, more currently cost-effective measures such as loft and cavity-fill insulation , draught-proofing and smarter boilers have been much, though patchily, carried out - but are not enough where they are in place, and there are too many places where they are not

• retro-fitting by Bristol City Council is directed to our large social housing stock and advice is rightly focused on people experiencing fuel poverty

• the revenue-saving benefits from capital investment may be simply calculated over time where the owner is the occupier but this is a more complicated model for publicly-managed social housing and even more so in the Private Rented Sector.

• energy providers and bankers can manage initial investment for home-owners, and some do, as with the Green Deal model for larger investors. Landlords can recover investment through rent but there are poorly-adopted schemes for energy-saving passports and sales premiums for home-owners.

Council intends:

• to assemble the details of a service by which every household in the city will be able to access appropriate support with home energy efficiency and renewable technology. The service will encourage a greater uptake of energy efficiency measures in Bristol; lowering emissions and energy bills, as well as promoting the creation of low-carbon skills and employment in the area.

• to extend the scope of the council’s work to deliver our 2030 resolutions, to consider its role in encouraging all households , including individual private house-owners, to appreciate the value to themselves, let alone society, of an investment to secure long –term savings, particularly when the calculated return falls outside their personal occupation period.

• to look beyond the good work in fuel poverty mitigation and capital schemes within our own housing stock and the wider Heat Network to be a hub for general advice and a facilitator for delivering beneficial schemes

This Council agrees

• that reducing domestic energy consumption, and the resultant carbon emissions, should be encouraged within Bristol by widening the advice and support on offer to incorporate every household in the city

This council resolves:

· to request the mayor to instruct officers to explore the feasibility of expanding the scope of work carried out by officers across the council aincluding the setting up of a team to focus support on a wider range of households in Bristol to have access to green energy and to reduce their energy use to help Bristol to becoming Carbon Neutral by 2030. The scope of the study should be as wide as needed but should at least include technical and financial advice, practical on-site consultation and implementation support, all or any of which might be provided in-house oir through commercial agencies

· to request the mayor to instruct officers to build a business case to create a comprehensive service offer and methodology for directing appropriate and tailored support to every household in the city. The business case will consider the level of resourcing currently available to BCC, and consider options to increase capacity; including the exploration of strategic partnerships to provide the comprehensive service and offer

· to request the mayor to instruct officers to explore a programme for developing a local, highly-skilled workforce to deliver low-carbon, energy efficiency installations within the city

· request the mayor to instruct officers to explore the potential of financing the capital cost of low-carbon technologies for private housing tenures, through the provision of grants and loans.

· to request that a further report on progress os requested to be brought back to the council by 1st March 2021

Motion to be presented by Cllr. Anthony Negus (Cotham, LibDem councillor)

Motion submitted 26^th November 2020

13 New Secondary School in Knowle

Secondary School places in South Bristol are in short supply and the situation will get worse over the next couple of years. The problem becomes even more challenging as the public transport is woeful and travelling from Knowle to Brislington or Bedminster Down is very challenging for pupils.

After gap of 20 years with no secondary provision in the area, we now have a solution with the new school being built on part of the old Merrywood School site. The other part of the site will be given over to a great new community facility costing around £6M

This Council thanks the trustees of “The Park” Local Opportunity Centre for doing such a great job of providing community facilities over the last 20 years on the old school site and working so hard on the imaginative new plan.

Government, Oasis, funders and the community are to be thanked also and we must recognise that Officers and Cabinet Members gave full backing to this scheme (despite a couple of frankly silly objections).

This Council asks for one further contribution, with the present timetable a couple of the most critical years will not benefit from the new school. We ask that the school is set up earlier in temporary accommodation from September 2021.

Council notes that the site is, unlike the Temple Meads new site, large and open and that the failure of the plans for early opening at Temple Meads will put even more pressure on numbers over the next 2 years in East and South Bristol.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Gary Hopkins, Knowle Ward (Lib Dem)

Date of submission: 26^th November 2020

14 No Supermarkets Compact

This Council notes that retail and distribution workers have been at the front line of the Covid-19 crisis, facing a high-pressured environment and that supermarkets have made many adaptions to keep the city running during the lockdown. This commitment and innovation could be extended to deliver greater permanent benefits.

The Council notes a number of challenges within the retail and distribution sector that hamper the city’s sustainability aspirations. These challenges include, but not exclusively:

• extensive usage of a wide range of packaging materials

• continuing use of materials, particularly plastics, with poor recycling outcomes

• excessive levels of wastage, particularly of food

• increasing heavy vehicular distribution-miles, both cross-countries and within the city

The Council regrets that it lacks the regulatory powers to control the negative outcomes from some large commercial organisations in the city and the resources required to resolve and mitigate some of these issues.

This Council notes the announcements and actions by more conscientious firms to address some of these issues to reduce their costs and be more responsible.

This Council notes the unacceptable level of food poverty in our city.

This Council notes the increasing challenges around goods delivery vehicles in our city and the use of freight consolidation which is attempting to reduce the volume of traffic and improve air quality.

This Council notes that a successful plan to deliver carbon neutrality by 2030 will require committed leadership to inspire common purpose in everyone and across all groups in our city

This Council notes that much customer packaging places volume and disposal demands on the city’s waste services, while their bulk packaging is also unsustainable though disposed through commercial operators.

This Council notes that a proposal to address these issues is supported by research and a dossier of detailed responses from all of the eight major supermarkets, which has been prepared by a BCC scrutiny committee and was commended by a committee of the Core Cities team.

The Council resolves to thank our retail and distribution workers.

A focused and co-operative approach might deliver multiple benefits, including a:

• reduction in the use of plastic

• reduction in food waste

• reduction in delivery-miles

• rewarding sustainable practice

• getting out our sustainability message though big players to the shopping public

• tackling at source some resulting issues currently funded through the public purse

The Council resolves to set up a working group to engage with key stakeholders, including supermarkets, councillors and trade unions, to resolve these challenges.

Council therefore resolves to launch the first core-city co-operative initiative of its kind:

Council resolves that this working group will explore a Supermarkets Charter with the major chains in Bristol where the City council sets a small number of key criteria that will benefit the city and promotes a ‘Kitemark’- type scheme awarding recognition as each is achieved. This would recognise good practice in a competitive market increasingly sensitive to improving sustainability, and enable customers to make informed choices, with the ‘Kitemark’ displayed on their premises and promotional literature.

Such a scheme would be a simple and highly visible way of advancing our sustainability ambitions. It would be co-operative, competitive and catalytic while fair and sustainable. It would be a cost-effective way for this city to offer mutual solutions to long-standing common problems. It would be a bold advance in the crucial community engagement measures to deliver real-life sustainability, closer to source. We request the Mayor to take this forward through the most appropriate structures.

Motion to be presented by: Cllr. Anthony Negus (Cotham, LibDem councillor)

Submitted: 26^th November 2020

15 Public sector pay freeze

Full Council notes that:

1. The Government has announced a pay freeze for most public sector workers, with a few exceptions.

2. In real terms, this pay freeze amounts to a pay cut.

3. In real terms, the average public sector worker is already earning 1.5% less than in 2010.

Full Council believes that:

1. Cutting the wages of the public sector, in real terms, is economically counterproductive as it, a) hinders consumer confidence b) leaves public sector workers with less money to spend in the economy, which can lead to negative growth.

2. The public sector’s work throughout the pandemic should be recognised by this Government.

3. Public sector pay should rise, at least, in line with inflation.

Full Council resolves to:

1. Ask the Conservative Party Group Leader to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make Full Council’s objections to the public sector pay-freeze known.

2. Ask the Mayor to publically voice Full Council’s opposition to the pay freeze.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Don Alexander

Date of submission: 26^th November 2020

Minutes:

There was a short adjournment.

Motion 1: Protect the Next Generation – Stop Bristol Airport Expansion

Councillor Thomas moved the following motion:

Full Council notes that:

· Bristol City Council has led the way in declaring climate and ecological emergencies.

· The proposed expansion of Bristol Airport is one of the biggest carbon decisions in the region for the coming decade.

Full Council:

· Opposes the proposed expansion of Bristol Airport.

· Calls on Bristol’s Mayor to publicly oppose the proposed expansion and write to the planning inspector hearing the appeal to formally object to the airport’s expansion plans.

Background Notes

Airport expansion has never been discussed or voted on by Bristol’s councillors.

References:

https://www.isonomia.co.uk/just-plane-wrong-bristol-airports-expansion-application/

https://thebristolmayor.com/2018/11/01/up-up-and-away-2/

The motion was seconded by Councillor Stephen Clarke.

Councillor Dudd then moved the following amendment:

‘That the motion be amended to read as follows:

Full Council notes that:

· Bristol City Council has led the way in declaring climate and ecological emergencies.

· The proposed expansion of Bristol Airport is one of the biggest carbon decisions in the region for the coming decade, as it signals that growth in aviation travel can continue unabated.

Full Council:

· Acknowledges that airport expansion is incompatible with Bristol, the West of England and the region’s carbon reduction targets and therefore must not go ahead.

· Acknowledges that aviation is responsible for 3% of all carbon emissions worldwide, and that, critically, it is the only area where emissions are projected to increase.

· Understands that, in order to reduce the air miles travelled, which is essential, imposing a tax on aviation fuel and using other mechanisms to foster responsible air travel is essential, but also recognises that these powers are not within our remit.

· Recognises the negative environmental consequences of the expansion of Bristol Airport, and supports the North Somerset Planning Committee’s decision to reject the expansion plans, as there are other elements such as noise nuisance and loss of green belt land which are also unacceptable.

· Recognises Bristol Airport’s role as an employer in the region and recognises the need for a just transition to a greener economy – that does not leave workers worse-off – moving the economy away from polluting high carbon activities like flying to more sustainable forms of travel.

· Notes that promising developments have been made towards moving the aviation sector towards green technology, such as electric and hydrogen-powered planes, which would provide green jobs in Bristol and the surrounding area. However, Council also notes that these technologies are many years away from implementation and that they need the accelerant of knowing that unabated expansion will not be allowed.

· Calls on the Mayor to lend his support to any Bristol City councillor that would like to write, individually or collectively, to the Planning Inspector hearing the appeal, asking them not to overturn the decision of North Somerset Council to reject airport expansion.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Shah.

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the amendment was CARRIED.

There was then a debate on the substantive motion on the table before the Lord Mayor invited Councillor Thomas, as mover of the original motion to speak.

Following final remarks, upon being put to the vote, the amended motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED:

Full Council notes that:

• Bristol City Council has led the way in declaring climate and ecological emergencies.

• The proposed expansion of Bristol Airport is one of the biggest carbon decisions in the region for the coming decade, as it signals that growth in aviation travel can continue unabated.

Full Council:

• Acknowledges that airport expansion is incompatible with Bristol, the West of England and the region’s carbon reduction targets and therefore must not go ahead.

• Acknowledges that aviation is responsible for 3% of all carbon emissions worldwide, and that, critically, it is the only area where emissions are projected to increase.

• Understands that, in order to reduce the air miles travelled, which is essential, imposing a tax on aviation fuel and using other mechanisms to foster responsible air travel is essential, but also recognises that these powers are not within our remit.

• Recognises the negative environmental consequences of the expansion of Bristol Airport, and supports the North Somerset Planning Committee’s decision to reject the expansion plans, as there are other elements such as noise nuisance and loss of green belt land which are also unacceptable.

• Recognises Bristol Airport’s role as an employer in the region and recognises the need for a just transition to a greener economy – that does not leave workers worse-off – moving the economy away from polluting high carbon activities like flying to more sustainable forms of travel.

• Notes that promising developments have been made towards moving the aviation sector towards green technology, such as electric and hydrogen-powered planes, which would provide green jobs in Bristol and the surrounding area. However, Council also notes that these technologies are many years away from implementation and that they need the accelerant of knowing that unabated expansion will not be allowed.

• Calls on the Mayor to lend his support to any Bristol City councillor that would like to write, individually or collectively, to the Planning Inspector hearing the appeal, asking them not to overturn the decision of North Somerset Council to reject airport expansion.

It was then moved by the Lord Mayor that standing order CPR2.1(xi) be suspended to allow the meeting to go past the 30 minutes time limit for motions. Following a vote it was agreed to proceed for a further 20 minutes.

Motion 2: End our cladding andEWS1 scandal

Councillor Wright moved the following altered motion:

Council notes that:

Council therefore calls on Cabinet to:

a. Sign up the Council to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign: endourcladdingscandal@gmail.com.

b. Support the Justice4Grenfell campaign and its efforts to hold those responsible for the approval of dangerous cladding and insulation material to account.

c. Support the Fire Brigades’ Union campaign to draw light to the issue of dangerous materials, and the work it is doing to campaign for safe building regulations.

d. Lobby all private building owners and Housing Associations in Bristol to act immediately in remediating known issues and achieve EWS1 certification. Full Council Notes that the responsibility for the use of unsafe building materials lies with the freeholder, and will lobby the Government for stronger regulations to hold freeholders accountable for their buildings’ safety.

e. Investigate options for Bristol Council’s Building Control team to upskill a dedicated team funded by freeholder applications to perform EWS1 assessments. The aim being to accelerate remediation and certification with a trusted partner. This may also have a longer term benefit to increasing job opportunities in Bristol.

f. Encourage Councillors in wards particularly affected by buildings with potentially-unsafe cladding to advocate for residents increasing pressure on freeholders to provide EWS1 forms, to avoid any cost to their leaseholders.

g. Provide a training scheme for Councillors so they can assist residents with all matters relating to EWS1 forms, such as lobbying building owners, and claiming Government funds to rectify their buildings, to the best of their abilities.

h. Explore what Bristol City Council’s Planning and Building Control team can do to withhold signing off pre-occupation planning conditions where the applicant has outstanding snagging or EWS1 certification issues in Bristol.

i. Lobby and work with the MPs, MHCLG and the Mayor of Bristol to:

iii. Adopt the 10 asks of the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign.

Councillor Beech seconded the motion.

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the altered motion was CARRIED

RESOLVED:

Council notes that:

a. Following the human tragedy of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire taking 72 lives blamed on Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding, this has rightfully led to a focus on fire safety in buildings across the country.

Council therefore calls on Cabinet to:

a. Sign up the Council to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign: endourcladdingscandal@gmail.com.

b. Support the Justice4Grenfell campaign and its efforts to hold those responsible for the approval of dangerous cladding and insulation material to account.

c. Support the Fire Brigades’ Union campaign to draw light to the issue of dangerous materials, and the work it is doing to campaign for safe building regulations.

i. Lobby and work with the MPs, MHCLG and the Mayor of Bristol to:

ii. Adopt the sensible recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee that the EWS1 process could be reformed to urgently revise and implement a process (at no cost to leaseholders) that offers clarity to lenders, insurers and peace of mind for homeowners and buyers to re-instate re-mortgaging and property sales provided there is no immediate danger.

iii. Adopt the 10 asks of the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign.

Supporting documents:

Modern.gov Breadcrumb

Modern.gov Content

Agenda item

Motions

Modern.gov Sidenav