Agenda item

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

 

Replacement Tree Planting

 

a.      The Committee was asked to note that the cost of replacement tree planting had been increased from the 2013 rate of £765.21 to £1,041.66.

 

b.      Tree Bristol confirmed that the unit cost of replacement tree planting had been held for the last nine years, but this costing could no longer be maintained, due to rising costs, and the relevant Retail Price Index increase to tree replacement had been applied.

 

Ombudsman Complaint

 

c.       The Committee noted that a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman by a Bristol resident regarding transparency around funding criteria and decision-making processes had been upheld in part.

 

d.      The Council agreed to ensure that the reasons for rejecting outline proposals at stage one meetings were clearly recorded and published on the Council’s website.

 

CIL and Section 106 Monies available to Area Committee 4 at 30th June 2022

 

e.      There was an overall sum of £800,139.72 available to Area Committee 4, which breaks down as follows:

 

·       General AC4 expenditure: £147,775.14 going up to circa £400k

·       Old Market Neighbourhood Plan expenditure: £652,364.58

·       Section 106 available: a total of £331,477.94 uncommitted Section 106 agreement monies, of which £163,203.52 is designated specifically for tree planting and tree replacement. 

 

f.        It was noted that there were two time-limited S106 were at risk if not allocated and that both contributions had planting sites proposed in the Tree Proposal.

 

Outstanding Full Proposals from November 2021 AC meeting

 

Architecture Centre Temple for Everyone scheme:

g.       Members considered the uncertainty surrounding the Temple for Everyone Scheme and gave weight to the reservations expressed by Parks and Transport Officers and

 

RESOLVED: not to progress to a Full Proposal from the Architecture Centre Temple for Everyone scheme.

 

St George Central – Soundwell Road Safety Scheme:

h.      Members noted the complexities of the scheme and that a permanent solution to the road safety issues could not be resolved without further funding.  Members agreed that it would be difficult to decide on this without consideration of all of the other proposals submitted.

 

In discussion the following points were raised:

 

i.        Most wards had a priority proposal to bring forward.

 

j.        There was a need to consider construction inflation as the original allocated budgets and contingencies may not go as far as previously understood.  A revised technical projection was needed from officers to understand potential changes to delivery timescales within the current allocated budgets.

 

ACTION: Officers to provide guidance on the impact of construction inflation on the cost and delivery of approved projects.

 

k.       It would be important to focus on areas of deprivation and which proposals would have the greatest impact on areas with the most need.

 

l.        More accountability was required to understand the reasons for the delay in delivering approved projects.  ACTION: Officers to provide reasons for delays in delivery of approved projects.

 

Officers were asked to obtain answers to the following raised:

 

m.    Whether inflation was applied to CIL payments and what was the set amount applied per square meter?

 

n.      What rate of increase applied to CIL as property values increased?

 

o.      If CIL is accruing interest, what level of interest does CIL sitting in Bristol City Council accounts accrue?

 

ACTION: Officers to obtain answers to the questions raised in relation to CIL.

 

7. 2020 Stage 2 Full Project Proposals: for decision

 

p.      Members considered the Redcliffe Gardening Group Gardening for All Proposal submitted and

 

RESOLVED to approve full funding of £6000 to deliver this project

 

q.      Members considered the Tree Bristol Planting proposal submitted and in discussion the following points were raised:

r.       That other tree planting sites would come forward in November.

 

s.       That native trees were not always best for street sites.

 

t.        That Tree Bristol were focused on ensuring that trees were planted in the areas of greatest need, including prioritising disadvantaged areas where low tree cover existed. 

 

u.      The team were working to develop a digital map which would publicly available and make the location of trees planted transparent and publicly available.

 

ACTION: Officers to provide a map of where trees had finally been planted at the next meeting.

 

v.       It was noted that some Section 106 allocations could be clawed back if not spent within an agreed timeframe.  The terms varied from application to application and were unique to each development.  Some S 106 agreements had no time limits set.  Once a decision had been made to spend the Section 106 monies  on a project this could not then be subject to a clawback.

 

The Committee

 

RESOLVED: to thank the Tree Bristol Team for their opportunity mapping and strategy work for tree planting in Area Committee 4.

 

RESOLVED: to approve full funding of £92,791.82 to deliver this project which included allocation of remaining S106 (£53.12) as additional support to maintenance.