Agenda item

The Community Resources Manager provided an update and asked Members to note the decisions required as follows:

1. Progress updates on CIL & S106-funded projects approved at previous Area Committee Meetings

a)      Progress updates are published every six months on previous schemes approved by the Area Committee. The latest was published in August 2023. The next will be published in February 2024. Updates can be found at: https://www.bristol.gov.uk/people-communities/area-committee-progress-updates.

b)      For progress updates outside of these reporting timescales, Councillors are advised to contact their individual project contacts direct.

2. Updates to Area Committee Terms of Reference

a)      In August this year the Area Committees Terms of Reference were changed to make both Area Committee meetings formal public meetings.

b)      The Communities Team were in conversations with Area Committee chairs about the process for Area Committees to move to the committee model; with a revised timetable likely to start in the new municipal year after the elections.

c)      It had been proposed that Area Committees could have a fallow year where they would not hold formal public meetings. However, it was recognised that each Area Committee would need make their own decision based on the funds available in their area, in February 2024. 

3. Request for change of use of funds - Meadow Vale Park improvements

a)      Members considered the request for change of use of funds for a Neighbourhood Partnership project for Meadow Vale Park. The original allocation of £37,600 S106 in 2017 was to install a Pump track. However, the presence of drains under the proposed track site had delayed delivery.

b)      The community therefore requested that the funding be used instead to upgrade the play area and add to the outdoor gym area.

RESOLVED:

         (i)         That the progress update on previously approved AC projects and the publication of 6-monthly updates published on BCC webpage be noted.

        (ii)        That the update to the Area Terms of Reference be noted.

       (iii)       That the request for the change of use of funds for Meadow Vale Park improvements be approved.

4. Note the CIL and S106 monies available at 30th September 2023

a)      Members noted the changes to the CIL and S106 monies available, since the publication of the report.

CIL available:

b)      There was an overall sum of £860,905.44 available to Area Committee 4, which breaks down as follows:

•       For General AC4 expenditure: £466,821.94

•       For Old Market Neighbourhood Development Plan expenditure: £394,083.50

Section 106 available:

c)      There was a total of £270,322.92 uncommitted Section 106 Agreement monies available to Area Committee 4, of which £182,539.78 is designated specifically for tree planting and tree replacement.

5. S106 tree funding

The Community Resources Manager introduced the Tree Officer who asked Members to consider the requirement for a decision on tree replacement using earmarked Section 106 funds, which could be planted in good time when the winter planting season began and which would be unacceptably delayed if decisions were put back to the February Area Committee meeting.

In discussion the following points were noted:

a)      There was concern that tree planting in Castle Park should ideally be covered by Strategic CIL

b)      Planning restrictions and conditions on the use of the funds within a mile radius of Victoria street meant there were limited places to spend the monies which had therefore been allocated to Castle Park

c)      Members requested that a report was brought back to the February meeting which set out how many trees had been planted per ward alongside the cost, to understand if there was any disparity in the numbers of trees being planted or the allocation of tree funding across the wards.

d)      Easton had lost trees to disease and the plans to replace these would be picked up as soon as possible.

e)      There had been delays in delivering the trees in Lower Castle Street but officers now had access to the site

f)       Residents at Dove Street high rise flats had proposed a scheme based on previous work carried out at Carolina House.

g)      At the sites proposed for the Horsefair a larger tree stock had been agreed with the City Design Team to realise efficiencies due to collaboration.

h)      Officers requested that where specific locations identified in the report could not be progressed that Members authorise that other locations could be identified in as close proximity as possible to the intended site

i)        The Friends of Rodney Road CIC St George School Street Trees could not be delivered this year due to a backlog with the contractor delivering the civil engineering works required for the street pits.

j)        The City Docks planting referred to replacements on the St Philips side of the river

RESOLVED:

         (i)         That the full funding to deliver the Tree Bristol Tree Planting Proposal as set out in the report was agreed

        (ii)        That where specific locations identified in the report could not be progressed, that other suitable locations be found in as close proximity as possible to the intended site

       (iii)       That a report is brought back to the February meeting which sets out the number of trees planted and associated cost spent per ward.

6. 2023 Stage 1 Outline Proposals submitted for consideration

Members noted the Outline Proposals submitted this year for each ward and the subsequent Officer comments on these. Members were asked to agree which organisations/persons would be invited to Stage 2, to submit full project proposals, with conditions attached where appropriate.

In discussion, the following points were noted:

a)      The St George Trooper Hill bus shelter proposal would require a feasibility study.  It was confirmed that funding can be used for feasibility studies subject to leading to tangible outcomes.  This would require an agreement with the Council’s transport team as they would become liable for costs should the proposal not go ahead.

b)      Delivery of transport projects was taking a long time due to a backlog of existing projects.

c)      It was agreed that Public Health colleagues would be best placed to identify suitable locations for bleed kits to accompany the defibrillators and that Great Western Ambulance (GWA) should be encouraged to collaborate with public health on the best way to take this forward with the support of Cllr Steve Smith and Cllr Ellie King.

d)      There was also an opportunity to find out from GWA, how much the bleed kits cost and whether insurance was included. Other Area Committees to be advised of the bleed kits if they wish to have them.  Locations for Bleed kits should be identified based on work already done by the Safer Communities and Public Health teams.

RESOLVED:

That the organisations/persons which had submitted the following outline proposals would be invited to Stage 2, to submit full project proposals, with conditions attached where stated.