Agenda item

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 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 Tuesday 21^st November.

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 on Friday 24^th November.

Public Forum for this meeting can be viewed here.

Public Forum Questions:

Of those who submitted questions the following were in attendance to ask supplementary questions:

Rob Bryher supplementary questions;

PFQ4: In reference to the written response provided and the noted 12 enquiries about pavement licences/parking bay suspension, Rob Bryher asked how when all the different demanding priorities were factored in, was it possible to help anyone with this type of enquiry and what happens when this is asked for?

Reply: Officers said there was a system in place where chairs and tables could be put out within a pedestrianised area as long as there is enough space . However, this was more difficult to permit when there isn’t a pedestrianised area in place already. 

PFQ5: In reference to the written response previously provided; what were ‘vehicular rights’ and what rights do people have to park their cars on the road, is there actual legislation to say that?

Reply: Interim Director: Economy of Place, said that this was really less about ‘rights’ and more about what is permissible, enforceable and regulated on the different parts of the highway.

PFQ6:  Using Church Road as an example of a key arterial route and local high street; was it possible to influence there being more space taken away from cars being parked on the road and more space being given over to the priorities of local pedestrians?

Reply: Officers said there were some potential plans for the area in the pipeline such as changes to the carriageway but it was suggested that the question would be better to directed to transport and highways colleagues.

PFQ7: Using Church Road as an example of a busy key route in and out of the City what can be done to mitigate this and make it a more liveable space?

Reply: Church Road provides more than one role for the City and is key to keeping the City moving.  If it were made harder for vehicles to pass through, it would have improved air quality,  but there was a balance to strike. Church Road had been part of recent discussions about mass transit and weather it should be fully segregated or not, but it was a complex issue.

 Jo Sergeant (On behalf of Save the Giant Goram Campaign) supplementary question; Jo Sergeant said that her original question had been related to what she described as the ‘wilful neglect of pubs and protecting those awaiting planning decisions or those that had already been refused’.  She asked if anything would change in terms of the viability of reports on them, were they going to be independently verified, and how wilful neglect could be dealt with to avoid situations where they are unlawfully demolished.  Also, could compulsory purchase orders (CPO) be used in areas where community hubs and support was needed?

Officers said there was some strengthening on the points raised in the emerging Bristol Local Plan but until that was adopted, which was still quite some time away, it carried very limited weight. But the intention was to strengthen the policy in this area.  It was added that there had been some previous decisions by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal where they had supported keeping ‘community use’ of pubs but each case was treated on its individual merits, so it was not possible to generalise what this might mean in future.  It did however provide some pointers in terms of what evidence would be required in order to defend such proposals going forward.  

It was also added that the Government were looking to bring in some high street rental options which would give local authorities some powers to make property owners or landlords that are not using the property use them for rented accommodation again.  But it was not yet clear what kind of mechanism or powers would result from this.  Officers were watching developments on this with interest. 

Public Forum statements:

The Ashton Vale Bus Users Campaign Group; were in attendance and Bernice McKendrick read aloud a statement from the Group.  In summary the statement raised a number of issues including, how the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) was using funding for public transport, particularly bus service provision and recent cuts to the services.  The cuts to bus services in some areas was said to be having a detrimental effect on many people’s lives and in some cases meant people were now housebound.

John Smith, Interim Executive Director, Growth and Regeneration thanked the Group for taking the time to come to the meeting and make their statement.  Officers said they would follow up on this with and see what could be done.  It was confirmed that it was possible for companies other than First to run bus services. 

David Redgewell attended to read his statement and ask supplementary questions to his original questions as follows; 

• It was said that each year the relevant West of England local authorities (LAs) should undertake public consultation on the funding given to WECA for the Transport Levy. This was said to be a legal requirement and the funding should not be ‘handed over with no questions asked’ and negotiations should take place on what it would be spent on.  What progress was being made with regards to this year’s Transport Levy and the consultation?
  • Officers said they expected the Combined Authority, as the Transport Authority, to host any consultation but they would look into what would happen this year.  It was confirmed that funding for the Transport Levy was included in the Council’s 2024/25 budget proposals. ACTION: Officers agreed to provide information about what progress was being made with regards to this year’s Transport Levy and any consultation.
• Would the current work with the other four unitary authorities continue after the local elections in May? 
  • The Interim Director, Economy? of Place confirmed that work would continue with the other West of England authorities and the Combined Authority after May.