Agenda item

Please note: this session will cover both Part 1 and Part 2 of this meeting of the Resources Scrutiny Commission, i.e. there will not be a separate public forum session for Part 2 of this meeting which is being held on 15 December.

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 at least 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 5.00 pm on Monday 4 December 2023

Petitions and Statements - Petitions or written statements must be received at latest by 12.00 noon on the working day prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that petitions or statements must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on Thursday 7 December 2023

Please note: questions, petitions and statements must relate to the remit of the

Resources Scrutiny Commission.

The Commission noted that the following public forum items had been received:

Public questions:

Public questions received for this meeting were as follows:

1. Questions from David Redgewell and Gordon Richardson: budget and transport matters

a. Question: ‘What progress is being made? On public consultation on the Transport levy paid by Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council, BaNES and North Somerset council?

As the cuts to bus services have effect on the city region bus network in Ashton Vale, Stapleton, Broomhill, Fishponds, Oldbury Court, Downend, Bromley Heath, Southmead hospital bus station, UWE, Bristol Parkway, Bradley Stoke, Aztec west, Easton and the Dings,

South Bristol, Bishopsworth, Hengrove, Brislington, St Anne's park.

Some of the poorest members in society are left without public bus services.

On payment of the levy under the West of England Act, this lays out a duty on Bristol City Council, BaNES, South Gloucestershire Council and North Somerset Council to fund jointly public bus services, so what public discussions are happening between the Bristol City Council budget scrutiny commission, the West of England scrutiny commission on the vital public bus services network?’

Officer reply (as published in advance of the meeting):

The delivery and management of bus service operations is managed by the West of England Combined Authority.  Bristol City Council funds the operation of bus services through the levy that it pays to the combined authority. The majority of expenditure under the levy is for concessionary fares which are a statutory duty, funding is also provided for RTI, staffing and supported bus services. Council funding is very limited so there is very little scope for increases to the levy amount paid to the Combined Authority. The amount of levy paid will be considered at the appropriate time in discussion with the Combined Authority and other West of England unitary authorities.

In response to a supplementary question from the questioner, it was confirmed that whilst further conversations could take place between the unitary authorities and the Combined Authority about the transport levy, it needed to be recognised that if any future decision was taken to increase the levy, the additional costs involved would mean corresponding reductions in other council budgets.

b. Question: ‘With Bristol City Council having to making saving in all public services and directorates, what progress is being made in this budget to transfer the Public Transport and Transport Department staff to the West of England mayoral combined transport authority?

And what discussion is Bristol City Council having about the removal of interim Directors and consultants at the West of England mayoral combined transport authority to replace them with local government officers from Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council and BaNES to save a large amount of taxpayer money?’

Officer reply (as published in advance of the meeting):

The Combined Authority has indicated that given workloads and its focus on reviewing project delivery within the Combined Authority, it will not be able to progress with bilateral discussions in relation to any potential transfer of transport functions from Bristol City Council at this time.

In response to a supplementary question from the questioner, it was reiterated that the Combined Authority had indicated that it was not currently able to progress with bilateral discussions in relation to any potential transfer of transport functions from Bristol City Council.

2. Questions from Dan Ackroyd: Clean Air Zone fines

‘My understanding is a gentleman named Mr Lyon from Saltford has successfully challenged multiple penalty charge notices.

According to a report in the Bristol Post:

'Mr Lyon said that each time he challenges his own or other drivers’ PCNs, the council initially opposes the representation made by the person appealing against the PCN, and insists the fine should stand.

“Then, when we go to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to appeal again, the council waits until the penultimate day of the fortnight they have to respond, and on the penultimate day they make an offer which waives the fine but asks the driver to pay the initial £9 charge,” said Mr Lyon.

“They do this to make it so the stats show that they’ve technically ‘won’ that challenge, as they did get the CAZ charge paid. But if that offer is declined, the next day they will withdraw the entire penalty and the charge, with about ten hours to go. That means the Traffic Penalty Tribunal never gets to actually assess the points made in the challenges. The council is shying away from having that assessment done and a judgement made,” he added."

This seems like quite a risk.

To avoid future loss of revenue, what steps are being taken to fix the issues that Mr Lyon believes he has identified with the CAZ and the PCNs?

What risk is there that BCC would need to 'cancel' a large number of CAZ charges or PCNs?’

Officer reply (as published in advance of the meeting):

The Clean Air Zone was introduced as a public health measure to improve air quality and health outcomes for residents of Bristol. The Council conducted a lengthy publicity campaign ahead of the launch and has provided a range of loans, grants and free trials, as well as a variety of short and long-term local exemptions to help people adjust. The intention of the Clean Air Zone is not to be unduly punitive, but it is right that we enforce the regulations for those whose vehicles don’t comply with the emissions standards and who have not paid the relevant daily charge.  We do welcome representations from anyone who has received a PCN and believes that they have grounds to appeal. The grounds on which an appeal can be made are set out in legislation and are listed in the PCN. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal (our independent adjudicator) has lots of independent advice on parking, bus lane and clean air zone PCNs on their website, which we would encourage people to use. (www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk).

It wouldn’t be appropriate for the Council to comment on the specifics of individual cases, however we can say that each case is assessed on its own merits and the cases in question have been cancelled for a variety of different reasons.

When an appeal is received, either an initial representation or a formal appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, it is placed in the appropriate work queue and cases are then dealt with in date order by appropriately trained staff. The volume and complexity of cases and capacity at any given point in time will determine how quickly we respond to individual cases. We endeavour to process all appeals within statutory deadlines but sometimes cases do approach, or even exceed, our deadlines.

The Council is constantly reviewing its processes under a cycle of continuous improvement to provide the best and most cost-effective service possible and is comfortable with the processes it has in place.

The Council will continue to take a public health driven approach to the Clean Air Zone and will take enforcement action on a case by case basis for vehicles who do not pay the relevant daily charge.  The Council is confident in its position and processes.

In response to a supplementary question from the questioner, it was confirmed that the allocation of the use of Clean Air Zone surplus income was being applied in accordance with legislation and government rules/guidance.

Public statements:

Public statements received for this meeting were as follows:

1. David Redgewell and Gordon Richardson: budget; transport levy.

David Redgewell was in attendance at the meeting and presented this statement.

2. Dan Ackroyd: information available for budget scrutiny.

Dan Ackroyd was in attendance at the meeting and presented this statement.

The Chair reminded members that, as indicated on the agenda, the public forum at today’s session was intended to cover both Part 1 and Part 2 of this meeting.  Accordingly, there would not be a separate public forum during Part 2 of this meeting to be held on 15 December.