Agenda item

Report enclosed.

The Commission considered a report setting out an update on progress on the delivery of the Council’s Ecological Emergency Action Plan.

Public Statements:

The Commission noted that public statements had been submitted by:

1. Suzanne Audrey

2. Dan Ackroyd

Suzanne Audrey and Dan Ackroyd were in attendance at the meeting and presented their respective statements.

Key points highlighted by officers in presenting the report:

1. The Bristol City Council Ecological Emergency Action Plan was a council-wide programme of activities to deliver on the ambitions of the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy and relevant aspects of the One City Climate Strategy. The Council had adopted the key targets from these strategies and embedded them as key performance indicators that were reported on annually.  The targets covered the following areas: land managed for nature;

pesticides reduction; tree canopy; water quality.

2. Good progress was being made across the 77 specific actions included in the action plan: With one update awaited, in terms of RAG rating, 18 actions were completed fully, 51 were Green ranked (i.e. progressing well or embedded as business as usual), 5 were Amber ranked (requiring some specific action to get them on track) with 2 Red ranked and held up at this stage.

3. Key successes included:

a. Inclusion of new environmental policies in new key strategic work: Local Plan, Parks and Green Spaces Strategy and Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

b. Production of the Sustainable Procurement Policy and guidance.

c. An established citywide approach to tree planting and ash dieback.

d. Habitat creation and enhancement opportunities on Parks land had been identified; the Council had also successfully passed the ‘Expression of Interest’ stage for securing Green Recovery Fund resources from the Combined Authority to potentially support delivery of phase 1 of the plans.

e. An 18% reduction in the use of pesticides across the Council.

4. A challenge to delivery had been faced in relation to staff recruitment, with the Ecological Emergency Co-ordinator post having been held vacant for 13 months, although these issues were now being resolved. A further key challenge was around continuing to explore all opportunities for external funding given the general pressure on council budgets.

Summary of main points raised/noted in discussion:

1. It was noted that the public statements submitted to the meeting had highlighted concerns about the trimming of an ancient hedge at Yew Tree Farm.  It was suggested that in terms of public perception, actions such as this did not sit well in the context of the overall good progress being reported on the Ecological Emergency Action Plan and could potentially lead to a degree of public scepticism about the Council’s ongoing commitment to delivering on the ecological agenda.  In response to questions, it was clarified by officers that the land in question at Yew Tree Farm was privately owned land and the work carried out had accordingly not been authorised by the Council.  The Cabinet member for Public Health and Communities commented that in her view, there had been a certain degree of misinformation spread about the situation; it was important to note that although the hedgerow fell within a designated Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), it was understood that certain work had been necessary in terms of scrub management ahead of the bird nesting season as the scrub had been allowed to encroach upon the grassland.

2. In terms of the powers available to the Council in overseeing the protection of SNCIs on privately owned land and ensuring that sites with this designation were managed appropriately, it was clarified that the authority only had limited scope to act if sites were neglected; there was no requirement on landowners in terms of active and positive site management.  In certain cases, where there was clear evidence of wilful damage to an SNCI (rather than passive neglect), there may be scope for some intervention with the landowner but, in overall terms, the ability of the authority to actively pursue enforcement-related activity was restricted.

3. In response to questions, it was clarified that:

a. the designation of an SNCI would be a material consideration in relation to the planning process.

b. under legislation (Environment Act 2021), all planning permissions granted (with a few exemptions) now had to deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain. 

4. In response to a point raised by the Chair, and noting that the Ecological Emergency Action Plan was a council-wide programme of activities to deliver on the ambitions of the One City Ecological Emergency Strategy and relevant aspects of the One City Climate Strategy, it was also noted that the One City Environment Board, as the city partnership body, was beginning discussions about refreshing the two wider strategies.

5. An issue was raised about the training provided and available to parks officers in relation to supporting ecological work and initiatives across parks.  It was noted that parks staff were required to undertake mandatory training; the service was also keen to continue developing/enabling appropriate training opportunities for staff around, for example, managing land for nature.

6. It was suggested that all possible action should be taken to encourage pond habitats across the city’s parks. Reference was also made to a recent cultural art project aimed at creating artworks with Bristol’s residents close to rivers, designed to find out what was important to them; it was suggested that this type of project should also be encouraged in relation to the city’s parks.

7. It was noted that future progress against the action plan would be reported to the relevant policy committee under the committee governance system.