Agenda item

To consider motions as follows:

 

1. Bristol Arena traffic plan

 

“This Council confirms its continuing support for the Bristol Arena and looks forward to it being delivered on time and within budget.  Nevertheless, there is still considerable concern over the potential impact of this 12,000 capacity entertainment venue.  Without appropriate mitigation measures in place, the opening of this site could have a devastating effect on the quality of life of local people.

 

Therefore, Council calls on the Mayor to instigate a review of the Traffic Management and Transport Plans, making particular reference to parking provision for those who will still choose to travel there by car. In addition, attention needs to be given to ensure there will be adequate Bus and Taxi services for the anticipated large audiences, many of whom are likely to be young - and excitable.  The safety of such vulnerable patrons must be made a priority consideration.

 

This evaluation should also take into account the redevelopment at Ashton Gate. Council believes that the options surrounding rail and a new station servicing both the stadium and the Arena need to be fully explored to ensure this is in the public transport mix or offer.

 

These two welcome major leisure destinations are extremely important to our city.  However, such attractions must be carefully integrated so that they are a benefit to all and not a burden to those who happen to live or work in their immediate vicinity.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Mark Weston

 

 

2. Opposing forced academisation

“Bristol City Council notes that, despite significant opposition from professionals across the political spectrum to the proposals in the White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, (March 2016), the Government has reiterated that it wants all schools to become academies within multi-academy trusts (MATs) by 2022. This Council further notes the Government plan to force schools to become academies if they are considered to be  ‘under-performing’ or even, in some cases, just ‘coasting.’ 

Bristol City Council notes with concern that if the Government deem that a local authority can ‘no longer viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools in that area has converted’ this will trigger conversion of all its schools.

 

As a Council we note Cllr. Roy Perry, Conservative Chair of the LGA opposition to forced academisation and welcome his view that ‘schools should have the choice to stay with their own Council’.

 

As a Council we recognise forcedacademisation will not only take away the LA’s ability to plan strategically and carry on supporting our schools in their successful journey of improvement, but will also remove the power from those who have the best knowledge of the school (the Head, staff and parents/carers) to determine how they want to be governed.

 

We believe that these plans:

 

·           Are not a good use of scarce resources.  The NUT estimates the cost of forced academisation to the taxpayer as high as £1.3 billion, at a time when funding per pupil in real terms is set to fall by as much as 8% per cent or more, and Bristol is likely to experience reduced funding due to the new National Funding formula, alongside a cut in the Education Services Grant.

·           Will not improve standards. Ofsted judged around 81% of local authority maintained schools as good or outstanding, compared to 71% of academies. Even the House of Commons Education Select Committee (2015) says ‘We have sought but not found any convincing evidence of the impact of academisation on attainment’. 

• Reduce accountability to the community. Academies will no longer be required to have elected parents on their governing body.  (They are already not required to have staff, local authority or community representatives if they do not want to).
• Will have an adverse impact on teachers’ pay and conditions. Academy trusts or individual academies will make decisions at a school level and can vary salary levels and terms of employment and employ unqualified staff.
• Make it harder for the LA to plan strategically for the new school places we need, as we cannot open new maintained schools and are dependent on proposals for Free Schools to emerge-not necessarily in areas where they are needed.
• Perpetuate inequality in admissions processes. Academies are their own admissions authorities, and the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (2015) reported concerns that they can manipulate them to their own ends. There are fears that the ground is being prepared to allow for new grammar schools.
• Make it harder to plan for vulnerable children. The LA has limited powers to influence the support given to children with SEND, preventing exclusions etc.in academies.

Bristol City Council therefore resolves to:

• States its clear opposition to the Government’s proposals outlined in the White Paper and will work with other Councils, trade unions, parents and governor groups to campaign to oppose them.
• Write to all its maintained school governing bodies to state its position and to urge them not to rush or feel pressurised into converting to academy status.
• Explore the options for developing alternative models to MATs (such as the Schools Partnership in Tower Hamlets, Leeds Cooperative Primaries Academy).
• Highlight the Council’s position on the White Paper in briefings for Heads, school staff, governors and parents/carers.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Pickersgill

 

 

Note:

Under the Council’s constitution, 30 minutes are available for the

consideration of motions.  In practice, this realistically means that there

is usually only time for one, or two motions to be considered. With the

agreement of the Lord Mayor, motion 1 above will be considered at this meeting, and motion 2 may be considered subject to time.  Details of other motions submitted (which, due to time constraints, are very unlikely to be considered at this meeting) are set out below for information:

 

3. Bus services and public transport

 

“This Council notes that the delivery of the Greater Bristol Bus network produced a significant improvement in reliability of public transport leading to an increase in usage and a considerable increase in profitability and potential profitability of bus services in Bristol.

 

We note that the last administration failed to deliver a single new transport infrastructure project or initiate new schemes for the future. It also managed to increase the cost of the rapid transport scheme and delay its implementation so we currently suffer from congestion rather than a new service.

 

We note though with even more concern the current inability of the present administration to cope. This has been evidenced by the disastrous cuts in bus services, the inability to run our existing park and rides and the failure to properly deploy the metro bus infrastructure.

 

This Council calls for an urgent all party investigation before the position is made even worse by further decimation to our bus services resulting from the supported services review.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Hopkins

 

 

4. Bristol should take the lead on opposing central government cuts

“Council notes with horror the latest round of up to 1,000 job cuts announced by the Mayor and his administration, as a result of George Osborne’s austerity ideology.

 

Council notes that Bristol has already delivered multiple millions of pounds of cuts to its budget over the last six years. However, we believe it is not possible to make the level of savings demanded by central government between now and 2020 without seriously damaging the public services that Bristol residents rely on.

 

Given that the council has a duty to deliver a balanced budget, Bristol cannot challenge central government cuts alone. It is therefore time for Bristol to play a leading role in working with others to say the upcoming cuts are a cut too far.

Council calls on the Mayor to:

1.      Take a leading role in working with other core cities and authorities to show a united front in opposing the appalling cult of austerity.

2.      Work with local politicians, business, unions, community groups and other sectors to lobby government for a change to our funding.

3.      Report back to Council on the progress made on the above before Christmas.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Bolton

 

 

5. Housing standards in Bristol

“Council welcomes moves by the Mayor and Cabinet to seek to increase the amount of housing and especially affordable housing being built. Council further welcomes proposals to set up a housing company.

 

Council is concerned that the pressure to build housing could result in a substantial increase in Bristol’s carbon footprint. Council is further concerned that ill-thought out development could result in a range of social (and financial) problems in the future.  

 

Council notes that the housing company in particular gives council the opportunity to:

 

1.      Build housing to the highest possible environmental standards – housing should be built to  passivhaus house standard or nearest achievable equivalent.

 

2.      Ensure that any new developments take into consideration long term public health impacts on its residents and the wider community, drawing on the wide expertise available in the Bristol area to create healthy places.

 

Council therefore calls on the Mayor to enshrine these principles in housing policy going forward and that he should report back to Full Council detailing how these will be achieved.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Bolton

 

 

6. Prince Street bridge

 

“Council is concerned over the latest attempt to get motorised transport barred from using the Prince Street Swing Bridge when it eventually reopens after extensive refurbishment.

 

Since the closure in August 2015 of this crucial crossing point over the floating harbour, travel in this part of the city has significantly worsened, with traffic often brought to a complete standstill for long periods throughout the day but particularly during early morning and evening commutes.

 

Uncertainty over the future of this bridge was meant to have ended in March when the previous City Mayor gave a public assurance that, once restored, it would continue to cater for all types of road-user (including light vehicles) because of its strategic importance to the road network.

 

Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to confirm that this is still the position today and that campaigns to secure its closure to motorists are not only an unwelcome distraction but are actually detrimental to efficient transport planning in our city.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Morris

 

 

7. ‘Moat’ promise

 

“Council calls on Mayor Rees to finally introduce a tenant reward scheme based along the lines of the already nationally well established ‘Moat’ principles.

 

Many other local authorities and partner housing associations are already reaping the benefits of such a strategy which is aimed, primarily, at promoting positive behaviour.  This seeks to motivate tenants by giving them a range of incentives or, where appropriate, applying sanctions to ensure compliance with the conditions included in their tenancy agreements.

 

The ‘Moat promise’ operates a banding system which recognises good conduct such as having no (unjustified) rent arrears or ‘involvement in anti-social behaviour for one year’ by offering a faster and more comprehensive repairs service.  Conversely, downgraded tenancies result in the provision of mere basic services or meeting the bare minimum requirements of legal obligations imposed on social landlords.  It is envisaged that only serious or unreasonable breaches of tenancy conditions should attract such penalties.

 

Council is concerned that despite repeated campaigns over the years for a tougher stance to be adopted against nuisance or anti-social tenants, no practical steps or action has ever been taken to tackle this issue.

 

Consequently, Council requests that housing officers are tasked with preparing a report setting out all of the options available to the Mayor, which should then be submitted to the relevant scrutiny commission for consideration and comment, before this Council takes a final vote on the preferred route forward later in the autumn.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Lesley Alexander

 

 

8. Community infrastructure levy formula

 

“This Council calls on the Mayor to establish a formulae or formal mechanism for the redistribution of so-called planning obligations money to those wards which experience large-scale building of new social housing.

 

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a planning charge used by local authorities to help deliver infrastructure improvements needed to support the development of an area.  At present, around 80% of money raised in this way is held centrally for contributions towards generic projects.  Currently, only 15% of such funds are actually allocated to Neighbourhood Partnerships and spent on local schemes.

 

Council recognises the Mayor’s plan to build 2,000 homes – 800 affordable – by 2020 will impose a greater burden in terms of loss of space and disruption on some parts of the city than others.  Accordingly, this sacrifice needs to be acknowledged and financially compensated.

 

Council believes that such a move is not only equitable in and of itself; this would also help to address the concerns of residents and make them much more likely to support such developments in their midst.”

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Weston

 

 

 

a. Motion 1 – Bristol Arena traffic plan

 

Councillor Weston moved the following motion:

 

“This Council confirms its continuing support for the Bristol Arena and looks forward to it being delivered on time and within budget.  Nevertheless, there is still considerable concern over the potential impact of this 12,000 capacity entertainment venue.  Without appropriate mitigation measures in place, the opening of this site could have a devastating effect on the quality of life of local people.

 

Therefore, Council calls on the Mayor to instigate a review of the Traffic Management and Transport Plans, making particular reference to parking provision for those who will still choose to travel there by car. In addition, attention needs to be given to ensure there will be adequate Bus and Taxi services for the anticipated large audiences, many of whom are likely to be young - and excitable.  The safety of such vulnerable patrons must be made a priority consideration.

 

This evaluation should also take into account the redevelopment at Ashton Gate. Council believes that the options surrounding rail and a new station servicing both the stadium and the Arena need to be fully explored to ensure this is in the public transport mix or offer.

 

These two welcome major leisure destinations are extremely important to our city.  However, such attractions must be carefully integrated so that they are a benefit to all and not a burden to those who happen to live or work in their immediate vicinity.”

 

Councillor Goulandris seconded the motion.

 

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, motion was CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council confirms its continuing support for the Bristol Arena and looks forward to it being delivered on time and within budget.  Nevertheless, there is still considerable concern over the potential impact of this 12,000 capacity entertainment venue.  Without appropriate mitigation measures in place, the opening of this site could have a devastating effect on the quality of life of local people.

 

Therefore, Council calls on the Mayor to instigate a review of the Traffic Management and Transport Plans, making particular reference to parking provision for those who will still choose to travel there by car. In addition, attention needs to be given to ensure there will be adequate Bus and Taxi services for the anticipated large audiences, many of whom are likely to be young - and excitable.  The safety of such vulnerable patrons must be made a priority consideration.

 

This evaluation should also take into account the redevelopment at Ashton Gate. Council believes that the options surrounding rail and a new station servicing both the stadium and the Arena need to be fully explored to ensure this is in the public transport mix or offer.

 

These two welcome major leisure destinations are extremely important to our city.  However, such attractions must be carefully integrated so that they are a benefit to all and not a burden to those who happen to live or work in their immediate vicinity.

 

 

b. Motion 2 – Opposing forced academisation

 

Councillor Pickersgill moved the following motion:

 

“Bristol City Council notes that, despite significant opposition from professionals across the political spectrum to the proposals in the White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, (March 2016), the Government has reiterated that it wants all schools to become academies within multi-academy trusts (MATs) by 2022. This Council further notes the Government plan to force schools to become academies if they are considered to be  ‘under-performing’ or even, in some cases, just ‘coasting.’ 

Bristol City Council notes with concern that if the Government deem that a local authority can ‘no longer viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools in that area has converted’ this will trigger conversion of all its schools.

 

As a Council we note Cllr. Roy Perry, Conservative Chair of the LGA opposition to forced academisation and welcome his view that ‘schools should have the choice to stay with their own Council’.

 

As a Council we recognise forcedacademisation will not only take away the LA’s ability to plan strategically and carry on supporting our schools in their successful journey of improvement, but will also remove the power from those who have the best knowledge of the school (the Head, staff and parents/carers) to determine how they want to be governed.

 

We believe that these plans:

 

·           Are not a good use of scarce resources.  The NUT estimates the cost of forced academisation to the taxpayer as high as £1.3 billion, at a time when funding per pupil in real terms is set to fall by as much as 8% per cent or more, and Bristol is likely to experience reduced funding due to the new National Funding formula, alongside a cut in the Education Services Grant.

·           Will not improve standards. Ofsted judged around 81% of local authority maintained schools as good or outstanding, compared to 71% of academies. Even the House of Commons Education Select Committee (2015) says ‘We have sought but not found any convincing evidence of the impact of academisation on attainment’. 

• Reduce accountability to the community. Academies will no longer be required to have elected parents on their governing body.  (They are already not required to have staff, local authority or community representatives if they do not want to).
• Will have an adverse impact on teachers’ pay and conditions. Academy trusts or individual academies will make decisions at a school level and can vary salary levels and terms of employment and employ unqualified staff.
• Make it harder for the LA to plan strategically for the new school places we need, as we cannot open new maintained schools and are dependent on proposals for Free Schools to emerge-not necessarily in areas where they are needed.
• Perpetuate inequality in admissions processes. Academies are their own admissions authorities, and the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (2015) reported concerns that they can manipulate them to their own ends. There are fears that the ground is being prepared to allow for new grammar schools.
• Make it harder to plan for vulnerable children. The LA has limited powers to influence the support given to children with SEND, preventing exclusions etc.in academies.

Bristol City Council therefore resolves to:

• States its clear opposition to the Government’s proposals outlined in the White Paper and will work with other Councils, trade unions, parents and governor groups to campaign to oppose them.
• Write to all its maintained school governing bodies to state its position and to urge them not to rush or feel pressurised into converting to academy status.
• Explore the options for developing alternative models to MATs (such as the Schools Partnership in Tower Hamlets, Leeds Cooperative Primaries Academy).
• Highlight the Council’s position on the White Paper in briefings for Heads, school staff, governors and parents/carers.”

 

Councillor Don Alexander seconded the motion.

 

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

Bristol City Council notes that, despite significant opposition from professionals across the political spectrum to the proposals in the White Paper, Educational Excellence Everywhere, (March 2016), the Government has reiterated that it wants all schools to become academies within multi-academy trusts (MATs) by 2022. This Council further notes the Government plan to force schools to become academies if they are considered to be  ‘under-performing’ or even, in some cases, just ‘coasting.’ 

Bristol City Council notes with concern that if the Government deem that a local authority can ‘no longer viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools in that area has converted’ this will trigger conversion of all its schools.

 

As a Council we note Cllr. Roy Perry, Conservative Chair of the LGA opposition to forced academisation and welcome his view that ‘schools should have the choice to stay with their own Council’.

 

As a Council we recognise forcedacademisation will not only take away the LA’s ability to plan strategically and carry on supporting our schools in their successful journey of improvement, but will also remove the power from those who have the best knowledge of the school (the Head, staff and parents/carers) to determine how they want to be governed.

 

We believe that these plans:

 

·           Are not a good use of scarce resources.  The NUT estimates the cost of forced academisation to the taxpayer as high as £1.3 billion, at a time when funding per pupil in real terms is set to fall by as much as 8% per cent or more, and Bristol is likely to experience reduced funding due to the new National Funding formula, alongside a cut in the Education Services Grant.

·           Will not improve standards. Ofsted judged around 81% of local authority maintained schools as good or outstanding, compared to 71% of academies. Even the House of Commons Education Select Committee (2015) says ‘We have sought but not found any convincing evidence of the impact of academisation on attainment’. 

• Reduce accountability to the community. Academies will no longer be required to have elected parents on their governing body.  (They are already not required to have staff, local authority or community representatives if they do not want to).
• Will have an adverse impact on teachers’ pay and conditions. Academy trusts or individual academies will make decisions at a school level and can vary salary levels and terms of employment and employ unqualified staff.
• Make it harder for the LA to plan strategically for the new school places we need, as we cannot open new maintained schools and are dependent on proposals for Free Schools to emerge-not necessarily in areas where they are needed.
• Perpetuate inequality in admissions processes. Academies are their own admissions authorities, and the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (2015) reported concerns that they can manipulate them to their own ends. There are fears that the ground is being prepared to allow for new grammar schools.
• Make it harder to plan for vulnerable children. The LA has limited powers to influence the support given to children with SEND, preventing exclusions etc.in academies.

Bristol City Council therefore resolves to:

• States its clear opposition to the Government’s proposals outlined in the White Paper and will work with other Councils, trade unions, parents and governor groups to campaign to oppose them.
• Write to all its maintained school governing bodies to state its position and to urge them not to rush or feel pressurised into converting to academy status.
• Explore the options for developing alternative models to MATs (such as the Schools Partnership in Tower Hamlets, Leeds Cooperative Primaries Academy).
• Highlight the Council’s position on the White Paper in briefings for Heads, school staff, governors and parents/carers.”