Agenda item

To consider motions as follows:

 

1. Clean air now for Bristol

Motion submitted / to be moved by Cllr Bolton

 

“Full Council notes that:

1. Bristol’s air pollution urgently needs to be reduced.
2. In many parts of Bristol, especially near our busy roads and in the city centre, air pollutants exceed legal and safe European and World Health Organisation limits.
3. Air pollution impacts on the health of people in our city, especially the most vulnerable. It can cause permanent lung damage in babies and young children and exacerbates lung and heart disease in older people, leading to an estimated 300 premature deaths in Bristol each year.1
4. Other English cities such as Southampton and Nottingham are introducing Low Emission Zones or Clean Air Zones to reduce the level of these pollutants to safe and acceptable levels. Bristol is not one of these cities. 
5. National legislation is anticipated which could enable Bristol City Council to implement its own Clean Air Zone. In the interim there are other steps that could be taken to improve Bristol’s air.

 

Full Council believes that:

1. It is unfair for Bristol residents to be left behind breathing polluted air, when other major cities have Clean Air Zones planned.
2. A Clean Air Zone should be introduced in Bristol’s Air Quality Management Area to ensure Bristol’s air quality is within safe and legal limits by 2020.
3. Action on air pollution cannot wait for national legislation to be in place and we must take steps now.

 

Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:

1. Immediately take all steps needed to reduce deaths and illness linked to polluted air. This should include, but not be limited to:
   1. restricting the most polluting vehicles from entering Bristol, and supporting transition of deliveries with freight consolidation centre;
   2. cleaning up the bus fleet, working with Bristol’s major bus providers;
   3. supporting taxis to meet clean emission standards;
   4. promoting and incentivising the use of electric vehicles and car clubs, and ensuring that Council vehicles are electric where possible;
   5. promoting walking and cycling.

 

2. Lobby the appropriate government minister to ensure that new air pollution legislation is introduced in a timely fashion to ensure that all affected cities can introduce Clean Air Zones. 

 

3. Commit to implementing a Clean Air Zone in Bristol once the appropriate legislation is in place so that the people of Bristol are not left breathing polluted air. 

 

4. Commit to immediately develop an updated Bristol-wide strategy to bring air quality within safe and legal limits.

 

5. Ensure work to bring dangerous air pollution within safe and legal limits is adequately resourced.

 

6. Include key air pollution targets in the development of Bristol’s 50 year plan, including a target to ensure air quality is within safe and legal limits by 2020 at the latest.

 

7. Initiate an educational campaign to highlight to the general public the impact of air pollution on public health and the economy.

 

8. Report back to Full Council on the progress made on these actions by no later than May 2017.”

 

Note:

1. Report to be published, outline data available upon request.

 

 

2. Prince Street bridge

Motion submitted / to be moved by Cllr Morris

 

“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.”

 

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 possibly 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. The Bus Services Bill: Give councils the ability to manage local bus services

Motion submitted by Cllr Negus

 

“This Council notes:

1. That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2. That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3. That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4. That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

 

This Council believes:

1. Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2. Councils should be able to provide their own bus services  if there is a need and a demand from their citizens.

3. Councils should be legally entitled to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4. Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

 

This Council resolves:

1. To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

2. To write to all Bristol MPs to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

3. To work with any organisations such as We Own It to publicise our opposition to clause 21 in local media.”

 

 

4. The Bus Services Bill

Motion submitted by Cllr Brook

 

“This Council notes:

1.  That the Bus Services Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, includes many measures that will be useful for Bristol and the West of England to introduce franchising, provide better journey information, and generally improve bus services.

2. That the proposed Clause 21 of this Bill will “prohibit a local authority from forming a

company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

3. That Local Authority-run bus companies, such as Reading Buses and Nottingham City

Transport, have a successful track record of increasing the number of journeys, gaining

high passenger satisfaction ratings, and improving quality. Furthermore, these public

operators have won the UK Bus Operator of the Year award in four of the last five years, proving their consistent success.

4. That Key Performance Indicators with regards to bus services have improved in Bristol in recent years, but that there is further progress to be made.

5. That improving passenger satisfaction, increasing the number of journeys, and providing better quality are key aims of the current Council administration’s approach to bus services.

6. That Clause 21 was removed through an amendment at the House of Lords report stage on the 24th October, but that the danger of reinsertion of the Clause by the government when it reaches the House of Commons remains.

 

This Council believes:

1. That the proposed Clause 21 of the Bus Services Bill contradicts the Localism Act 2011 and associated General Power of Competence Provisions which the act grants to Local Authorities.

2. That, if there is a need and demand from the public, Bristol City Council and/or the

planned West of England Combined Authority should be able to provide a municipal bus

service.

3. That, whilst no plans have currently been mooted by the Council administration for such a company, the option should remain open.

4. That, consequently, and in accordance with the cross-party Local Government

Association’s view, Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

 

This Council resolves:

1. To write to Lord Ahmad (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport), who is responsible for this Bill, calling on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation.

2. To write to Bristol’s MPs to ask them to oppose Clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill

reaches the House of Commons, and to ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the

Department for Transport raising concerns about Clause 21.

3. To work with any relevant organisations, locally and nationally, to publicise this Council’s opposition to Clause 21.”

 

 

5. Reducing single-use plastics in Bristol City Council

Motion submitted by Cllr Denyer

 

“Full Council notes that:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, plastic has become the most commonly used material¹ and modern life is unthinkable without it. Unfortunately, what makes it so useful, such as its durability, light weight and low cost, also makes it problematic when it comes to its end of life phase.

50 percent of plastic is used just once and thrown away, and over the last ten years more plastic has been produced than during the whole of the last century². In the UK 68.4% of plastic packaging is sent to landfill³.

8 million tonnes of plastic waste ends up in the world’s oceans each year⁴. The largest ocean garbage site in the world lies off the coast of California and has a floating mass of plastic twice the size of Texas. One million sea birds and 100,000 marine mammals are killed annually from plastic in our oceans.²

As more people move to cities and demand a more convenient way of life, our casual use of single-use plastics (SUPs) increases. To solve the plastic waste problem we need to work both locally and globally and our response must include reducing the volume of waste we create in the first instance.

Across the UK and around the world we have already seen inspirational change from fellow progressive cities⁵. As a historic port-city, and as a former European Green Capital, Bristol should be a showcase for how to build a coherent strategy to optimize plastic waste policy.

 

Full Council therefore resolves:

 

To ask the Mayor to:

 

1. Develop a robust strategy to make Bristol City Council a ‘single-use-plastic-free’ authority by the end of 2017;⁶
2. Encourage and enable the city’s institutions, businesses and citizens to adopt similar measures.

 

This will require changes in policy and strong leadership and championing from the Council around reducing our reliance on and use of SUPs. It should specifically include moves to:

·         End all sales of SUP bottles in council buildings and phase out their use at all events hosted in Council-owned buildings.

·         End the use of other SUP products in council buildings starting with (but not limited to) ‘disposable’ cups, cutlery and drinking straws.

·         Ensure reusable and affordable food containers are available for sale in public markets – to be piloted at St Nicholas market in the city centre.

·         Work with the Festivals Team to create policy in which single-use 'disposable' plastic cups are replaced at all city festivals with reusable or deposit-scheme cups. This will ultimately be a condition for obtaining a licence for large scale events.

·         Work with tenants in commercial properties owned by the Council to phase out SUP glasses, bottles, cutlery and straws and help them to engage with Bristol’s existing ‘Go Green’ scheme.

·         Work with bars and cafes, starting with those situated on the harbourside, to phase out single-use 'disposable' cups and to encourage the use of reusable and deposit scheme ones.

·         Encourage, enable and aid all employees and councillors to engage with the Plastic Free July challenge.

·         Work with existing local groups and experts to implement these changes.”

 

Notes and sources:

 

1. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/plastic_waste.htm

 

2. http://www.ecowatch.com

 

3. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485117/UK_Statistics_on_Waste_statistical_notice_15_12_2015_update_f1.pdf

 

4. J. Jambeck, “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.” (2015)  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768

 

5. Globally:

·         2015: San Francisco introduced a ban which will phase out the sales of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places.

·         2015: The leadership of New York City joined a growing group of cities in banning Expandable Polystyrene Foam (EPS). (Single-use EPS products including cups, bowls, plates, take-away containers and trays and packing peanuts will not allowed to be possessed, sold, or offered in NYC.)

·         2015: The US is set to ban personal care products that contain microbeads after the House of Representatives approved a bill that would phase out the environmentally-harmful items.

·         2009: Bundanoon in Australia banned the sales of plastic bottled-water and became the world's first 'bottled-water free' town.

In the UK:

·         2016: Norwich City Councillors unanimously passed a motion calling on the Council to go single-use-plastic-free. https://norwich.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/09/28/norwich-a-step-closer-to-becoming-a-pioneer-plastic-free-city

·         Six months after the introduction of the 5p bag charge, use of single-use plastic bags had already dropped by 85%⁶, while the TV programme Hugh’s War on Waste has raised public awareness of the problems of our throwaway culture. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/billions-fewer-plastic-bags-on-the-streets

6. Exceptions can be made where single-use plastic is used within specialist systems such as medical, security, forensic and construction uses, where it is often the lowest carbon footprint solution and the plastics are disposed of in a responsible way.

 

 

6. Clause 21 – The Bus Services Bill

Motion submitted by Cllr Combley

 

“Full Council notes:

1. That the Bus Services Bill currently passing  through Parliament, as originally proposed included Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2. That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3. That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4. That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

 

Full Council believes:

1. Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2. If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services.

3. Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4. Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

 

Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor:

 

1. To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation.

2. To write to all Bristol MPs to ask them to oppose or continue to oppose clause 21 in the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

3. To publicise our opposition to clause 21 in local media.”

 

 

7. Housing standards in Bristol

Motion submitted by Cllr Bolton

 

“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.”

 

 

8. Shark fin free Bristol

Motion submitted by Cllr Fi Hance

 

“Full Council notes that:

 

Many Bristol residents are deeply concerned about the decline in shark populations. The conservation organisation Fin Fighters has been campaigning to make the UK shark fin free by 2023.

 

Full Council believes that:

1. Owing to the catastrophic declines of shark populations driven by the global market for shark fin and the health implications of consuming shark; shark finning and the sale and distribution of Shark fins in the city of Bristol should be opposed.
   
   

Full Council resolves:

1. To urge businesses and individuals in the City of Bristol to end the sale and consumption of shark fin products.
2. That it will not knowingly purchase shark fin products for Council provided catering or events.
3. To support the Fin Fighters community in its positive engagement with the businesses selling shark fin, and in their efforts to encourage participation in the Fin Fighters Shark Support certification scheme.
4. To work with the MPs representing Bristol in Westminster, to call on them to strengthen the laws surrounding the practice of commercial shark fishing and support the Fin Free UK by 2023 campaign to ban the sale and distribution of shark fin in the UK by the year 2023.”

 

 

9. Devolution deal

Motion submitted by Cllr Hopkins

 

“Bristol and the West of England are significant net contributors to the wealth of the UK. Bristol residents were told 4-5 years ago that voting to get a Mayor would be beneficial and would bring extra money and power to the city. We now have had a chance to see this extra money and power in action and have recently had the Mayor publish a list of proposals which amongst a list of unacceptable cuts to services includes the abandonment of school crossing patrols. The government meanwhile is insisting on yet another expensive Mayor and allowing them to decide on a small list of West of England matters. The public did not have a choice and nobody voted for this with enthusiasm.

 

This Council thinks that the government has a twisted idea of what devolution means and instructs the Mayor to invite neighbouring council leaders to accompany him to lobby central government for a proper deal that allows Bristol and neighbouring councils to retain a fair % of revenue raised here to provide good quality public services and proper investment in local infrastructure.”

 

 

 

 

 

a. Motion 1 – Clean air now for Bristol

 

Councillor Bolton moved the following motion:

 

“Full Council notes that:

1. Bristol’s air pollution urgently needs to be reduced.
2. In many parts of Bristol, especially near our busy roads and in the city centre, air pollutants exceed legal and safe European and World Health Organisation limits.
3. Air pollution impacts on the health of people in our city, especially the most vulnerable. It can cause permanent lung damage in babies and young children and exacerbates lung and heart disease in older people, leading to an estimated 300 premature deaths in Bristol each year.1
4. Other English cities such as Southampton and Nottingham are introducing Low Emission Zones or Clean Air Zones to reduce the level of these pollutants to safe and acceptable levels. Bristol is not one of these cities. 
5. National legislation is anticipated which could enable Bristol City Council to implement its own Clean Air Zone. In the interim there are other steps that could be taken to improve Bristol’s air.

 

Full Council believes that:

1. It is unfair for Bristol residents to be left behind breathing polluted air, when other major cities have Clean Air Zones planned.
2. A Clean Air Zone should be introduced in Bristol’s Air Quality Management Area to ensure Bristol’s air quality is within safe and legal limits by 2020.
3. Action on air pollution cannot wait for national legislation to be in place and we must take steps now.

 

Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:

1. Immediately take all steps needed to reduce deaths and illness linked to polluted air. This should include, but not be limited to:
   1. restricting the most polluting vehicles from entering Bristol, and supporting transition of deliveries with freight consolidation centre;
   2. cleaning up the bus fleet, working with Bristol’s major bus providers;
   3. supporting taxis to meet clean emission standards;
   4. promoting and incentivising the use of electric vehicles and car clubs, and ensuring that Council vehicles are electric where possible;
   5. promoting walking and cycling.

 

2. Lobby the appropriate government minister to ensure that new air pollution legislation is introduced in a timely fashion to ensure that all affected cities can introduce Clean Air Zones. 

 

3. Commit to implementing a Clean Air Zone in Bristol once the appropriate legislation is in place so that the people of Bristol are not left breathing polluted air. 

 

4. Commit to immediately develop an updated Bristol-wide strategy to bring air quality within safe and legal limits.

 

5. Ensure work to bring dangerous air pollution within safe and legal limits is adequately resourced.

 

6. Include key air pollution targets in the development of Bristol’s 50 year plan, including a target to ensure air quality is within safe and legal limits by 2020 at the latest.

 

7. Initiate an educational campaign to highlight to the general public the impact of air pollution on public health and the economy.

 

8. Report back to Full Council on the progress made on these actions by no later than May 2017.”

 

Note:

1. Report to be published, outline data available upon request.

 

 

Councillor Thomas seconded the motion.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

Full Council notes that:

1.      Bristol’s air pollution urgently needs to be reduced.

2.      In many parts of Bristol, especially near our busy roads and in the city centre, air pollutants exceed legal and safe European and World Health Organisation limits.

3.      Air pollution impacts on the health of people in our city, especially the most vulnerable. It can cause permanent lung damage in babies and young children and exacerbates lung and heart disease in older people, leading to an estimated 300 premature deaths in Bristol each year.

4.      Other English cities such as Southampton and Nottingham are introducing Low Emission Zones or Clean Air Zones to reduce the level of these pollutants to safe and acceptable levels. Bristol is not one of these cities.

5.      National legislation is anticipated which could enable Bristol City Council to implement its own Clean Air Zone. In the interim there are other steps that could be taken to improve Bristol’s air.

 

Full Council believes that:

1.      It is unfair for Bristol residents to be left behind breathing polluted air, when other major cities have Clean Air Zones planned.

2.      A Clean Air Zone should be introduced in Bristol’s Air Quality Management Area to ensure Bristol’s air quality is within safe and legal limits by 2020.

3.      Action on air pollution cannot wait for national legislation to be in place and we must take steps now.

 

Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:

1.      Immediately take all steps needed to reduce deaths and illness linked to polluted air. This should include, but not be limited to:

 

2.      Lobby the appropriate government minister to ensure that new air pollution legislation is introduced in a timely fashion to ensure that all affected cities can introduce Clean Air Zones. 

 

3. Commit to implementing a Clean Air Zone in Bristol once the appropriate legislation is in place so that the people of Bristol are not left breathing polluted air. 

 

4. Commit to immediately develop an updated Bristol-wide strategy to bring air quality within safe and legal limits.

 

5. Ensure work to bring dangerous air pollution within safe and legal limits is adequately resourced.

 

6. Include key air pollution targets in the development of Bristol’s 50 year plan, including a target to ensure air quality is within safe and legal limits by 2020 at the latest.

 

7. Initiate an educational campaign to highlight to the general public the impact of air pollution on public health and the economy.

 

8. Report back to Full Council on the progress made on these actions by no later than May 2017.

 

 

b. Altered Motion 2 – Prince Street Bridge

 

Councillor Goulandris moved the following altered motion:

 

“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 Prince Street Bridge remains a key component in our city’s traffic network and that any decision on its use after the essential repairs are completed will reflect this.”

 

 

Councillor Smith seconded the altered motion.

 

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the altered motion was CARRIED (50 members voting in favour, 8 against, with 1 abstention), and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

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 Prince Street Bridge remains a key component in our city’s traffic network and that any decision on its use after the essential repairs are completed will reflect this.