We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We asked

The engagement on Cotham Hill was open for six weeks from Monday 9 November 2020 to Sunday 17 January 2021. People were asked about their street environment, what they liked about the street, what they would improve and what would they prioritise. The survey captured views from residents, businesses and anyone who uses the street to help build a picture of what people would like to see improved in the street environment and provide feedback on their own experiences.

Individual responses were received via the online survey and, to ensure the survey reached as wide an audience as possible in a multi-cultural ward, paper copies with a language template covering 12 languages were posted along with a free post envelope to 3348 local properties. 25 posters were put up in the local area to raise awareness of the survey. Local stakeholders and community groups were also asked to help raise awareness of the survey and it was promoted via social media platforms. Due to Covid19 restrictions preventing face to face engagement, the team offered virtual chats and phone appointments to anyone who didn’t want to submit a written response but wanted to ask questions and provide feedback.

You said

From this survey we received 2632 responses to the engagement, which were made up of 2075 online and 557 paper copies. Of the responses received 60% are residents who live within one mile and over 80% walk to the road with over 65% visiting the street over 3 to 4 times a week.

Around 90% of respondents like Cotham Hill due to the “local high street economy” and “personality and character of the street”. Over 60% felt it was a “place for meeting friends and family” and over 70% like “supporting local jobs”. Over 85% of respondents think “pavements are too narrow” is a serious and moderate problem. Over 80% of respondents “have wider pavements” as an essential and high priority for the street.

The main themes that came through the free text boxes were support for pedestrianisation, outdoor seating space and wider pavements.

We did

The feedback from this survey along with the engagement with local businesses, community groups and local stakeholders has been used to help produce a road layout design for two temporary road closures on Cotham Hill. This will be implemented on Sunday 11 April 2021 to allow several hospitality businesses to trade outside with COVID-19 restrictions changing to permit outdoor hospitality service the following day. It will also improve journeys for pedestrians and cyclists. Whilst this is an urgent measure to support business we are working on a more permanent scheme which will be subject to further engagement with the community. This will take a look at a more holistic approach at the area and could incorporate changes to the wider area.
More information about what we engaged on and the results are available in either the summary report or the full report.

We asked

Throughout 2020 Bristol City Council used temporary barriers to create more space for pedestrians and cyclists across the city, including on Princess Victoria Street, in response to the pandemic and social distancing measures. Building on this work, we launched engagement with the Clifton community in December 2020 to find out how we could further improve walking and cycling journeys in the area.

The engagement was open for six weeks from Monday 7 December 2020 to Sunday 17 January 2021. People were asked about street environment, what they liked about the street, what they would improve and what would they prioritise. In addition to the general questions, some specific suggestions submitted by the community were included in the survey. People were asked to give their views on ideas for widening the pavement, timed closures and a full closure of a short stretch of Princess Victoria Street between the junctions of Clifton Down Road and Waterloo Street. The survey sought to capture views from residents, businesses and anyone who uses the street to help build a picture of what people would like to see improved in the street environment and provide them with the opportunity to give feedback on their own experiences.

Individual responses were received via the online survey and paper copies were posted with a free post envelope to 2400 local properties, with a follow-up postcard sent to the same properties. 40 posters were put up in the local area to raise awareness of the survey. Local stakeholders and community groups were also asked to help raise awareness of the survey and it was promoted via social media platforms.

As COVID-19 restrictions prevented face to face engagement, the team offered virtual chats and phone appointments to anyone who didn’t want to submit a written response but wanted to ask questions and provide verbal feedback.

You said

From the community survey we received 907 responses, made up of 482 online and 425 paper copies. Of the responses, over 85% are residents who live within one mile. The majority (90%) of respondents say they walk to travel to the road and over 80% visit the street over 3 to 4 times a week.

The top 4 priorities for respondents were “more outdoor space for café/restaurants”, “cleaner air”, “more greenery/planters”, & “wider pavements”.  Over 85% of respondents like the street for both “the local high street economy” and “the personality and character of the street”. 62% of respondents felt that “the streets are busy with traffic” is a serious or a moderate problem. 57% of respondents felt that “narrow pavements” is a serious or moderate problem. 35% of respondents felt that “there is not enough car parking” was either a serious or a moderate problem while 54% felt it was a minor problem or not a problem at all.

The main themes that came through the free text boxes were providing additional support for pedestrians (95 responses), lack of residents parking (25 responses), concerns around displaced traffic resulting from potential changes (23 responses) and the need to reduce traffic (22 responses).

In addition to the general questions, some specific suggestions for the section of Princess Victoria Street between Clifton Down Road and Waterloo road, which were submitted by the community, were included in the survey:

  • Most respondents (68%) agree or strongly agree with the suggestion to “widen pavements” on this stretch of the street. 21% Disagree or strongly disagree.
  • 56% Agree or strongly agree with the suggestion for “a daily timed closure”. 34% Disagree or strongly disagree.
  • 53% Agree or strongly agree with the suggestion for “a full closure”. 40% Disagree or strongly disagree.

We did

The feedback from this survey along with the engagement with local businesses, community groups and local stakeholders will be used to produce some designs for the street. Information on next steps will be shared with the community in the coming weeks. More information about what we engaged on and the results are available in either the summary report or the full report.

We asked

The engagement on St Marks Road was open for six weeks from Monday 9 November 2020 to Sunday 17 January 2021. People were asked about their street environment, what they liked about the street, what they would improve and what would they prioritise. The survey captured views from residents, businesses and anyone who uses the street to help build a picture of what people would like to see improved in the street environment and provide feedback on their own experiences.

Individual responses were received via the online survey and, to ensure the survey reached as wide an audience as possible in a multi-cultural ward, paper copies with a language template covering 12 languages were posted along with a free post envelope to 3548 local properties. 50 posters were put up in the local area to raise awareness of the survey. Local stakeholders and community groups were also asked to help raise awareness of the survey and it was promoted via social media platforms.

Due to Covid19 restrictions preventing face to face engagement, the team offered virtual chats and phone appointments to anyone who didn’t want to submit a written response but wanted to ask questions and provide feedback.

You said

Closing the road at one end to make it access-only was an early suggestion, and within the local community there has been many conversations centred around both concerns and support for pedestrianisation of St Marks Road. There was a lot of strength of feeling with different groups having different viewpoints. As a result, online petitions have been drawn up by these different groups asking people to either stop or support pedestrianisation.

From this survey we received 1115 responses to the engagement, which were made up of 474 online and 641 paper copies. Of the responses received 81% are residents who live within one mile and walk to the roadwith 45% riding a bike and 30% driving a car/ van.

Over 80% of respondents like St Marks Road due to the “local high street economy” and “personality and character of the street”. Over 75% like “supporting local jobs” and nearly 65% liked the “customer service and shopping experience”.

The most serious and moderate problem identified was that “the street is busy with traffic” (48%) followed by “there is too much pollution/poor air quality” (47%) and “access for disabled people is poor” (45%).

Over 50% of respondents think “have cleaner air”, “a nicer/safer place to walk and cycle” and “having enough shade and shelter e.g. increased greenery, planters” are essential and high priorities when totalled together.

In total 1623 ‘other’ comments were received for the four main questions asking about what people like, what the problems might be, what are their priorities and any other comments.

511 other comments talked specifically about pedestrianisation and of those 120 supported and 257 objected to the idea of pedestrianising the road. 134 other suggestions were also put forward under this category such as partial closures, limit closures to certain times and resurface the road.

We did

The feedback from this survey along with the engagement with local businesses, community groups and local stakeholders will be used to produce some design options for the street. Pedestrianisation is not being considered. The options will be presented to a local community working group who will help co-design the options. More information about what we engaged on and the results are available in either the summary report or the full report.

We asked

The consultation on the council’s 2021/22 budget was open for six weeks from 16 November 2020 until 28 December 2020. Individual responses were received via the survey and additional responses were received from organisations and individuals via email.

More information about what we consulted on is available in the consultation survey.

You said

We received 2,006 responses to the Budget consultation 2021/22, the results of which are available in the Budget 2021/22 consultation report.

1,936 (97%) of the 2,006 people who responded to the budget consultation, stated the level core Council Tax increase they would support in 2021/22, from the three options provided*:

A majority of respondents (66%) favour an increase in core Council Tax to support general services. Of these, 259 (13% of all 1,936 respondents) favour a 3% increase, 688 (36%) favour a 2% increase and 332 (17%) would prefer a 1% increase in core Council Tax.

657 (34%) respondents would prefer ‘no increase to Council Tax’ in 2021/22.

1,957 (98%) of the 2,006 respondents to the consultation, expressed a preference for a particular level of Adult Social Care Precept, from the three options provided**:

A majority of respondents (60%) favour an additional Adult Social Care Precept (on top of core Council Tax) to support the delivery of adult social care.

Of these, 334 (17% of all 1,957 respondents) favour a 3% Adult Social Care Precept, 416 (21%) favour a 2% and 422 (22%) would prefer a 1% Adult Social Care Precept.

785 (40%) respondents would prefer no increase to Adult Social Care Precept in 2021/22.

*2% is the maximum amount the council can raise Council Tax in 2021/22 without holding a local referendum. This limit is set by government. The 2% limit was announced in the Spending Review 2020 on 25 November. - after the consultation go live date of 16 November. Respondents were able to choose a Council Tax increase of up to 3% before the spending review and up to 2% after the spending review.

** The council is allowed to add a Social Care Precept of up to 3% to Council Tax in 2021/22. This is in addition to the permitted increase of up to 2% for core Council Tax.. Respondents were able to choose a Social Care Precept of up to 2% before the spending review and up to 3% after the spending review.

We did

The decision will be taken at Full Council on 23 February 2021.

We asked

We sought feedback from the local community and stakeholder groups on the Bristol Avon Flood Strategy.  We received 576 responses to the consultation which took place between 5 October 2020 and 20 December 2020.

The first three weeks of the consultation were dedicated to contacting those who are currently at risk of flooding - this was done directly via mail so that they had an early opportunity to comment and organise to speak to us if they wished to.  This included both businesses and residents who received an information booklet and survey and a covering letter offering conversations.  This included those impacted further downstream and upstream in neighbouring authorities.  The consultation was then opened up more widely from 26 October 2020.

The focus of both parts of the consultation was to secure responses from those in areas most impacted.  Whilst views from across the city and from neighbouring authorities were welcome, promotion was specifically targeted at the areas most impacted.

You said

Please read the following documents providing the public feedback to the consultation:

Bristol Avon Flood Strategy consultation report

SEA consultation report

We did

Please read the document below providing our response to the public feedback:

You Said, We Did - Consultation responses and outcomes

The Strategy was endorsed by Cabinet on 9 March 2021.

We asked

We sought feedback from the local community on initial ideas for improving the River Malago and the green, and improving travel around and through the area with better routes for public transport, walking and cycling. We also proposed changes to parking in the area with a new decked car park proposed on the site of the current Little Paradise Car Park.

You said

We did

Please read the  documents above providing the public feedback and our response based on it.

We asked

Background and Overview

It is the responsibility of all Admission Authorities to set admission arrangements which adhere to regulations set by the Department for Education’s (DfE) School Admissions Code (2014) ensuring a clear and fair access protocol is in place for all school applications.

Admission arrangements are set by Bristol City Council for all Community and Controlled schools.  Other schools are responsible for setting their own arrangements. This includes all secondary schools as well as many primary schools.

Decision Details

Minor alterations were made to the wording from the 2020/2021 arrangements, changing dates for the admissions process to suit the relevant academic year.  The key principles however, including the order of the oversubscription criteria remain unchanged from previous years.

Bristol City Council’s annual duty to set admission arrangements also includes determining the number of children to be admitted into the reception year for Community and Controlled schools.  In order to comply with the School Admissions Code these arrangements need to be formally agreed by 28th February in the year prior to admission year.  Once the admission number is set schools cannot admit fewer children (assuming there are sufficient applications) but can admit more children. 

Demand for reception places has been reducing and some schools are experiencing difficulty with the number of children starting where infant class size regulations require multiple classes but these classes have a significant number of spaces.  For example, a school with a PAN of 60 will plan for 2 classes.  35 children start, leaving 25 spare places.  Pressure on school finances means that this is unsustainable.

Therefore a further proposal was to reduce the Published Admission Number (PAN) at some maintained primary schools.

The following schools requested a reduction to their PAN:

  • Nova Primary school – PAN reduced from 60 to 30
  • Summerhill Infant School – PAN reduced from 90 to 60

You said

Public Consultation

A public consultation was open from 6th December 2019 through to 31th January 2020.  During this consultation the proposed admission arrangements and co-ordinated schemes for entry into Reception and Year 7 for the 2021/2022 cohorts as well as for in year applications and the proposed reductions in PAN were put online, allowing persons of interest including; school staff, governors and parents/carers to submit comments and feedback.

The consultation was hosted on the BCC Citizen Space consultation page and promoted via contact with all Bristol nursery, primary and secondary schools, relevant academy trusts as well as on the BCC admissions webpage and Ask Bristol e-bulletin.  The consultation was targeted to schools and parents/carers as well as other relevant and interested parties.

We received seven responses.

There were no objections to the proposed admission arrangements and co-ordinated scheme for 2021/22.

Feedback was supportive of reducing PAN at Nova Primary School.

We received responses to Summerhill Infants PAN reduction with concerns about how this could impact the funding the school receives.  That staff will lose their jobs and would the LA support these staff members find jobs elsewhere?

Questions were also raised about how local primary schools had opened or expanded, such as Whitehall primary, to the detriment of Summerhill.   

We also received comments regarding how the falling primary school population could be managed by directing schools to set their PAN in order for all schools to stand the best chance of reaching capacity.  Hence some school’s reducing their PAN to support other schools and provide them with a better chance of survival.

  A response from Bristol City Council

Bristol City Council is proposing the decrease in PAN at both schools following conversations with senior staff and school governors in response to falling pupil numbers for primary age children across the city. With applications for the schools looking to be around one form of entry under PAN, the schools have to consider the impact this will have upon the way they structure their classes and organise staff.  Fewer pupils has a direct impact upon the amount of funding the school receives.  If schools are operating under capacity they are likely to face a cost deficit with funds needed for other recourses, including staff.  This is inefficient and unsustainable for a school.  Furthermore, it makes it difficult for them to maintain the high standards of education and wellbeing for the children.

As the proposed changes are not due to take effect until the 2021 academic year, this allows the school and staff time to make plans for the future.  The schools and their governors are responsible for the decision making process regarding staff. The LA would support the school through this process.

With regards to expansion at Whitehall, this was planned and implemented while demand for primary school places was still rising. The school is also very popular with local parents.   One of the key objectives for the LA is to meet parental preference. The school has remained heavily oversubscribed despite the increased places and falling pupil numbers in this part of the city.

The LA has a co-operative relationship will all maintained Bristol schools and we are working collaboratively with schools across the city to manage PANs in order to best meet forecasted demand.

We did

The Decisions Taken

 

After reviewing the options available and considering the information at our disposal, the decisions taken have been:

  • To proceed with the proposed admission arrangements and co-ordinated schemes for primary and secondary schools 2021/2022.
     
  • To proceed with the proposal to reduce the pupil admission number at the following schools:
  • Nova Primary School - from 60 to 30
  • Summerhill Infant School - from 120 to 90

We asked

The council was contacted by people living and working in Bishopston and St Andrews (parts of Redland, Ashley and Bishopston and Ashley Down wards) requesting extra parking controls to solve problems they experience with parking.

We are committed to listening to people’s views, and therefore wanted to hear your thoughts to help us decide if any parking changes are needed and would be supported more widely.
 
Why are we asking for your views now?

The council’s position is that there needs to be overwhelming support for a Residents’ Parking Scheme (RPS) in a community before a new RPS could be considered.
 
The council has undertaken a follow-up survey of all citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in the area shown in the map to gauge if the views we have received so far are representative of wider concerns in the area and, in the case of RPS, if there is evidence of overwhelming support in part or all of the survey area.

You said

In the Bishopston and St Andrews survey area responses were received from 1,282 properties, out of 3,315 properties in the survey area.

1,618 responses were received in total from the 1,282 properties (there was more than one response from many households).

  • 70% of those responding  were in favour of Junction Protection
  • 60% of those responding were in favour of a Residents Parking Scheme

A summary of the results is available here.

We did

We asked

The council was contacted by people living and working in parts of Southville and Bedminster requesting extra parking controls to solve problems they experience with parking.
 
We are committed to listening to people’s views, and therefore wanted to hear your thoughts to help us decide if any parking changes are needed and would be supported more widely.

The council’s position is that there needs to be overwhelming support for a Residents’ Parking Scheme (RPS) in a community before a new RPS could be considered.
 
The council undertook a follow-up survey of all citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in the area to gauge if the views we have received so far are representative of wider concerns in the area and, in the case of RPS, if there is evidence of overwhelming support in part or all of the survey area.

You said

Responses were received from 1,945 properties, out of 7,115 properties in the survey area.

2,259 responses were received in total from the 1,945 properties (there was more than one response from many households). 

  • 80% of those responding were in favour of Match Day Parking
  • 73% of those responding were in favour of Junction Protection
  • 59% of those responding were in favour of a Residents Parking Scheme

A summary of the results is available here.

We did

We asked

The consultation on the Council’s 2020/21 budget was open for six weeks from 23 October 2019 until 4 December 2019. Individual responses were received via the survey and face-to-face interviews, and additional responses were received from organisations and individuals via email.

More information about what we consulted on is available in the consultation survey.

You said

We received 3,448 responses to the Budget consultation 2020/21, the results of which are available in the Budget 2020/21 consultation report.

3,315 (96%) of the 3,448 people who responded to the budget consultation, stated the level core Council Tax increase they would support in 2020/21, from the three options provided:

  • A majority of respondents (59%) favour an increase in core Council Tax to support general services. Of these, 1,175 (35% of all 3,315 respondents) favour a 2% increase and 777 (23%) would prefer a 1% increase in core Council Tax.
  • 1,363 (41%) respondents would prefer ‘no increase to Council Tax’ in 2020/21.

3,325 (96%) of the 3,448 respondents to the consultation, expressed a preference for a particular level of Adult Social Care Precept:

  • A majority of respondents (59%) favour an additional Adult Social Care Precept (on top of core Council Tax) to support the delivery of adult social care.
  • Of these, 1,042 (31% of all 3,325 respondents) favour a 2% Adult Social Care Precept and 926 (28%) would prefer a 1% Adult Social Care Precept.
  • 1,357 (41%) respondents would prefer no increase to Adult Social Care Precept in 2020/21.

We did

The decision will be taken at Full Council on 25 February 2020.

We asked

Parent carers and young people have told us that they would welcome changes to the way this service is currently delivered so that it has a greater impact on the long term outcomes for children and young people who have sensory impairments. This was following a review of the Service undertaken by the National Sensory Impairment Partnership in 2016 and service user and stakeholder survey activity as well as engagement events that took place between March and August in 2018.

You can read the proposals in the consultation feedback document here.

You said

We did

We asked

The Council, Club and design team wanted to hear views on the proposed design of St Bernadette's Rugby Club to inform and shape the proposed development prior to submitting a planning application.

You said

The results of the survey are available in the Community Engagement Statement.

We did

The project’s Design Team are now preparing the designs ready to submit for planning. Once submitted for planning, the Council’s webpage will be updated with a link and reference number to view the submitted planning application details: www.bristol.gov.uk/housing/plans-for-hengrove

We asked

The consultation on the Traffic Clean Air Zone options was open for six weeks from Monday 1 July to Monday 12 August 2019. Individual responses were received via the online survey, with people being asked how concerned they are about the health impacts of poor air quality in Bristol. It also sought feedback from citizens, businesses and other stakeholders on the two potential options.

Paper copies of the survey and alternative accessible formats, including language translations, were available on request. Paper copies of the survey were also available in all libraries and the Citizen Service Point. Additional survey responses were garnered through seven drop-in sessions and via face-to-face interviews with the Youth Council and in 11 areas of the city which have historically low response rates, high deprivation and/or high proportions of black, Asian & minority ethnic (BAME) citizens.

More information about what we consulted on is available in the consultation report.

You said

We received 5,034 responses to the consultation, the results of which are available here.

5,001 (99%) of the 5,034 respondents answered the question ‘how concerned are you about the impacts of poor air quality in Bristol on your health and the health of your family?’

There is a high level of concern about the health impacts of poor air quality among respondents, and health concerns are higher still among Bristol respondents.

85% of all respondents and 88% of Bristol respondents are very concerned or moderately concerned, with 61% (66% for Bristol respondents) stating they are very concerned and 24% (22% of Bristol respondents) being moderately concerned.

10% of all respondents and 9% of Bristol respondents are slightly concerned.

Only 5% of all respondents and 3% of Bristol respondents are not concerned.

Of the 5,034 people who responded to the Traffic Clean Air Zones consultation, 4,966 (99%) stated how strongly they agree or disagree that Option 1 (Clean Air Zone - private cars not charged) is a good way to improve air quality in Bristol.

More than two thirds of all respondents (69%) agree or strongly agree that Option 1 is a good way to improve air quality (39% strongly agree and 32% agree). This is more than three times the 21% of all respondents who disagree or strongly disagree. 11% neither agree nor disagree.

For Option 1, Bristol respondents share similar views to all respondents, with slightly higher proportions agreeing or strongly agreeing compared to all respondents.

4,971 respondents (99%) stated how strongly they agree or disagree that Option 2 (Diesel car ban) is a good way to improve air quality in Bristol.

More than half of all respondents (55%) agree or strongly agree that Option 2 is a good way to improve air quality (32% strongly agree and 23% agree). This is more than one and a half times the 34% of all respondents who disagree or strongly disagree. 11% neither agree nor disagree (the same proportion as for Option 1).

Bristol respondents view the Option 2 diesel car ban more favourably than all respondents. 59% of Bristol respondents agree or strongly agree, almost twice the 30% who disagree or strongly disagree. 11% neither agree nor disagree that Option 2 is a good way to improve air quality.

We did

Along with rigorous technical analysis of a number of options, the consultation feedback was used to develop the Outline Business Case (OBC) of the clean air plans which were put before Cabinet on Tuesday 5th November. Following approval by Cabinet, the plans were submitted to the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) for their consideration.

The council is continuing to work closely with JAQU on preparing the Full Business Case for submission next year. As part of the Full Business Case, there will be direct engagement with all businesses and residents affected to help manage implementation, including details of mitigations measures and exemptions. The deadline for the implementation of the plans is March 2021.

For further information on the clean air plans, visit www.cleanairforbristol.org

We asked

Following a request from the Friends of Marksbury Road Library, we consulted on whether to change the library name to Malago Vale Library or retain the name Marksbury Road Library.

You said

We received 139 responses to this consultation.

The results were as follows:

  • Retain the name Marksbury Road Library - 67%
  • Change to Malago Vale Library - 29%
  • Other - 4%

We did

Based on the feedback from the public, the name Marksbury Road Library will be retained.

We asked

The council currently offers bowls, football and cricket facilities in parks at an estimated net cost of £201,000 each year. In May 2018, the council adopted a proposal to operate "chargeable sports facilities and other facilities in public parks only when they generate no cost to the council". We wanted to investigate the future use of the council’s football facilities, bowls facilities and cricket pitches that are currently available for hire.

A public consultation went out from 28 May 2019 and closed on 9 July 2019. The consultation looked at a number of options for these sites, including the option of transferring the assets (by long-term lease or potentially a licence) and their associated management to third parties through a bidding process.

You said

We received 608 responses to the consultation. The following options were chosen: 

Option A (58%) -  The council would invite expressions of interest from third parties, including sports clubs and sports bodies, in leasing and operating one, some or all of its facilities going forward.  This would be achieved through an Asset Transfer of buildings and full maintenance licence arrangements on pitches.

Option B (23%) - The council would continue to manage sports facilities in parks. The council would also increase its fees and charges for hiring these facilities to a level that covers all relevant maintenance and repair costs.

Option C (14%) – You have your own proposal to offer sports in parks at no cost to the council.  We ask you to put these forward here.

6% of respondents did not choose any of the options.

There were differences in the number of people choosing each option depending on the type of sport facility and the aspirations of the current users. However overall Option A was the preferred option.

The full consultation report can be downloaded here or requested from Craig.Hyslop@bristol.gov.uk

We did

The proposal to move forward with Option A has been developed and a paper put forward for consideration at Cabinet on 6th October 2020. This paper asks for approval to:

Approve the delivery of a sustainable financial future for football, cricket and bowls facilities in the city’s parks and green spaces by transferring their management and operation to capable third parties through a transparent application process. To further raise the quality of these facilities through investment and to approve a revised approach to charging (excluding the Downs) where facilities continue to be operated and managed by Bristol City Council, so that they are operated at no cost to the Council.

We asked

The consultation survey was designed to set out the current position and challenges of homelessness in the city and capture views on the five priories and their associated objectives and approaches, as set out in the draft strategy. It asked how strongly respondents agreed with these priorities and invited any comments in a free text section. It also invited respondents to identify the top five actions (from a list of 16) the city should focus on to reduce rough sleeping and homelessness also with additional comments in a free text section.

You said

Overall, there were 377 responses to the survey.

The responses to the survey are summarised in the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2019-24 consultation report.

We did

The Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2019-2024 consultation report was taken into account to develop the draft strategy and action plan further before it was considered by Cabinet and was approved on 3 September 2019.

You can read the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2019-2024 here.

Further detail on how the responses to the consultation have shaped the draft strategy and action plan is indicated in Appendix 1.

 

 

We asked

Bristol City Council is responsible for the funding and management of Public Health in Bristol. The Public Health funding given to local authorities by central government has reduced by an estimated £700m in recent years. Bristol Public Health has reduced its spending by 17.5% since 2015. Bristol City Council needs to make an additional £2m in savings over the next two years because of reduced funding from central government.

This consultation set out proposals to make these savings through a combination of decommissioning and changing services. The services affected will be:

  • Alcohol Brief Advice
  • Children’s Weight Management Services
  • Adults’ Weight Management Services
  • NHS Health Checks Service
  • Stop Smoking Services
  • Substance Misuse Services (Shared Care)
  • Sexual Health Services, including Chlamydia Screening

You said

303 people and partners responded to the consultation.

Responses to the consultation are summarised in the Consultation Summary and Recommendations Report.

We did

Our recommendations of changes to proposals due to the consultation response are summarised in the Consultation Summary and Recommendations Report.

This will be presented at the July Cabinet meeting.

We asked

We consulted on the draft commissioning plan which will form the basis for how Bristol City Council will buy the right type of ‘Help when people need it’ support in the future.

You said

We did

We asked

The council is keeping libraries open while it works with Bristol redisents to find solutions for the library service so it meets the needs of each local area. We want to build a library service that everybody can enjoy.

You said

We held 12 public meetings and met over 300 people and have published all the ideas and suggestions here. The ideas list is searchable for theme or site.

 

We did

We are now working with each individual library through the Friends or Community Groups to talk through the priorities.

We asked

Bristol City Council is responsible for setting the school term and holiday dates for all Community and Voluntary Controlled (VC) schools in the city. The dates were the subject of a consultation running from 28 February 2019 to 18 April 2019.

You said

The consultation received 25 responses. Feedback has come from various interested groups including parents, staff and governors from Bristol schools and universities. 

The feedback to the proposed dates has been generally positive and the length of the terms appears to be viewed as well balanced and evenly distributed.

Some criticisms of the proposed dates are summarised below:

  • Term dates one and two are too long, particularly for young children. Learning during these terms is negatively affected by pupil absences from tiredness and bad health
  • Term six ending with a three day week may result in poor school attendance 
  • All school holidays should be shorter, especially for Easter and the summer
  • Some councils have tested shortening the summer break, extending holiday days elsewhere
  • The structure for how the school terms are organised should be reviewed and modernised due to the high costs charged by holiday companies in August
  • Holiday dates should be staggered elsewhere in the country, making holidays more affordable, reducing the number of parents taking unauthorised absence
  • A six week summer is too long and it is difficult and expensive for working parents who have to find childcare alternatives

School holiday dates should be co-ordinated nationwide so that children with family and friends in other parts of the UK can see one another and not be affected by school absence

We did

The dates below for the school term and holidays for the 2020/2021 academic school year have been agreed.

Term 1: Tuesday 1 September 2020 to Friday 23 October 2020 (39 School Days)

Term 2: Monday 2 November 2020 to Friday 18 December 2020 (35 School Days)

Term 3: Monday 4 January 2021 to Friday 12 February 2021 (30 School Days)

Term 4: Monday 22 February 2021 to Thursday 1 April 2021 (29 School Days)

Term 5: Monday 19 April 2021 to Friday 28 May 2021 (29 School Days)

Term 6: Monday 7 June 2021 to Wednesday 21 July 2021 (33 School Days)

Total 195 School Days*

*In the school year 2020/21 pupils must attend for 190 days. School may decide which 5 days in the school year are INSET or non-contact days (days when pupils do not attend).

The full report for this consultation can be accessed here.