We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We Asked

Public consultation on the Prince Street Cycling Ambition Fund (CAF) project closed on 15 August 2016. 66 responses were received via the online consultation survey and 4 additional comments were received from individuals or groups. Full details of the feedback can be seen in Appendix 1.

 The Prince Street consultation was undertaken in parallel with the Draft Shared Use policy consultation. In addition to the online consultation two stakeholder workshops were held with a cross section of equalities, amenity and cycling groups to enable the design to be informed by the latest shared thinking on the subject. Visit: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/city-development/shared-use-routes-for-people-walking-and-on-bicycl/ for further details.

You Said

There was overwhelming support for BCC promoting schemes that prioritise people walking, cycling and using public transport (83%), and strong support for an improved 8-80’s segregated cycle route up Wapping Road and Prince Street (64%) and for people being encouraged to cycle across The Centre in a managed way (65%).

The majority of people considered that better cycle routes would encourage them to cycle (62%) and reduce conflict with pedestrians (74%). Prince Street bridge, Farrs Lane and The Centre were recognised as particularly challenging locations where large numbers of people walking and cycling share space and improvements are needed. Pedestrianising Farrs Lane and Narrow Quay was considered important or most important by a majority of people (56%), although there was concern from some about access arrangements for businesses. A better crossing on Cumberland Road for people walking and cycling was considered important or most important by a majority of people (68%). 

All groups considered that cycle routes should be consistent in design and more clearly marked and signed to make them easily recognisable. Most preferred segregation to sharing space.

There was considerable concern from some groups about inconsiderate cycling and that there should be some areas where cyclists are not allowed or are asked to dismount. BCC need to have a good behaviour message campaign launched with the cycling improvements.

We Did

The design has been changed to reflect the feedback from the consultation. In particular:

  1. Broad Quay
  • the colour of the cycle route has been changed to make it more prominent through the space
  • the Anchor Road crossing has been split to separate people walking and cycling
  • pedestrian priority on the primary pedestrian routes has been reinforced
  1. Prince Street bus stop
  • The route to the bus stop will be paved to indicate pedestrian priority across the cycle lane   
  1. Farrs Lane Toucan Crossing
  • the design has been changed so that pedestrians wait behind the cycle route not in front
  • the crossing has been split to separate people walking and cycling, reflecting the alignment of the cycle route coming from Queen Square
  1. Prince Street bridge
  • The new deck will be lower, with a 15mm upstand between people walking and cycling, creating much more usable and flexible space. The width will be split almost equally, allowing people to pass each other without having to move onto the other side    
  1. Wapping Road
  • BCC have negotiated with the Wapping Wharf developer to enable the cycle route to continue right down to the crossing on Cumberland Road and enable pedestrian and cycle priority across the entrances to the development.

Shared Use policy

The Draft Shared Use policy will be finalised. It states that there are three possibilities for creating provision for people walking and cycling:

  • Segregated routes - these are the preferred approach where there is adequate space to allocate to both users, and are particularly suited to linear routes
  • Delineated routes - these will be used to enable flexibility where space is limited and/or complex pedestrian movements and other activities dominate the space
  • Shared space - these will be used where there is low usage or limited space or other environmental factors, eg a sensitive historic environment

Share with Care

BCC are developing a new sign to encourage considerate cycling and will use more signage and route marking to make it clearer where people walking may encounter people cycling.

Pedestrianisation of Farrs Lane and Narrow Quay

Traffic Regulation Orders will be published for statutory consultation in the New Year

We Asked

We propose that the best way for Young Carers and their families to receive the appropriate support is for there to be a clear referral route to that support so that any concerns, whether this be from a young carer, family member or professional, can be directed to the same place. In addition to this, once these concerns/needs have been identified the appropriate whole family support including a key worker will be allocated in a timely manner.

You Said

There was agreement that a “structured and coordinated approach is exactly what is required to support this vulnerable group of young people and their families”. In the survey 86%.5 respondents agreed, 11.5% didn’t know and 1.9% disagreed.
Feedback suggested that the model needed to ensure there are links with other services, and that wider services have staff who are ‘Young Carers aware’. People agreed that a whole family approach would be the best way to support Young Carers, and that they should be seen as an individual and care should focus on them but within the context of the family.

Young Carers said they wanted to have long term support with a key person. Sometimes just going to a monthly (social) session, but having someone to talk to when things got hard at home. Young Carers wanted adults who listened and understood, and who were able to provide more information about how to get support. The key person to talk to was someone who they trusted from school or college, or their Young Carers worker at a youth project. Some Young Carers said they had an anxiety involving/ not wanting new workers or over complicating their home life.

Concern was raised at not having a level of specialist work with Young Carers within the proposed service. The reasons were around Young Carers not wanting to access services via statutory routes for fear of stigmatisation, especially with mental health or substance caring.

Consultation feedback showed current difficulties with the current referral process. Feedback suggested First response, Early Help etc. are holding cases with more complex multiple needs, and the needs of Young Carers are potentially being lost.
Adults working with Young Carers and their families said they are more likely to identify with non-statutory agencies and ask for support through those agencies rather than statutory services.

Young Carers said they would like the person supporting:

  • To listen and not judge
  • To provide experience from an adult point of view
  • To respect privacy
  • To be able to talk for longer periods of time
  • To provide more information on how to get support
  • To be a dedicated worker, someone specifically trained in supporting Young Carers, not necessarily a teacher.


They also said they would like:

  • Options for different workers (some Young Carers expressed that while they wanted someone to talk to they felt that sometimes this was best served by different support workers over time).
  • More information available via posters, teacher announcements and assemblies

 

We Did

The work on the Young Carers pathway continues to be developed with the Birth to 25 Service, Adult and Children’s Services. Feedback from consultation has been taken into account for this work and as a result BCC have submitted a business case for additional funding for the commissioned service to undertake assessments as part of the pathway. The newly commissioned services will work within the pathway to support and complement support to Young Carers and their families. There was recognition that there should be an element of a specialist service within the new commissioned service, for young carers who do not want to access support via statutory services, and to help with pressures on Early Help services, where the needs of Young Carers could be lost.

As a result of the consultation the service will provide assessments and support for Young Carers. Staff taking referrals will have an understanding of the needs of Young Carers and are trained to work with Young Carers. The service will then provide support to the Young Carer and their family as identified in the assessment. This may include direct 1-to-1 or group work as well as signposting to additional agencies to receive additional support. The service will work closely with the Integrated Carers team to co-work on joint assessments, and as a link to BCC social care, to assist in service navigation.

We Asked

We asked for comments on the proposed ‘Oral health Promotion Strategy for the populations served by four local authorities of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset. We wanted to know whether the strategy would be a useful guide for partner organisations working collaboratively.  We also wanted to know if the key priorities set out reflected the current needs of all people in relation to oral health promotion. 

You Said

There were 77 respondents to the consultation. 90% were from individuals and 10% from organisations representing groups of people with specific needs. 

The vast majority (97%) of respondents agreed with the strategic vision of improving oral health of all people. Of the five strategic priorities, promoting healthier food and drink choices that are lower in sugar received the strongest support (96% strongly agreed) whilst the strategic priority on supervised tooth brushing and free tooth brushes received the lowest support – though still very supportive – with 91% of the respondents strongly agreeing to the priority.

Of the comments received, key themes raised by people include:

•                    Access to NHS dentists and the cost of dental treatment

•                    Provision of dental care for those with disability

•                    questions about  fluoridation of water (this is not within the remit of this strategy)

•                    Quality of oral health care provision

Supportive suggestions were made about

•                    Including oral health promotion within primary care contacts , such as GPs, Midwives, health visitors and family support workers

•                    Working with dentists and dental practitioners to raise awareness on  oral health promotion

•                    Teaching of oral health promotion to people working in the wider community and voluntary sector; care, social and education staff, in particular for young children, people dependent on care and carers.  

We Did

The high level priorities and objectives set out in the strategy were largely supported by the public consultation. However,  a number of points were raised that relate to the delivery of the strategy. This feedback has been taken in to account in the development of the Oral Health Promotion Delivery Plan, that sets out a life course approach to improving oral health.  It includes evidence based interventions that relate specifically to young children, vulnerable groups (the homeless, drug and alcohol users, those with disability), carers, older people and people living with dementia as well as ensuring oral health promoting activities also reach the working population. Teaching and training of community staff are core components of this plan.

Some issues raised by the consultation are beyond the scope of this strategy, such as water fluoridation and patient experience of dental services. The four local authorities work closely with Public Health England, NHS England as well as local dental professionals to ensure we support the promotion of good oral health among our communities and encourage equitable access to dental services. Specific issues raised have been communicated to the relevant organisation.

If you would like to hear more about, or get involved in, promoting oral health within our communities across Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset, please contact Paul Harwood, Dental Public Health Consultant at Public Health England on paul.harwood@phe.gov.uk  or contact Jon Roberts, Chair of the Oral Health Promotion Steering group, on Jonathan.Roberts@n-somerset.gov.uk .

We Asked

We ran a public consultation on the Spatial Framework and two companion documents, the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) and the Public Realm Guide. The consultation ran from 3rd March and 14th April 2016 and an accompanying survey received 72 responses. An additional 24 letters were received. The consultation’s primary aim was to collect feedback from key stakeholders and members of the public, and then use this feedback to inform further development of the document.

You Said

The majority of respondents were supportive of the objectives and approach of the Framework, and responses were tailored to the relevant sections of the document.

Some areas for further development became apparent through the collation of responses, including concerns about amount and nature of public space, land use (desire for more residential uses), the need for public transport improvements, barriers to connectivity, the need for parking guidance and the retention of historic assets

We Did

The document has been updated following the consultation. Some examples are given below, but detailed responses are available in the Statement of Community Involvement.

  • Land use guidance has been amended to encourage a greater proportion of residential floor space;
  • Transport plans have been updated to reflect the latest position in respect to the arena and Temple Gate projects, as well as other emerging city council transport projects in the area;
  • The section on heat networks has been retitled ‘Environmental Design and Construction’ and redrafted to incorporate guidance on a range of environmental measures;
  • Further work is planned to respond to the need for a residential parking standard for the zone;
  • The Framework’s guidance on public spaces has been strengthened to include an aspiration to increase tree coverage by 50%, place greater emphasis on accessibility for people with mobility difficulties and to propose opportunities for formal and informal play spaces within Temple Quarter near Totterdown Basin and Avon Street Market.

The intention is that the Spatial Framework be a living document that is periodically updated, so it will remains relevant as the area changes and as new challenges and opportunities emerge.

We Asked

We asked voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations what they thought about our co-designed proposals for a new approach to grant funding.

You Said

We asked a local VCS organisation, Voscur, to help us to consult with over 150 VCS organisations and they did this through existing events, organising specific consultation events and organising a discussion programme about our proposals on Ujima radio.  We also held a number of events specifically for equalities-led organisations and ran a survey.  In total we talked to and received feedback from 225 people who were from over 170 VCS organisations (as well as from individuals and people from statutory organisations).  There was positive broad support for the proposals but people told us how the details could be improved and what their concerns were.  Voscur wrote a report with their headline findings.

We Did

We collated all the feedback from Voscur, our own consultation sessions, the survey and from letters and telephone calls.  We shared this feedback with the Prospectus co-design working group in March and we used it to shape our design of the final VCS Grants Prospectus.  We had two co-design working group meetings to talk about the consultation feedback and the changes that we needed to make.  The last co-design working group meeting was in May and since then the council has worked to make those changes and write the final prospectus.

We have made many changes as a result of the consultation and these are the main ones:

  • People liked our aim to reduce disadvantage but some people seemed confused about our aims and values.  We have now agreed three impacts for the fund: reducing disadvantage and inequality, improving health and wellbeing, increasing resilience.
  • People thought the values were too aspirational, were not clear enough and were not really values.  We have revisited our approach and have now agreed four clear ‘ways of working’ for organisations funded through the prospectus pooled grant.
  • People thought some of the 7 challenges were very prescriptive, some were very loose and people suggested more and different challenges.  We have decided to focus the prospectus on 5 challenges which are broad and interlinked.
  • We asked people what grant cycles would work best in a four-year prospectus and how we could make savings if needed.  As a result we have decided to offer 2-year small grants so that we can respond flexibly to changing or new need and 4-year medium and large grants.  We will be introducing tapers in years 3 and 4 for the medium and large grants.

We Asked

Consultation was undertaken on the admission arrangements for schools for September 2017.

The proposed arrangements for community and controlled schools were unchanged from those currently being used.

You Said

Responses received supported the proposed arrangements.

Where responses related to individual schools that are their own admission authority, these were passed to the school and considered prior to determination.

We Did

The admission arrangements for Bristol community and controlled schools for the 2017/18 school year have now been determined by the Local Authority. Details are available on the School Admissions pages of Bristol City Council website.

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/schools-learning-early-years/school-admissions

Admission arrangements for academies (including free schools), foundation schools and voluntary aided schools have been determined by the appropriate governing body or trust. Details are available on individual school websites and/or the Bristol City Council website.

We Asked

We ran a public consultation on plans for the Bristol Arena: how the venue will look and be accessed on day one of opening and how the surrounding Arena Island could be developed over time. The consultation ran from 16th September 2015 to 13th October 2015 and an accompanying survey received 1066 responses. The survey asked for respondents’ feedback on arena design, the masterplan for Arena Island, arena uses and arena access routes and transport.

You Said

The majority of respondents (86%) supported the proposals to provide a major indoor arena and mixed use development in this location. 77% of respondents said they liked the overall masterplan layout and 85% supported the aspiration to create a highly sustainable arena building. The overall design of the arena was supported with 70% responding that they generally liked it. There was high support (86%) for the proposal to create a vibrant location on Arena Island through pop-up events and outdoor activities.

A number of concerns were raised during the consultation around access to the arena site, the quality of pedestrian and cycle routes (particularly from the south) traffic congestion and parking on residential streets.

We Did

Some aspects of the proposals were revised following the consultation:

  • The amount of informal event space in the plaza has been increased and plans developed further to show how this space can be used for performances, outdoor cinema, festivals and markets. Water jets and green terraces have been included in the plaza designs
  • A new widened cycle path and walkway from Three Lamps Junction on the A4 via a new bridge over the railway line to link with the Arena Terrace has been proposed
  • Park and Ride services will be in place for events of over 9,000 capacity, instead of 10,000 as proposed in the consultation
  • Additional 'shuttle' trains will run between Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway stations for the largest 12,000 capacity events
  • Cycle parking has been increased from 200 to just over 250 spaces
  • Temporary road closures of Cattle Market Road and Albert Road between Stanhope St and Feeder Road will be implemented for large events on weekday and weekend evenings
  • The material for the upper façade of the arena has been changed from glass cladding to perforated steel
  • Proposals for photo voltaic panels on the roof of the arena will now be included in the planning application

Additionally, the council has also committed to putting funding aside to cover set-up costs of parking controls in vulnerable residential areas and extend the hours of existing RPS controls as necessary. We are also continuing to investigate options for the best drop-off points for those with mobility issues; how to promote sustainable travel; a public art strategy; and the possibility of an eastern access to Temple Meads station.

Information sessions and an exhibition were held in December to inform local residents about the above changes, the planning applications and how people could view and comment on them via the council’s Planning Online facility.

We Asked

We asked for comments to help the development of the document ‘Our Journey together: Strategic Priorities for young people’. We wanted to know whether the document would be useful to act as a guide for partner organisations working collaboratively.  We also wanted to know if the key priorities set out reflected the current needs of children and young people’s lives in Bristol. 

 

You Said

As a result of the consultation we had 15 organisations formally submit feedback on the document.  We also had a steering group made up of 12 active voluntary and statutory organisations working to provide feedback through their networks of professionals and children and young people.  Feedback on the document generally was positive with comments that it was an easy document to read, understand and put into practice through collaborative working.  Suggestions made during consultation were to the wording, and gaps in services not thought of or felt not enough emphasis on.  Examples were around more emphasis on local voluntary and community sector networks to deliver collaborative models, to have more focus on the needs of BME young people, and more emphasis on priorities such as mental health, obesity and bullying, not just cyber bullying. 

We Did

The steering group made changes to the document as a result of the feedback.  Examples of changes were to add more on exploring how the document can be used, more emphasis on BME young people, and linking more explicitly with the youth council’s priorities.  The final document will be launched on 26th January 2016.  Here, discussions will continue to encourage organisations to work together to use the document for their own organisation’s vision and collaborative working. 

We Asked

Comments were sought on the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement. 

You Said

Comments were received from 18 respondents covering a range of detailed matters. 

We Did

The main changes made to the approved SCI in response to comments received on the draft were:

Ground Rules (pages 2-3)
To improve their clarity new text was added to the Ground Rules to emphasise that:
• adequate time should be provided to community involvement participants to enable them to effectively engage in the involvement process;
• meeting at the earliest ‘ideas’ stage also provides an opportunity to agree the approach to community involvement which is proportionate to the type and nature of the plan or development proposal;
• engagement via written correspondence should be pursued if participants are unable to attend involvement events or meetings;
• participants should be provided with sufficient reasons for the development proposal or plan to allow intelligent consideration and response;
• the council carefully considers comments made during involvement and consultation on planning applications and planning policy documents.

Planning applications with potential cross-boundary impacts (page 11)
New text clarifies that prospective planning applicants of schemes likely to have impacts in neighbouring local authority areas should engage with relevant town / parish councils or elected members in un-parished areas.

Involving Councillors
New text clarifies that Councillors will be notified of all pre application enquiries (page 8). Additional text also sets out how Councillors will be involved in the preparation of planning policy documents (page 13).

We Asked

We asked what you thought about changes to the designation of streets for street trading.

You Said

On the whole you thought the changes would be good and improve the prospects for traders and local business.

We Did

We implemented these changes which came into force on 1 September 2015 and are in the updated street trading guidance.

We Asked

We ran a public consultation on plans for the Temple Gate scheme, a suite of works to improve the journeys of the thousands of people who travel to and through the area around Temple Meads every day. We sought opinions on proposals to improve crossings, links with other routes and the general experience for pedestrians and cyclists, the reconfiguration of the Temple Circus Gyratory, a new MetroBus stop and bus lane, and proposed new buildings and public spaces.

The consultation ran from 12th January 2015 to 18th February 2015 and an accompanying survey received 998 responses, as well as a number of written representations from stakeholder organisations.

You Said

In general, most consultees were supportive of the proposed changes to the highway layout and the surrounding public realm. For most of the questions on the survey, positive responses outnumbered critical ones, and many comments stated that the removal of the roundabout, a primary aspect of the scheme, would represent a simpler layout and make Temple Gate easier to cross for pedestrians and cyclists.

The majority of the negative comments focussed on concerns that the new system would not improve traffic flow, with some respondents worried that limiting traffic through Cattle Market Road would have an adverse effect on the surrounding traffic network. Additionally, some were concerned that the lack of a right hand turn onto Station Approach would cause inconvenience and longer journeys for those coming from the south. However, traffic modelling has shown that the former will not be the case, and the latter is an existing problem that is outside the scope of this scheme.

The changes to pedestrian and cycle routes were generally seen as an improvement. However, many people commented that shared cycle and pedestrian routes do not work and should instead be segregated in order to reduce conflict between and increase safety for users, especially the elderly and disabled.

The change to a single crossing from Brunel Mile to Plot 6 was mostly welcomed, although numerous comments were made that, in order to aid traffic flow, an underpass or bridge would be preferable. However, these options were considered prior to consultation and found to be unsuitable.

The proposed improvements to the public realm were well received; many suggestions sought to further improve this through additional planting and wider pedestrian and cycle routes.

Several comments also raised concerns about the proposed locations of bus stops, suggesting they were too far away from the train station or not on key routes.

We Did

As a result of the feedback received through the consultation, a number of changes were made to the proposals.

As many of the comments focussed on high quality pedestrian and cycle routes, the scheme has been extended to include improvements at the Bath Bridge Roundabout. This new aspect of the scheme will include:

  • Widening the footpath outside Fowlers Motorcycles to accommodate a segregated cycle and pedestrian footway;
  • Reconstructing the traffic islands at York Road and Clarence Road, making them larger and more cycle and pedestrian friendly, as well as carrying out further improvements to the pedestrian and cycle provision at the junction;
  • Widening the footpath outside the Peugeot dealership, allowing room for a shared cycle and pedestrian footway;
  • Adding a new segregated cycleway from Mead Street to York Road, including a toucan crossing;
  • Widening the western footway on the approach to Temple Gate from Bath Bridge and the provision of a new toucan crossing of Temple Gate at its southern end;
  • A new pedestrian crossing from Temple Gate towards Cattle Market Road.

 

Additionally, the Friary and Victoria Street junctions have been reconfigured for the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians, and segregated cycle routes have been implemented wherever feasible.

 

The consultation also led to several changes to bus stop locations, which were flagged up as being inconveniently placed in the initial scheme. In order to further boost connectivity, a new northbound bus lane from the junction with Redcliffe Street to Victoria Street has also been added to the scheme.

We Asked

Public consultation on the draft Nelson Street Public Realm Strategy closed on 9 February 2015. 149 responses were received via the online consultation survey and 8 additional comments were received from individuals and groups containing detailed comments.

You Said

It is clear that the overwhelming perception of Nelson Street is negative and there is great support for the need to improve Nelson Street generally (96%) and the pedestrian and cycling experience (80%) in particular. The design principles outlined for doing so were broadly supported (68%), with unanimous support for knitting the area back into either Broadmead or the Old City, the use of high quality materials and for a segregated cycle route. There was support for further restricting traffic in the area to access only, for making Bridewell St one way (71%) with less parking (80%), and for making The Pithay one way all the way down (60%). There was less certainty regarding the Nelson St/Bridewell Street junction on whether traffic should go straight across into All Saints St.

We Did

1. The draft document has been revised to reflect the comments received, in particular regarding the integration of Nelson Street into the wider area.

2. Funding has been found through Cycling Ambition Fund to implement the segregated cycle route along Nelson Street. The detailed design of this will include further consideration of:
i. The junction of Bridewell Street and All Saints Street 
ii. The introduction of one-way traffic on Bridewell Street 
iii. The continuation of the route down Fairfax Street 

3. The developers of the former Magistrates Courts, New Bridewell and Froomsgate House have been required to design their public realm in accordance with the strategy. This will provide a significant uplift in quality to the central area of Nelson Street. 

4. MetroBus works will start on site in October 2015. These will close the access from The Centre and start to reduce through traffic, making the area useful for access only.

We Asked

Comments were sought on Proposed Modifications to the Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Local Plan.

You Said

150 separate representations were received from 60 respondents covering a range of matters.

We Did

The comments received were considered by the Planning Inspector who examined the Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Local Plan. The Inspector’s report of the examination can be found here: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/2790

We Asked

Public consultation on the draft Bristol Cycle Strategy closed on 11/08/14. 547 responses were received via the online consultation survey and 65 additional comments were received from individuals and groups containing detailed comments.

You Said

The results of the closed questions were generally positive and revealed the following: • 68% (376) of respondents felt that the strategy successfully outlines the benefits of cycling; • 85% (467) felt that the aims of the strategy were clear; • 70% (384) felt that we have chosen the right actions; • 62% (343) felt that the strategy would encourage people to cycle. The open questions and detailed email responses raised some points that were themed to show most commonly reported aspects. In general, these were: 1. There is insufficient detail in the strategy and the flow of the document meant that it was not easy to follow in terms of how the targets, aims and actions fit together; 2. There should be a specific numeric target for cycle training; 3. The ‘8-80’ tagline for the network in not inclusive; 4. The issue of cycle and pedestrian conflict is not adequately addressed and there should be reference to clear segregation; 5. There is insufficient recognition of different types of cyclist (e.g. leisure cyclists); 6. There should be a team within the Council that ensures the Strategy is implemented; 7. The proposed network map is not clear on the detailed routes that might arise from it; 8. The Strategy should prioritise implementing infrastructure over promotions and initiatives; 9. Bike security was raised as an issue that needs to be addressed to encourage cycling.

We Did

We have responded to these comments by: 1. We have improved the flow of the document; setting out targets first, then detailing the aims and objectives to meet them; 2. We have included a target for cycle training; 3. The ‘8-80’ tagline is a term recognised worldwide as a way of indicating that the cycle network is accessible to all. It indicates that the network is accessible and safe for a child of 8 years of age to cycle independently and similarly for people of 80 years of age. We recognise that people younger and older than this broad range cycle, and if we aim to get the network right for this broad range of ages then we would have achieved a network suitable for all; 4. We have recognised that cycle training will alleviate many concerns regarding considerate cycling (to avoid danger to pedestrians), understanding the network and improving cycling confidence, as well as clearly stating that protection from traffic will be implemented where possible, which will segregate people who cycle from traffic; 5. We have amended the original aims (now expanded to include ‘objectives’) to include acknowledgment of the barriers to cycling and seeking to overcome them, and to recognise and support leisure cycling as a way to inspire cycling for every day journeys; 6. We have reassured that a multi-disciplinary cycle co-ordination group will ensure the aims and objectives of the Strategy are incorporated into transport and planning projects and that delivery of other strategies is in conjunction with this; 7. We have amended the network map to improve clarity of routes; 8. The Strategy sets out the priorities for infrastructure implementation. One of the main reasons for producing the Strategy is to encourage more people to cycle. We felt that in order to do this, we must continue and increase our levels of engagement in terms of encouraging people to cycle through initiatives, as it is important to promote the existing network to those who are new to cycling and promote new parts of the network as and when they are developed; 9. We have responded to the bike security concern by clarifying our position that we will seek to provide secure cycle storage at the beginning and end of journeys through planning conditions on new developments and by working with land owners to help provide storage on existing sites. The final Bristol Cycle Strategy (subject to appropriate sign off) will be published on the Bristol City Council website.

We Asked

To seek local residents' comments and suggestions regarding the proposals to remove some dying or failing trees and to remove and coppice shrubs.

You Said

We received a range of views to the planned tree and shrub management works, most of them overwhelmingly positive, with residents and locals that we spoke to in the park pleased that the work is taking place, and happy with the choice of replacement trees. Suggestions included: can we leave some of the wild feel to the park as children enjoy playing there and hiding in bushes; can we plant a Lebanese Cedar to replace the existing tree when that one dies; are there any other options for saving the trees that have split trunks or asymmetrical growth so that they don’t have to be cut down; can we cut back some of the self-seeded trees; can we leave some of the self-seeded trees.

We Did

In response to the views gathered during the consultation we have accepted the views that some of the ‘wildness’ and hiding places for children to play in should be saved, which will be balanced against the need to cut back the overgrown shrubs that are nearest to the perimeter wall. Shrubs and saplings/self-seeded trees that are within one – 1.5 meters from the perimeter wall will be removed and/or cut back so that they are not impacting on the wall or hanging over the cars. This will leave shrubs and trees that are further in to the park which will then be left as they are, coppiced, or if appropriate removed, and the decision which trees/shrubs to remove will be based on the wildlife value, the play value for children and the views/vistas that would be opened up across the square. The self-seeded sycamore sapling that is growing close to the wall opposite number 10 will be removed, as requested. Suggestions were made to keep one of the trees that is marked for removal (Tree of Heaven); however the reasons for removing it are as follows; half of the tree is already lost so it is open to wind damage, and its lopsided shape means that it is vulnerable to more branches being lost; large specimens such as this have a tendency to fail.

We Asked

We asked for views about proposals for funding short breaks and other services for disabled children and their families. These proposals included reducing residential short break provision from 15 to 10 beds in order to release funding to re-invest in other services to increase the availability of direct payments, breaks in another family’s home, community care, residential holidays, leisure activities and befrienders.

You Said

214 people attended consultation events and focus groups and 121 people responded to the consultation survey. Some respondents, especially parents and carers whose children currently have residential short breaks, were opposed to the proposal to close 5 residential beds. Most other consultees agreed with the proposals to increase the availability of other types of short breaks. Some consultees had suggestions about how to make direct payments and breaks with another family a more viable option.

We Did

Some changes were made to the commissioning plan, including a change to the procurement approach to targeted services. The commissioning plan was adopted by the Mayor at Cabinet on 7th October 2014. Steps are being taken to increase capacity in alternatives before residential short breaks beds are closed. These steps include an early start to recruiting short break carers in another family’s home and adding £100k to the direct payments budget for 2014/15.

We Asked

We asked for your views on how we should reshape the Medium Level Homelessness Prevention Services. For example, should we keep the term ‘Mental Health’ in the title? In what type of accommodation are the high level supported housing services best delivered? What should the length of stay be and how many services should we procure? Shall we incorporate Psychologically Informed Environment and Peer Support?

You Said

The people who contributed to the survey included a councillor, members of the public, service users and staff working in supported housing services. Some of the changes attracted majority agreement and some further comments were made about shaping the services differently. The comments have helped to refine and improve our proposals. Thank you to all who took part.

We Did

The commissioning plan has been revised in line with the comments and the final recommendations will be going to Cabinet in September. A full ‘You Said We Did’ report incorporating the feedback from all the consultation events will also be available at that time.

We Asked

During the public consultation on the Strategy, which ran from March to June 2014, we received many comments from our partner authorities and the citizens of Bristol. We have indicated clearly throughout the full document (listed under 'Results' on this page) where amendments have been made to the report following consultation.

You Said

In general, comments received were concerned with aspects such as planning and development management, encouraging green infrastructure to help absorb surface water runoff, community engagement and making information available and leaves and debris causing blockages to road gullies and watercourses.

We Did

Where these aspects were not adequately included in the draft Strategy, we have amended the text to strengthen the Strategy Objectives and included additional Actions to reflect these comments. Overall, we were encouraged by the interaction and response to the Strategy and thank all those who submitted a response to the consultation questionnaire.

We Asked

We asked for views on outline proposals to refurbish City Hall, making the office space within it more open plan and cheaper to run in terms of heating and lighting

You Said

2 responses were received to the on-line consultation and 16 comments were submitted during the display of the outline proposals in City Hall in April.

We Did

We will now proceed to the next stage of the process and make a Listed Building Consent Application in preparation for the City Hall refurbishment . Subject to any queries arising, the application will then be registered by BCC’s planning department and made available for public consultation in the usual way. Registration can take up to two weeks depending on the nature of the application. We currently expect the application to be registered at the beginning of July. Anyone wishing to comment once the listed building consent application has been registered can do so: Online on our Planning online site. Email development.management@bristol.gov.uk. Write to us at: City Development, Brunel House, St George’s Road, Bristol, BS1 5UY.

We Asked

We asked for views on proposals to close Perry Court Inafant and Junior Schools in order to facilitate the opening of a new Perry Court Primary School.

You Said

49 responses were received. All were in support of the proposals.

We Did

We will now proceed to the next stage of the process. This is the publication of a formal proposal with a legal public notice. A four week represenation period follows during which objectuons can comments can be submitted. A final decison will be made by the Schools Adjudicator. The full proposal will be published on 6 May and will be available to view at www.bristol.gov.uk/schooladmissions.

We Asked

For your views on how the draft Strategic Economic Plan 2013-2030 could be further improved to achieve the maximum share of the £2 billion growth fund needed to stimulate economic growth and create new jobs in the West of England.

You Said

Stakeholders largely agreed with the strategic outcomes. Some changes to the document content were suggested, for example including a particular strength or opportunity within our area. In some cases specific interventions for the Local Growth Fund were commented upon.

We Did

Stakeholders views and opinions expressed were utilised to amend the strategic plan in a number of ways. Stakeholder views and priorities were used to inform the Strategy as a whole and in particular section 4 of the plan which outlines our bid to the Local Growth Fund, which has been developed. The final plan embracing the consultation outcomes will be submitted to Government on the 31st March.

We Asked

We asked if you had any comments or concerns about the proposed introduction of waiting restrictions in the Stoke Lane Area.

You Said

Many of the responses asked for alterations to the proposals, including requests for additional restrictions or for the proposed restrictions to be extended or shortened.

We Did

The responses have now been reviewed and the comments used to develop a revised set of proposals. The proposals are to be passed on to the Traffic Regulation Order Team for the TRO process.

We Asked

We consulted on a three year Budget for 2014 - 2017 which included the Mayor’s proposals for £43m of savings. We also consulted on a proposed council tax increase of 1.95% per year for each of the three years.

You Said

The results show that over two thirds (69%) of respondents were in favour of a council tax rise of 2% or higher, with around half (49%) agreeing with most or all of the proposals for closing the three year budget gap. Around one in seven (14%) gave no opinion on the proposals, while just over a third (37%) disagreed with most or all of the proposals. Following the consultation the Mayor considered all of the feedback and sought professional advice from council officers, including equalities specialists. As a result he is proposing a number of amendments, mostly affecting items listed in the top 30 public concerns raised through formal surveys and issues highlighted as having particular impacts on different equalities groups.

We Did

15 proposals were removed or reviewed: Three proposals originally planned for year one or two of a three-year budget plan were moved in to a later year. 45 proposals remained unchanged. A £500k revenue fund for parks and play, an additional £250k Welfare Reform Hardship Fund for the city’s poorest residents who have been affected by national benefit changes, and a £400k contribution towards implementing a ‘living wage’ policy for the council’s lowest paid workers were also introduced. You can see full informtaion in the 'Outcomes of the Consultation' document under Consultation results.

We Asked

Between 12th October and 22nd November 2013 we consulted the public on the re-designation of the Redcliffe Neighbourhood Planning Area. This wider area was proposed to ensure consistency with the membership area of the Redcliffe Neighbourhood Development Forum (RNDF).

You Said

During this time no objections to the designation of the wider area were received.

We Did

The council confirmed this was an appropriate boundary for the preparation of a neighbourhood development plan and could be designated neighbourhood planning area for Redcliffe. It has been noted that RNDF have actively involved residents and workers in the consultation and community engagement process from this wider area throughout the early stages of plan preparation. The RNDF is designated to prepare a neighbourhood development plan and or neighbourhood planning orders until 30th July 2017. Further information on this is available via the Council’s Neighbourhood Planning web-page: www.bristol.gov.uk/neighbourhoodplanning.

We Asked

We asked if you had any comments or concerns over our proposals to make the School Keep clear markings at Luckwell Primary enforceable.

You Said

We had one member of the public who was concerned about the times that the enforcement would be in operation however, all School Keep Clear Markings are to be the same times to coincide with CYPS extended school guidelines.

We Did

The scheme remains unchanged from that on which was consulted and is to be passed on the Traffic Regulation Order team for the TRO process.