We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We asked

The engagement survey for Dean Lane was open for four weeks from Monday 11 January 2021 to Sunday 7 February 2021. People were asked about the street environment, what they liked about it, what they would improve and what would they prioritise. People were also asked to comment on proposals to install a protected bike lane along Dean Lane. The survey aimed to capture views from residents, businesses and anyone who uses Dean Lane to help build a picture of what people would like to see improved and assess the appetite for the protected bike lane.

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 an offer of language translation included in 12 languages were posted along with a free post envelope to 1,023 local properties. 30 posters were also 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 Covid-19 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 737 responses to the engagement, which were made up of 571 online and 166 paper copies. Of the responses received, 87% are residents who live within one mile from Dean Lane and over 92% walk to the road, almost 56% use a car/van, and over 54% use a bicycle. Over 72% of respondents use the road over 3 to 4 times a week.

When asked what people already like about the street environment on Dean Lane, “close to Dame Emily Park” and “close to shopping areas” are the most popular with 51% of respondents selecting these options. Meanwhile, 75% of respondents say, “pavements are too narrow” is a serious or moderate problem, 64% say “the street is busy with traffic”, 59% think “there is not a dedicated space for cyclists on the road” is a problem, and 58% say “the road feels unsafe to cycle on.” “Widen pavements” was ranked as essential/high priority by 66% respondents, and “make it easier to cross” by 64% respondents.

Over 63% of respondents agree or strongly agree with implementing a protected bike lane on Dean Lane, and 23% disagree or strongly disagree.

The main themes that came through the free text boxes were the road being unsafe to cross, speeding traffic, narrow pavements, and blind corners.  

We did

The feedback from this survey along with the engagement with local businesses, community groups and local stakeholders is currently being reviewed. More information about what we engaged on and the results are available in the full report.

We asked

A six-month statutory consultation was undertaken, from 2 August 2020 to 1 February 2021, to receive objections on the permanent introduction of bus lanes and other supportive measures that would change how general traffic accesses some parts of the city centre.

An Experimental Traffic Order was used to install 24hr bus priority routes over Bristol Bridge and at key points accessing the city centre. Priority was provided to public transport, taxis, cycles and pedestrians travelling through the central area of Bristol.

The six-month consultation period meant the public could experience the advantages and disadvantages of the priority measures, before giving their feedback on whether they should be permanent. 

For further information on the Bristol Bridge Experimental Traffic Order, visit:  www.bristol.gov.uk/transport-plans-and-projects/changes-bristol-bridge

You said

  • 865 representations were received in response to the statutory consultation.
  • 527 (61%) were objections, of which 40 expressed some support in principle.
  • 338 (39%) were comments of full support.

Please read the following document providing summary of the public objections received and our response based on it.  Objection summary and Officer responses.

We did

The consultation feedback was included in an objection report for consideration by the Interim Director Economy of Place, who subsequently reached a decision on 29 June 2021 to make the Experimental Traffic Order measures permanent.

In making the decision, it was considered that the scheme would achieve elements of the council’s wider transport policies and strategies to achieve cleaner air and transform travel in the city.

A copy of the *objection report as signed by Interim Director Economy of Place can be received upon request by emailing transport.engagement@bristol.gov.uk

* NB: The objection report provided upon request will be redacted for data protection and GDPR purposes. Relevant policy and strategy documents are referenced within the report

We asked

The engagement on Park Row, Perry Road, Upper Maudlin Street and Colston Street was open for six weeks from 14 December 2020 to 24 January 2021. 

People were asked to give their views on how they felt the temporary bike lane that was implemented in summer 2020 was going. They were also asked to give their views on the general street environment, what they liked about the streets, what they would improve and what would they prioritise for improvements. A further question was asked about the introduction of a cycle lane north bound on Colston Street, which was not part of the temporary scheme. The survey aimed to capture views from residents, businesses and anyone who uses the area to help build a picture of what people would like to see improved.

Individual responses were received via the online survey and, to ensure the survey reached as wide an audience as possible, paper copies with an offer of language translation included in 12 languages were posted along with a free post envelope to 763 local properties. 25 posters were put up in the local area to raise awareness of the survey. Local stakeholders and groups were also asked to help raise awareness of the survey and it was promoted on Bristol City Council’s social media platforms. Initially all businesses were visited in person, but new COVID-19 restrictions in December 2020 prevented face to face engagement. From this point the team offered virtual chats and phone appointments to anyone who wanted to ask questions and provide verbal feedback. Separate meetings also took place with the University of Bristol and Bristol Royal Infirmary to understand their needs and any potential impacts.

You said

From the engagement survey we received 460 responses, which were made up of 371 online and 89 paper responses. Of the responses received, 50% are residents who live within one mile and 70% lived within two miles. Over 70% of respondents walk to the road, 57% ride a bike and 48% drive a car or van, while 15% catch the bus.

60% of respondents liked the area due to the “local high street economy”, 52% like the “personality and character of the street”, and 44% like it due to access to the hospital.

The most serious and moderate problems identified were “Street is busy with traffic”(78%); there is too much pollution/poor air quality (75%); “there is too much congestion” (74%); and “Access for disabled people is poor” (64%).  In terms of problems related to cycling, 64% thought the “road feels unsafe to cycle on” and 64% thought there being “no protected cycle lane outside the hospital” was an issue.

The survey provided boxes for “other” comments which asked people to give their views on the temporary bike line. People were also asked to comment on the proposal to create an additional protected bike lane northbound on Colston Street. Most comments mirrored the priorities above with various suggestions of how the cycle lanes might be improved including surfacing, protection at junctions and removal of large breaks between the bollards that allowed parking. Many also commented that the crossings outside the hospital and at the bottom of St Michaels Hill needs to be improved. There were 125 comments in support of the suggestion to introduce a bike lane on Colston Street and 38 comments against.

Most of the businesses in the area are independent shops providing a range of services, some of which were very specialised. Businesses have raised concern about the removal of parking for shoppers and space and access for deliveries. They were also concerned that the scheme may have negative impacts on traffic congestion. It must also be noted that the changes coincided with free parking at Trenchard Street Car Park that were offered to hospital staff during COVID-19 restrictions, reducing the availability of parking spaces for shoppers in the area. 

We did

The feedback from this survey along with the engagement with local businesses, community groups and local stakeholders will be used to help produce some designs for a more permanent solution for walking and cycling improvements on these streets.  There will be further engagement with the community on next steps once these designs are completed.

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 Picton Lane was open for six weeks from Monday 14 December 2020 to Sunday 24 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 3,694 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 COVID-19 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 776 responses to the engagement, which were made up of 333 online and 443 paper copies. Of the responses received 91% are residents who live within one mile and over 94% walk to the road.

Around 92% of respondents like Picton Street due to the “personality and character of the street”. The most serious problem identified with 50% was that “there is no space for recycling bins and waste collection on street” followed by 43% with “the road is too narrow for two-way traffic” and 35% saying “access for disabled people is poor”. Over 43% of respondents think “wider pavements for movement” and “wider pavements with designated waste collections areas” are essential.

We did

The feedback from this survey along with the engagement with local businesses, community groups and local stakeholders has been reviewed. There were comments for and against pedestrianisation throughout the survey, but the responses did not show a consensus among the community. We will therefore take forward the comments received from the survey as we develop our Liveable Neighbourhood strategy for the city. This will involve looking at whole areas, rather than individual streets, to make neighbourhoods a more pleasant place for everyone with safer streets, cleaner air, and easier walking and cycling journeys. 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 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

The consultation on the 2020 new Traffic Clean Air Zone options was open for six weeks from 8 October to 13 December 2020. The council consulted on two new options for a Traffic Clean Air Zone (CAZ) which are designed to achieve compliance with legal NO2 limits in line with legal obligations whilst mitigating the impact on vulnerable and low income households.

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

You said

We received 4,225 responses to the consultation, the results of which are available here.

4,148 (98%) of the 4,225 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

  • 77% of all respondents are very concerned (51%) or moderately concerned (26%);
  • 13% of all respondents are slightly concerned;
  • 10% of all respondents are not concerned.

Respondents were asked if they would be prepared to change how they travel into central Bristol if it would avoid the need for a clean air charging zone. Of the 4,225 respondents to the new Traffic Clean Air Zone options consultation, 4,180 (99%) answered this question (Figure ES 4).

1,574 (38%) said they were prepared to change how they travel, while 537 (13%) said they would not change, and 440 (11%) said they were not sure. 1,629 (39%) said that they already walk, cycle, use public transport or a low emission vehicle.

2,708 people answered the follow-up question on how they would change their travel. Respondents could select as many choices as they wanted.

The three most common options were switching from driving to walking (53%), using a bus instead of driving (52%) and switching to cycling (50%). The proportions of Bristol respondents selecting these options was higher than for respondents living elsewhere.

Of the 4,225 people who responded to the new Traffic Clean Air Zone options consultation, 4,149 (98%) stated how strongly they agree or disagree that option 1 is a good way to improve air quality in Bristol. 4,143 respondents (98%) stated how strongly they agree or disagree that option 2 is a good way to improve air quality in Bristol.

The majority of respondents agree or strongly agree with both options (54% for option 1, 60% for option 2). Support is higher for option 2 and more people strongly agree with option 2 than option 1 (20% strongly agree with option 1, 32% with option 2).

A higher proportion of respondents disagree or strongly disagree with option 1 (30%) than option 2 (26%). 16% neither agree nor disagree with option 1 and 14% with option 2.

More information about the results of the consultation is available in the consultation report.

We did

The consultation feedback was included in the Full Business Case (FBC) of the clean air plans which were put before Cabinet on 25 February 2021. Following approval by Cabinet, the plans were submitted to the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) for their consideration.

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

We asked

Early engagement with local people and those who travel along the route began on 24 July 2020 and finished on 21 September 2020. We were:

  • seeking views from key and critical stakeholders at an early stage, on priorities, what they think should change and issues and concerns to inform preliminary design of the transport corridor
  • seeking views from local people living and working along the corridor, those travelling along the corridor, and businesses, at an early stage to inform preliminary design of the route
  • beginning a constructive dialogue and create the environment where people can be involved throughout the process of design and implementation
  • creating a good understanding of the scheme and its benefits amongst stakeholders, local businesses, local people, and commuters

The engagement tools used included:

  • Virtual Exhibition on Travelwest pages
  • Survey on the Consultation hub
  • Interactive Mapping tool
  • Supporting communications including social media, press release and new articles

How we engaged:

  • Emails to 245 stakeholders
  • Press release and social media toolkit to stakeholders
  • Social media posts
  • Emails and newsletters to business database of over 450 businesses
  • 4000 postcards to all properties along the route

Targeted the ‘seldom heard’ communities

  • 1700 survey drops and postcards
  • Posters in local libraries and community centres
  • Schools were contacted along the route

You said

We had responses from stakeholder, local businesses and the public and the main themes were:

  • Wider pavements and more crossing points on main roads
  • Segregated cycle lanes on all main roads particularly travelling uphill
  • Priorities at all main junctions for pedestrians and cyclists and allow single crossing stages eg Airport Road / A37, West Town Lane and A37
  • Where there are multi traffic lanes reallocate road space to walking, cycling and buses eg Triangle gyratory, Bath Bridges and Whiteladies / Westbury Road junction

Stakeholders

107 emails sent to critical stakeholders and 138 emails sent to key stakeholders. 20 emails were received, and 5 meetings held to discuss the project.

Many agreed with the reallocation of road space towards pedestrians, cyclists, and buses. Pedestrians need wide pavements and single crossing points; cyclists need segregated infrastructure and buses need bus lanes and priority at junctions where they get caught in congestion. Others asked about how this will join up with Temple Meads, Clifton Down station and wanted better interchange facilities and comments were made about parallel rat running with the A37 and A4018.

In terms of specifics improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and buses are needed at the:

  • A37 junction with Airport Road / Wootton Park,
  • hill section of A37,
  • Broadwalk and A37 junction, 
  • Bath bridges area,
  • Park Street cycle lane,
  • Triangle gyratory
  • Top of Whiteladies Road junction with Westbury Road and Stoke Road.

Local Businesses

Engaged with 1200 businesses and 270 received information on the engagement.

Public feedback

1261 comments received:

  • 562 survey responses
  • 648 interactive mapping points (includes active travel map responses)
  • 51 emails and phone calls

Virtual exhibition 

  • 1822 views of the page
  • 398 live chats

Survey results

  • Of those who responded nearly two thirds were residents and just over half walk and drive along the route and just over 40% cycle and use the bus.
  • Nearly 80% agree and strongly agree with taking road space away from the car and providing more walking, cycling and bus infrastructure.
  • Over 70% strongly agreed that safe crossing points and feeling safe were key for transport corridors closely followed by clean air and a place to walk and cycle.
  • Over half of the respondents think the road is unsafe to cycle on and unpleasant to walk along as the streets are congested with too much traffic.
  • 64% want safer cycle corridors and 52% want more cycle priority
  • Over 40% of the people who answered the survey will walk and cycle more after lockdown and nearly 40% will drive less by car.

Emails / phone calls

36 emails and 15 phone calls were received.

We did

The feedback from this survey and interactive map along with comments from local businesses, stakeholders, community groups will be used to help develop more detailed designs for the transport corridor. More information about what we engaged on and the results are available in full report.

We asked

We have a number of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) across the city. They have been in place since 20/10/2017 and are valid for 3 years. The council consulted on whether to extend the following PSPOs for a further 3 years or allow them to lapse.

You said

The responses to this consultation are summarised in this report.

We did

All the PSPOs which we consulted on were extended for a further 3 years to aid in the control of anti-social behaviour related to street drinking.

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

The survey asked local residents, Bristol Family Cycle Centre visitors and the wider Bristol community to provide feedback on the suggested new location in Lawrence Weston and what additional facilities they’d like to see.

You can read the full report here

You said

130 people filled in the survey and the headlines are:

· Over half of the respondents had visited the current site with 35% attending a few times a year, whilst 44% had never been to the site.

· The most popular activity recorded by the respondents is the cycle lessons for children

· Of those who travel to the current site most people travel over 5 miles to attend the sessions and nearly 45% travelled by car with nearly 12% by bike.

· The majority of respondents (86%) agreed that it is of high importance to have a traffic-free facility to cycle.

· Over 75% of people agree or strongly agree that the new facility should be located at Lawrence Weston.

· Over 70% of the respondents wanted activities for children, opportunities to learn to ride, place to be active, build confidence and a café

We did

The next stage in the project is to continue to work with partners and stakeholders to develop the new site and the facilities that may be included.

Once the options have been drawn up, there will be a consultation with the public ahead of a proposed formal planning application.

We asked

The engagement on pedestrianisation of the Old City was open for four weeks in February and March 2020. People were asked about the street environment, what they liked about the area, what they would improve and what would they prioritise. 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. It also asked them to comment on the idea of pedestrianising the Old City.

Individual responses were received via the online survey and paper copies were posted with a free post envelope to just over 900 local properties within the Old City area. Follow-up postcards were sent to the same properties. Events were held on-street on three separate days as an opportunity for visitors to ask questions and to fill-in the survey. There were drop-ins and calls to all business premises during the period to give opportunities for questions and to distribute paper surveys. Local stakeholder, community and business groups were also asked to help raise awareness of the survey and it was promoted via social media platforms.

You said

From the engagement survey we received 1,941 responses. Of the responses, just under 15% live or work directly in the area, with the majority responding as visitors. 94% of visitors who responded in the survey say they travel to the Old City by walking, cycling or bus.

Nearly 80% of respondents reported at least one difficulty. The top three difficulties were ‘The streets are busy with cars/vans’, ‘Not enough cycle parking’, ‘Damaged roads/pavements’. Over 90% of respondents anticipated there would be at least one benefit to the proposal to pedestrianise the Old City. The top 3 potential benefits that respondents anticipated would result from pedestrianisation in the Old City were ‘A better environment for walking & cycling’, ‘Better air quality’ and ‘Opportunities for other uses of the road space’. All three of these potential benefits received more than 1,500 selections. There were also some specific concerns about disabled access and loading for businesses.

We did

We have now made changes to pedestrianise parts of the Old City by closing the roads to traffic for specific parts of the day. See the changes in our pedestrianisation mapImplementation of these changes was accelerated because of coronavirus (COVID-19) to allow for social distancing and to enable businesses to make use of the outdoor space. The changes have been made using a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO), which can remain in place until Spring 2022. We will consult on making these changes permanent in autumn/winter 2021.

To support businesses and disabled visitors, additional loading bays and six new disabled bays have been installed on High Street and Broad Street and we have agreed a morning timeslot (05.30-10.30) that businesses and residents can gain access to the area in their vehicles. New planters have been installed and further plans are being drawn up to improve the space to include additional greenery, benches & cycle parking with further events and arts commissions being planned to help further animate the space.

More information about what we engaged on and the results are available in the engagement report.

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