We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We Asked

The consultation on the council’s proposal to introduce a new HMO licensing scheme in 12 central wards of Bristol was open for 12 weeks from 19 February 2018 until 13 May 2018. This consultation is now closed.

The consultation sought feedback from the public (including tenants, landlords and other citizens) on the licensing proposals, including the cost of a licence and various discounts, and asked for information about respondents’ experiences of renting or living near Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

You can see the consultation information booklet and map through the links below:

Information Booklet

Map

You Said

Consultation responses are currently being analysed. A consultation report summarising the feedback will be published on this website later in 2018. We are not able to respond directly to individuals to follow up suggestions or questions you may have included in your consultation responses, but we will consider all feedback you provided

We Did

.

We Asked

Between 28th November 2017 and 20th February 2018 we asked for comments and feedback on the draft Bristol Sport & Active Recreation Facility Strategy.  The benefits of having a Sport & Active Recreation Facility Strategy include helping to protect and enhance existing provision; informing the assessment of planning applications and proposed developments; helping to prioritise deliverable projects; ensuring a ‘strategic approach’ to getting the right facilities in the right places; helping to address inequalities in levels of provision across the city and attracting investment from relevant partners.

The public consultation had the following features:

  • Online survey designed so people could comment on the facilities most relevant to them, without having to complete pages of information.
  • Online survey publicised through extensive list of council equality group contacts.
  • Online survey publicised extensively through council and partner communication channels.
  • Paper versions of survey distributed at several council leisure facilities.
  • Three month consultation period designed to ensure maximum opportunity for third sector organisations and individual members of the public to respond.

You Said

A total of 461 responses were received with the majority choosing not to answer the questions on the overall strategy document, instead choosing to respond to specific facility issues.

With the responses on specific facilities the largest number were made on swimming pool provision.  Of the swimming pool responses, 162 made comments specifically referring to Jubilee swimming pool.  A further 54 made comments referring to swimming in general. 

The other highest responses were on sports halls and cycling facilities/wheels parks.  Both of these facility types figure prominently in the draft strategy and comments made were generally supportive of the proposals.

We Did

The draft strategy and supporting information has been updated to reflect any inaccuracies identified.

A consultation report which summarises all the feedback has been prepared.  Respondents who requested feedback by submitting an email address will receive this report directly. It can also be requested by emailing Craig.Hyslop@bristol.gov.uk or by downloading it at the bottom of this webpage.

Responses from the public consultation do not significantly affect the proposals related to major facilities or other actions and opportunities identified in the draft strategy.  The issue of swimming pool provision is well documented in the city and the responses/information gained through the consultation will be added to the large amount of information on the topic already gathered.  There is also a swimming specific report prepared which will be circulated alongside the main summary report to those respondents who requested feedback.  Again, this report is available on request to anyone else from Craig.Hyslop@bristol.gov.uk or by downloading it at the bottom of this webpage.

The overall direction of the strategy remains unchanged.  As a result of public consultation the narrative in some parts of the document has been amended to reflect more accurately the current position.

We Asked

By April 2019 the council has a target to reduce what it spends each year on parks by at least £2.868 million.  This means services will need to be run in a very different way; we will need to work more with communities, make more money, create more partnerships, make services as efficient as possible and reduce some of the things we do now.  As we move forward we want to be positive and ambitious for our parks whilst being clear that we have to work differently to maintain a much valued level of service citywide.

In order to make the savings, we have taken the approach of trying to earn as much money as possible so we can keep service reductions to a minimum.  The alternative would be to make the savings by reducing the service and removing facilities which cost the council a considerable amount of money to keep and maintain.

Between 6 November 2017 and 29 January 2018, we consulted on proposals for:

  • generating more income from parks;
  • reducing some existing service provision to reduce costs;
  • increasing the number of pay and display parking spaces in parks, and increasing the parking charges on sites that already have pay and display parking; and
  • proposals for the Parks Service to be delivered by a Trust or similar organisation rather than the City Council Council.

In addition to the Parks & Green Spaces survey, we hosted drop in sessions in Netham, Knowle West, Henbury and Brentry and City Hall with parks officers available to discuss the content of the consultation with members of the public.

This consultation has closed.

The proposals on which we consulted are described in the full survey document.

The consultation document translated into British Sign Language is available here: BSL Parks and Green Spaces Consultation

You Said

We received 2670 responses to the survey.

A consultation report which summarises this feedback is being prepared and will be published on this website later in the Spring

We Did

We will update this section when decisions have been made about the proposals

We Asked

As part of the savings needed to bridge the gap in the council’s finances of £108m over the next five years, Bristol City Council consulted on proposed changes to the funding it offers to parents and carers who need extra help to provide care for their children. This would enable us to reduce the budget for this service by £50k in 2018/19.

The proposal that was consulted on was to introduce a financial assessment of three aspects of its provision to children in care. This was intended to ensure that people pay something towards the care of their children if they can afford to, and full funding is reserved for those who need it most. These three proposals were:

Proposal 1: a financial assessment of Special Guardians. The proposal that was consulted on was to reduce or end the payment of the allowance for Special Guardians whose financial situation means they do not need the full allowance for looking after the child(ren). The reduction in allowance for individual Special Guardians would range from no reduction to £243 per week, depending on the age of the child, other benefits and income of the Special Guardian. (The council does not currently undertake any financial assessment of Special Guardians, unlike adoption allowances which are subject to a financial assessment of the family).

Proposal 2: The council would provide practical support to carers and children according to assessed need which may range from therapeutic interventions (for which Adoption Support Fund applications may be made on behalf of the family) to practical, play and parenting support, or support to access universal and targeted services.

Proposal 3: The proposal that was consulted on was to pilot a financial assessment of parents’ income where children are voluntarily accommodated (looked after under Section 20 Children Act 1989) by the local authority. Parents would be required to contribute towards the cost of their child’s care where they were assessed as being able to afford it. Individual families would be required to contribute approximately £40 per week towards living expenses and clothing allowance.

Further information was provided in the Financial Assessment of Care Services consultation document.

You Said

The consultation on removal of Financial Assessment of Care Services (FACS) closed on 17 December 2017. We received 50 responses to this consultation, the results of which are available in appendix A of the Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 and Budget consultation report.

We Did

The consultation feedback was taken into consideration in developing final recommendations for how to deliver the service in future. The proposal for Prioritising allowance needs for Special Guardians and families with children who are voluntarily looked after by the local authority is not currently being taken forward.

We Asked

As part of the savings needed to bridge the gap in the council’s finances of £108m over the next five years, Bristol City Council consulted on proposals for increasing income and efficiency across its Culture Services beyond those already detailed in the 2017/18 Corporate Strategy consultation. The proposals in the Culture Services consultation included:

  • introducing charges at some of our museums;
  • increasing sponsorship income from major events; and
  • changes to how the Bristol Film Office and Site Permissions services work that will make them self-financing.

You Said

124 responses were received to the Culture Services consultation via the online survey, the results of which are available in appendix B of the Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 and Budget consultation report.

We Did

The consultation feedback was taken into consideration in developing final recommendations for how to deliver the service in future. The proposals were put to the Mayor and Cabinet on 23 January 2018 to make a decision. The proposals and the Cabinet decisions are available in full in the Cabinet agenda papers.

Details of the Cabinet decision on increasing income generation and efficiency across culture services are listed below

Cabinet approved the implementation of the following:

  • Charging adults for entry to Red Lodge and Georgian House Museums from April 2019
  • Increased income from major events through sponsorships
  • Increase income generation to make both the Film Office and Site permission team cost neutral by 2022.

We Asked

We asked you for your views on proposed changes to the funding Bristol City Council offers to support neighbourhood action which would reduce the budget for this service by £257k in 2018/19.

This proposal was part of £52m of proposed savings across the council’s activities identified for the year 2018/19. You can see the full list of proposed savings over the next five years as part of our Corporate Strategy and Budget Consultation at www.bristol.gov.uk/corpstrategy.

You Said

The consultation on removal of remaining funding supporting neighbourhood action closed on 17 December 2017. We received 239 responses to this consultation, the results of which are available in appendix C of the Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 and Budget consultation report.

We Did

The consultation feedback was taken into consideration in developing final recommendations for how to deliver the service in future. The proposals were put to the Mayor and Cabinet on 23 January 2018 to make a decision. The proposals and the Cabinet decisions are available in full in the Cabinet agenda papers.

Details of the Cabinet decision on removal of remaining funding supporting neighbourhood action are listed below.

Cabinet agreed:

  • To make a saving of £257k by withdrawing the small grants fund.
  • To make available one-off budget of up to £50,000 to help mitigate the impact on areas which face greater challenges of inequality and deprivation and where there is limited access to community and voluntary organisations which can help. This funding will be used to increase social action and support communities to become more self-sufficient in identifying funding and accessing resources.  How this budget will be allocated will be agreed with the Exec Member.
  • When the Bristol Impact Fund small grants process is reviewed in 18/19 consideration will be given to the impact of removing the neighbourhood action fund.

We Asked

The consultation on the council’s draft Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 and budget savings proposals was open for six weeks from 6 November 2017 until 17 December 2017.

The Corporate Strategy and Budget (CS&B) consultation sought feedback from the public (including organisations which represent non-domestic rate payers) on:

  • the scale of Council Tax increase in 2018/19;
  • a proposed Social Care Precept of 3% on top of the proposed increase in Council Tax;
  • savings and income proposals which would deliver £35m of savings and additional income in 2018/19 with further savings/income in subsequent years to 2022/23;
  • the council’s draft Corporate Strategy, with specific questions on proposed key commitments and suggestions for other key commitments which the council could include.

More information about the proposals on which we consulted is described in the Corporate Strategy and Budget Consultation - Information Booklet.

On 6 November, we also started four consultations on proposals for specific savings measures. (These were the proposals presented in the CS&B consultation Information Booklet Appendix Section 1.) Three of these consultations were open for six weeks until 17 December 2017. These are:

The Parks and Green Spaces consultation opened on 6 November and closed on 29 January.

You Said

We received nearly 700 responses to the CS&B consultation, the results of which are available in the Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 and Budget consultation report.

The report also includes the results of consultations on the following specific savings proposals:

  • Prioritising allowance needs for Special Guardians and families with children who are voluntarily looked after by the local authority by introducing Financial Assessment consultation (appendix A)
  • Increase income generation and efficiency across the culture services consultation (appendix B)
  • Removal of remaining funding supporting neighbourhood action consultation (appendix C)

The Parks and Green Spaces consultation closed after publication of the Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 and Budget consultation report and is reported separately.

We Did

The consultation feedback was taken into consideration in developing final recommendations for the Corporate Strategy and the council’s budget which were put to Full Council on 20 February 2018. Full Council agreed the council’s budget for 2018/19 and our Corporate Strategy for the next five years. The decisions are summarised below.

Budget for 2018/19

The council’s revenue budget (for our day to day services) has been set at £355.8m, which together with our capital investment programme totals £1.2billion expenditure in the year ahead.

Council Tax will rise by 4.99% and includes a 2% levy for essential Adult Social Care services to prioritise support for vulnerable people.

Our budget for 2018/19 also includes making £34.5m savings. Most of these will be made from internal efficiencies in order to limit the impact on frontline services.

Corporate Strategy

Full Council also approved a refreshed Corporate Strategy 2018-2023 which outlines our key commitments, principles and values founded on a vision to build a city of hope and ambition where everyone can share in its success. 

The strategy sets out our main priorities for the next five years against four themes of empowering and caring; fair and inclusive; well-connected and wellbeing. Each of these themes includes four Key Commitments; specific actions which contribute to our aims.

Specific savings measures

The consultation feedback on the three specific savings measures was taken into consideration in developing final recommendations for how to deliver each of the affected services in future. Details are available on the following consultation pages:

We Asked

Between 16th October and 10th November 2017 Bristol City Council consulted on a proposed change in speed limit on Bedminster Road outside of Parson Street School.  The main aspects proposed were:

  • changing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph along a stretch of Bedminster Road,
  • implementing posts on the pavement at the point of the speed limit change, and
  • putting new speed limit signs on the posts to indicate the change in speed limit.

During the 4 week consultation, letters were sent to all surrounding households and emails were sent to Council Members and other stakeholders such as the school and PTA representatives.

You Said

Responses were gathered through an email address or phone number. The proposed consultation received 20 responses, via the email box from members of the public. We also received responses from the ward councillors, school and the PTA. Over 75% of the responses received were supportive and no changes to the specifics of the scheme were requested. Of those that opposed the change in speed limit the main request was to have a limited 20mph speed limit during school times.

We Did

As the majority of responses from the public and stakeholders were supportive of the scheme, it will now enter the detailed design stage. Once this is complete the Traffic Regulation Order stage will begin which will include the formal consultation stage.

We Asked

Between 16th June and 8th September 2017 we asked for comments and feedback on the draft Bristol Playing Pitch Strategy.  The strategy included helping to protect and enhance existing provision; informing the assessment of planning applications and proposed developments; ensuring the most efficient and cost effective management and maintenance of pitch provision; helping to prioritise deliverable projects; ensuring a ‘strategic approach’ to getting the right facilities in the right places and attracting investment from relevant partners.

You Said

We had 125 responses of which 17 were completed surveys.  Of the completed surveys, the majority were completed by sports clubs with over 90% of all responses agreeing with the contents of each section of the strategy.  Various individual comments were made on the strategy document but none of these comments were recurring themes.

We Did

The draft strategy and background information has been updated to reflect any inaccuracies identified.  The NGBs and Sport England have “signed off” the draft strategy and it is in line to be adopted by the city council at a cabinet meeting on 4th December 2017. 

All comments received in the consultation process will be responded to individually where contact information was given.  The Bristol Playing Pitch Strategy action plans will now be implemented.  It represents an ongoing work area and further comments and input are welcomed at any stage through contacting Craig.Hyslop@bristol.gov.uk or sport@bristol.gov.uk.

We Asked

The Supporting People consultation was open for 12 weeks from 13 June 2017 until 5 September 2017. We asked you for your views on four options to manage a £1.8 million reduction in the annual budget for Supporting People services and we sought your ideas for other ways that these services could be delivered.

The proposals on which we consulted are described in the Supporting People Consultation document.

You Said

We received 732 responses to the consultation survey, the results of which are available in the Supporting People 2017 Final Consultation Report.

The consultation report also describes the feedback received at eight public events and in letters and emails.

We Did

The consultation feedback was taken into consideration in developing a set of final recommendations for how to deliver the proposed savings to the Supporting People budget. The recommendations were put to the Mayor and Cabinet on 4 December 2017 to make a final decision. Cabinet made the following decisions:

  • Agreed a budget reduction of 15% across all current Supporting People funded services with effect from 1 April 2018;
  • Noted that a co-productive approach will be taken with service users, providers and key partners to shape longer term provision of targeted preventative services for vulnerable adults with effect from 1 January 2019.

We are working with all the current providers to agree how best to make the agreed savings with them to minimise the impact where we can on service users.  This will be completed by 1st April 2018.

A co-production steering group has been created to support the work to shape the longer term vision.  A proposal for this vision will be taken to Cabinet for decision as it will agree how the budget will be spent as from 2019.

The proposals and the Cabinet decisions are available in full in the Cabinet agenda papers.

BSL versions of the Supporting People Cabinet Papers are available below:

BSL - Cabinet Executive Summary

BSL - Appendix A - Further essential background and detail

BSL - Appendix B - Consultation Report

BSL - Appendix E - Equalities Impact Assessment

An audio version of the Supporting People Cabinet Papers are available below:

Audio - Cabinet Executive Summary

Audio - Appendix A - Further essential background and detail

Audio - Appendix B - Consultation Report

Audio - Appendix E - Equalities Impact Assessment

We Asked

The ‘Your Neighbourhood 2017’ consultation was open for 12 weeks from 13 June 2017 until 5 September 2017. We asked you for your views on five savings proposals that would impact on neighbourhoods and local services. These were:

  1. Bristol Community Links
  2. Libraries
  3. Public toilets
  4. School crossing patrols
  5. Withdrawal of funding for Neighbourhood Partnerships

The proposals on which we consulted are described in the Information Booklet.

The Equalities Impact Assessments describe the anticipated effects of the consultation proposals on people with protected characteristics. This the version of the  EQIAs that were available during the consultation.

You Said

We received nearly 3,750 responses to the consultation survey, the results of which are available in the Your Neighbourhood 2017 consultation report.

The consultation report also describes the feedback received at eight public events and in letters and emails.

We Did

The consultation feedback was taken into consideration in developing a set of final recommendations for how to deliver each of the affected services. The recommendations for Bristol Community Links, Toilets, School Crossing Patrols and Neighbourhood Partnerships were put to the Mayor and Cabinet on 4 December 2017 to make a final decision. The Cabinet decisions are listed below. The proposals and the Cabinet decisions are available in full in the Cabinet agenda papers.

Bristol Community Links

Cabinet decided the following for Bristol Community Links:

  • Agreed to Transfer the provision of transport to and from the Links Centres to BCC Passenger Services from 1st April 2018.
  • Removed automatic entitlement to transport provision, on a case by case basis.  Undertake the relevant Management of Change processes to achieve efficiencies from the staffing budget, while maintaining service delivery for vulnerable adults. 
  • Delegated Authority to Service Director - Transport, to implement the transfer in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio holder

Libraries

The libraries proposal was not taken to Cabinet on 4 December 2017. The plans for libraries are available in the press release.

Public Toilets

Cabinet decided the following for Public Toilets:

  • Agreed to close 18 public toilets
  • Approved the proposals for a Business/Community Toilet Scheme

School Crossing Patrols

Cabinet decided the following for School Crossing Patrols:

  • Agreed removal of funding 15 of 16 sites with an existing light controlled or zebra crossing
  • Agreed removal of funding on those sites that fail to reach national (RoSPA) assessment criteria and have additionally been assessed to be of lower need of a SCP
  • Agreed to progress specialist assessment of the potential for introduction of physical road safety measures at sites where funding is to be removed and a consideration of applying future capital funds from the Transport Capital Programme. 
  • Agreed to stop funding the service on proposed sites to coincide with term times rather than the earliest opportunity
  • Agreed the proposal as to alternative service delivery and how to manage new requests for a School Crossing Patrol
  • Delegated the authority to undertake the above recommendations to the Service Director (Transport) in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio holder

Withdrawal of funding for Neighbourhood Partnerships

Cabinet decided the following for Withdrawal of funding for Neighbourhood Partnerships:

  • Approved arrangements to support community action and continue to ensure local people can influence decisions through their local ward councillors.
  • Delegated responsibility for the expenditure of £271k (formally ‘wellbeing fund’ expended by the Neighbourhood Committees/Partnerships) to the Service Director of Neighbourhoods& Communities
  • Supported the proposal to go to Full Council to establish 6 Area CIL/s106 Committees.
  • Noted the proposals to disband the existing Neighbourhood Committees/Partnerships.
  • In principle agreed to the delegation of the expenditure of CIL local monies and non-earmarked s.106 monies to the 6 Area CIL/s106 committees with the Mayor’s scheme of delegation to be updated once the committees have been set up. The final decision to be taken by Full Council at its meeting on 20 February 2018.

We Asked

We asked which parks and green spaces in Henbury and Brentry ward are most important to local residents, and which are highest priority for around £80,000 of improvements.

You Said

130 responded – thank you. Crow Lane open space was the stand out most visited, highest rated, cared about most strongly and respondents highest priority for improvements, with Barnards Park and Okebourne Road the overall second and third respectively. There were some thoughts to specific ideas already generated and some new ideas.

We Did

The results of this survey have been considered by a group of residents and a local Councillor, supported by Neighbourhood Partnership and Parks officers in May 2017. The group focused on the top three parks and open spaces, and prioritised the following proposals:

  1. Bins and benches – various sites
  2. Multi-use games area – Crow Lane open space
  3. Outdoor gym equipment – Crow Lane open space
  4. Trim Trail – Okebourne Road open space
  5. Various – Barnards Park

This list denotes, in priority order, which projects should be progressed with the available funding. This does not mean that all five can be achieved. The group will also look at other funding options to increase the amount of improvements that could be achieved.

The Neighbourhood Partnership agreed these recommendations in June 2017 and asked the group to progress these proposals. Parks officers have since been carrying out site surveys to determine precise costs for realising these projects. When this is complete the group will meet to decide on exactly which projects will be progressed.

If you would like to see the full survey results report or if you would be keen to be involved with the group who exploring how much could be achieved then please contact the officer.

We Asked

The Debate reached thousands of local residents through variety of media coverage and nearly 2000 individuals took part in the survey. It directly engaged with nearly 2,000 people with many more being made aware of the activity and the issues relating to alcohol on which it concentrated by media coverage that it attracted.

Attitudes and opinions about alcohol and its effect on individuals and society were gathered through focus groups, community outreach, social media activity and a paper and web-based survey. The target number of survey responses (1,065) was achieved, enabling us to make statements about the population of Bristol with a 3% margin of error at a 95% confidence level. However there was imperfect stratification of the sample, resulting in the over-representation of adults aged 25-49 and the underrepresentation of young people and the self-employed.

You Said

The proportion stating they thought that ‘drinking is a problem in Bristol’ was potentially quite concerning, given that only just over half (52%) thought that it is. With 23% answering ‘don’t know’, there appears to be a case for raising awareness of the negative impacts that alcohol is having.

The social impact of alcohol concerns people and implies that future campaigns might focus on the antisocial nature of excess drinking, as opposed to the harm that individuals who drink too much may experience. This needs further testing with target audiences - particularly men - who’s acceptance of being so drunk as to be out of control is substantially different from women.

We Did

The Big Drink Debate achieved its goal of raising the issue of society’s relationship with alcohol and involving people in the debate about the benefits and harms caused by drinking and has given us some pointers towards future action that may be required.

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 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

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

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.