Transport & Connectivity Policy Committee – Thursday, 23rd October, 2025 5.00 pm
Papers: Transport & Connectivity Policy Committee – Thursday, 23rd October, 2025 5.00 pm
Agenda:
1. Welcome, Introductions and Safety Information
2. Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
3. Declarations of Interest
4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
5. Chair’s Announcements
6. Public Forum
7. Management and Mitigation of CRSTS Scheme Delivery
8. Bristol Resident Parking Scheme Expansion Programme
9. CAZ Exemption and Financial Support Package
10. Cycle Hangar Policy
11. Centre Line Policy
12. Vehicle towing contract
13. Workplace Parking Levy Update report
14. Quarterly Finance Report: P5/Q2
15. Urgent item – Petition debate: Stop Southville Roadblocks!
16. Urgent Item – Petition Debate : Halt the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood
All um I particularly like to welcome uh all the members of the committee, the officers and especially members of the public who are attending in the chamber and those watching at uh the webcast at home or work. It’s really great when people come to uh city hall to see democracy in action and play their part. So welcome to everyone in the public gallery. Uh welcome to members of the committee. Um, my name is uh, councelor Edplow and I’m chair of this committee and I’m going to go around and ask members of this committee to introduce themselves. I’m actually going to start with Jonathan because you’re subbing for somebody today. Uh, yes. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, Jonathan Hucker, councelor of Southville. Um, Stockwood and we’re we’re uh, we’re we’re we’re expanding our reach and um, I’m I’m subbing for um, for Graeme Morris. Thank you. Uh, councelor Tim Ripington from Brislington East, Don Alexander A, Lawrence Western, Councelor Castel, Safe Me, and Nicholas Kums, Westbury and Henley’s, Councelor Emma Edwards, Bishopston and Ashley Downward. Councelor David Wilcox from Lachley’s Ward. Rob Brier, council efforts George West. Thank you all. Um the emergency evacuation procedure in the event of an alarm sounding and there is none planned, no no drill planned, please leave the room quietly quietly by the lobby area through the main front door of city hall. Turn right, walk down the ramp towards the cathedral and the assembly point is at the front of the cathedral. We uh as you now know we’ve received apologies from councelor Morris and he is substituted by councelor Hucker. Can I ask committee members if they have any interest to declare in relation to the items of business on the agenda? Any interests will be recorded in the minutes. That’s a nil return. Um we have the minutes of the previous meeting. I move the minutes of the previous meeting of the committee held on the 11th of September as a correct record. Would anyone like to second that? Uh CZ. Um I So are you content for to confirm the minutes and as a correct record and for me to sign them as chair? Okay. Um since last time, Cass, we’ve um we are running an action sheet. I can send that to you if you wish. uh I think eight out of 10 actions uh have been uh completed and two are outstanding because they just they’re not they can’t be completed yet. Okay. Right. Chair’s announcements. Um first of all I’d like to thank everyone for uh their well wishes for my mom who had a very nasty accident last Wednesday and uh is recovering in hospital. So, thank you particularly to members of the committee who’ve uh extended me that. Thank you. Uh we’ve have at very short notice uh added two petitions as urgent items to the agenda. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge and indeed congratulate the organizers both permission petitions on reaching a threshold to trigger debate at this committee which is no mean feat in itself. with the East Bristol debate. This is a secondary trigger as we’ve already debated it on full council, but we’ve received a further 1637 signatures from Bristol residents since that time. Secondly, I’d like to just make it clear this is the first time that this committee has had a petition that reached the threshold for a debate between the agenda briefing where I work with party leads to agree the logistics and timings for this meeting and the deadline for committee papers to be published. So, this was a new dilemma for me. I’ll learn from this situation, ensure that we have a slot on the day of the publication to work with the party leads to update any new information since the agenda briefing. I’ve done my best to welcome the public to this committee and to enable good debates to be heard. What we do in transport affects so many people and we do literally set things in stone. So, this is important. My intention in hearing the petitions in December was to enable a good debate where everyone, politicians and the public alike, could have time to prepare a notice to attend. I now realize that not everyone saw it this way. So I’m happy to agree to the wishes of the petitioners to have the debate sooner. So we’ll do that. Uh first we’ll take public uh statements from the public. We’ll then go through question and answers and then we’ll move on to um uh the two debates. So, um, uh, I’ve got a bit of script here about, um, the numbers that have been reached, but I think we just go straight on to public statements. So, first of all, is George Foster Morrison here? No. Um, Melissa would like Sue Hughes to speak. Apparently, Melissa, you’ve asked for Sue Hughes to speak on your behalf. So, uh Sue, as you know, uh can I remind everyone that uh we we’ve all read your statements. Uh there was, uh a lot of statements there and um we um ask you to try and summarize your statement in a minute. So, rather than read the whole statement out. So, if you could uh do that and is a courtesy to everyone to try and keep within that minute, please, because uh obviously we’ve got quite a few statements to get through. I find it utterly reprehensible and disgusting you have chosen to unilaterally extend the so-called trial of your unlivable neighborhood trial for a further 6 months without discussion or vote with the public or any justification for this. This just adds to your dishonesty throughout the scheme for the sham consultation to lies about disability group consultation. You are repeatedly stomping on the rights of residents, especially disabled residents. Your choice to intentionally and knowingly cause physical and psychological harm to thousands of people who are already struggling is inexcusable. The so-called trial should have ended and installations removed the moment you received evidence of harm and disability discrimination. It is only a matter of time before lives are lost in your actions and their blood will be on your hands. Thank you. Um Julie Platen. No, Dan Hudson. Uh Christine Khif. Yeah, I know. Darren Baker, uh, and do Dockery, Mo Diamond, uh, Carol Casey or Nasim is here. Yeah, I know. Councilors, we ask you to consider maintaining the prospects of cycling center in South Bristol. We are pleased for the residents of Lawrence Weston to get a new 15 million pound facilities, but your own report on 12th of September 2024 admits that those areas of deprivation in the south of the city will have restricted access. Lawrence Vesson is a deprived area, but according to your own report JSNA 2425, the 10 post the 10 most deprived neighborhoods are all in South Bristol with pocket subdivation in Lawrence Western. Why South Bristol plan to for over 3,000 new homes with 30 to 50% affordable and yet you are taking facilities away. The dep the deprived wards in South Bristol have a higher population than the deprived parts of North Bristol and a higher number of children. More affordable homes developed in South Bristol inevitably means more families in South Bristol. Councilors keep on saying that for the sake of 125 housing units South Bristol must lose the only compet competition athletics tracked and the family cycling center. Does this committee wants to wait until more young lives like that of Max 6 and 16 and Mason rates 15 be lost through knives crime before you take more serious actions? We need more physical and healthy activities available in South Bristol, not less. Your September report booed that people would come from Cornwall and Wales to the new cycling center, but your primary responsibility is the citizens of Bristol. What are you doing for the 18,000 children and young people in South Bristol to help them learn to cycle and enjoy better prospects in life? Could you could you start to wrap it up now? That’s a couple of minutes. Um I know that you wanted some extra time. So, uh there are alternative site sites for housing. You can save the witch track and cycling center for the benefits of children and families families now and for future generations. We strongly uh urge this committee to hold the closure of the South Bristol Cycling Center. Thank you. Thank you, Nessie. Uh Linda Keys, David. David, if you can try and keep it to a minute, please. You know the form. Very quickly, I’m going to say it. The big issue is going to be the transport levy and making sure We got the money to run the buses. If we don’t put that money into wet, weter have western buy authority and North Somerset have no precepting powers. That’s the only way plus the bus grant from from um UK central government. So if we don’t go down that line, we’re in big trouble. You put a lot of buses on Ed, you and Tim done very have done extremely well, but they could come off if we don’t find the resources. So can a lot of local services across the city region. This is a serious situation. I just urge you to work with WA to find a solution and the other for authorities on bus infrastructure. Well, I’ve spoken to John outside the meeting. We’re still getting problems on the bus stands. What’s happened is they’ve put all the buses to each district on one stand in the city center. They jammed the stands up. So, I came off today. We have the eight, the nine, the five all on the same stand. I’m in a wheelchair. There’s too many buses on each of the stands now for people to generally with pastures reducility get off the stands. Can that be reviewed with weter and the city council? And on the issues of liver neighbors, I’m not against I’m not against lial neighbors. Let’s be clear here. But what we’ve got to do is work the way through London’s done it. Talking about improve public transport, improving working with the communities and bringing it on board. But with the mayor in London’s done it in London burers they’ve actually put public transport access in first worked it through and very carefully worked out how they put the schemes on the ground. Community is very important. Thank you. Thanks David. Next uh is Allison Brel but I believe Eevee Lo is it Lozu is speaking. We thank the chair for giving us this opportunity to present our petition at this meeting. Southfield residents have spent the last few weeks campaigning to ensure neighbors, friends, family, and local businesses are aware of the South Bristol Liverour neighborhood and the impact it will have on them. We have been encouraging people to speak up and get their voices heard through various channels, including this meeting. Why? Because this council has delivered an unlawful public consultation about the South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood. Residents do not have sufficient information to understand how these proposals will impact them. The council is denying people’s right to provide adequate responses to this consultation. We do not have any information on how many car parking spaces will be lost, how many vehicles will be displaced onto North Street and Coronation Road, or what the journey impacts will be for people. The consultation material is unaccurate and misleading. We have maps that do not have the correct road layouts. The survey is full of bias, contains misleading imagery, and uses inaccessible language. Under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, this council must show due regard to how this scheme will affect those with protected characteristics, including age, disability, gender, pregnancy, and socioeconomic status. The equality and impact assessment for this consultation fails to meet statutory requirements. I could go on, but in the interest of time, I will leave you with this. Residents deserve honesty and accountability from the council. We deserve to understand what these proposals mean and how they will impact our community. It is not okay to have a sucket and see approach for the scheme which will cost millions in public funds. The council must immediately stop this deeply flawed consultation. We are calling for an independent review to assess the evidence it claims justifies the need for the South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood proposals. Thank you. Um Hayden Gil, hi evening. Um we’ve heard from citizens across Bristol about their concerns on reducing traffic in their neighborhood. As someone from East Bristol, I’d suggest jump on the bus and just have a look at Barton Hill because you’ll see the transformation that that can take place. Um, you can’t put a price on saying good morning um to your neighbors on the street. The point of the bus gates and bolards is car drivers don’t listen. They don’t obey double yellow lines. They don’t obey speed limits and they don’t keep their cars off the pavement. Asking nicely has never worked. I wasn’t consulted on cars getting bigger, like the Land Rover so high a 9-year-old can’t be seen at the front of it. I wasn’t consulted on drivers parking their cars on the pavement, preventing me and others from using the pavement. I wasn’t consulted on Google Maps and ways directing drivers through my neighborhood just to save a few seconds off their journey. The Livermore neighborhood is about people of Bristol fighting back against the car industry, against inconsiderate drivers, and against American tech companies. Surely everyone in this room would agree with that cause. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Smmith. Thank you. So if councilors and officers are not familiar with things like the UN agenda and the world economic foreign level of influence that they’re having on every single government in the world, then whilst in good faith they they face they have one part of the puzzle and try to create good infrastructures, there’s a lot more of the puzzle that they’re missing. And unless people know what that bigger picture is and where this all leads, then they won’t know how that one piece they’re placing fits in with the bigger scheme of things. Liverable neighborhoods, low traffic neighborhoods or 15inut cities, they’re all the same. And they’re known as smart cities. And as such, a lot of technologies involved in creating them. Funding for Bristol’s livable neighborhoods comes from Wcker, West of England Mer Combined Authority, which is the start of devolution. comes down from Westminster to a combined authority mayor who’ll have overall say on what happens in everinccreasing areas with orders coming from Davos. This leaves no scope for local residents to fight back on any number of global initiatives once it gets started. If people are actually enticed by giving up their roads to parklets, planters and cycle hangers, then maybe they should look at the Oxford style restrictions where residents are only allowed to leave their portion of the city up to a 100 days a year or face large fines. How much say will Bristol Council have with just one person, the combined authority mayor, maybe not the one in present position, but the ones to come in control, they themselves controlled by a higher higher up chain than Westminster itself. The other pieces of the puzzle that are coming are as innocuous as having start city. They include digital ID, central bank digital currencies, blockchain technology, net zerocarbon credits, and 5G. And it’s how these all link together that’s the important part. and especially the AI that controls them. Thank you. Um Joe Joe Sergeant. Uh good evening. Um I’m here to just say a few words about the workplace parking levy which um might represent a pleasant change of subject for some. Um, and I work for an organization called West Act and I’m part of the campaign known as Reclaim Our Buses. And we just wanted to comment and to say that we’re supportive in in principle of the implementation of a a workplace parking levy because we recognize that we need to find funding opportunities for uh better public transport. However, we do have some concerns and we just want to make sure that these concerns are um considered uh before any um scheme is adapt is um adopted. So, first of all around management of expectations uh without substantial capital from the treasury revenue from a workplace parking levy won’t fund a mass transit scheme. The last Labor government funded a TR scheme in Nottingham to the tune of 167 million pounds and there was a further 437 million available in PFI um credits and this was all before their workplace parking levy came into place. Uh the other concern is around the the significance of boundaries and just to you know ensure that we’re all aware that Bristol isn’t an island and we have neighbors in the west of England who rely on our economy and we re rely on theirs. We need to work closely with them and consider a single overarching project whilst recognizing the region’s diversities. Um, transport inequity across the region has got to be taken into consideration and the impact of a workplace parking levy on those traveling from areas with poor or even non-existent alternatives to car should be mitigated and and the impact of a workplace parking levy could be disproportionate on communities where parking is already problematic on the streets. Uh, so yeah, I mean we are we are supportive. It sounds a bit negative what I’m saying, but I just think it’s really important that we get this right and we look forward to hearing about the project as it develops. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Mr. Satian Joshi. So um by by releasing this design and consultation as in its current guise for the SPLN I think um you woken up the hibernating sleeping majority uh person like me who lives in Southville who is not really interested in engaging in politics or the platitudes that we get uh which come our way all the time. But in summary, you leave me with no option but to release a few truths as it were. The first truth is that Southville is already a livable neighborhood. The second truth is the second truth is that the RPZ in South has already dealt with most of the parking issues. It’s not perfect, but it’s not far off. The third issue and contrary to prop popular belief, residents in Southville actually care about the environment. We walk, we cycle, we recycle. So any gains you’re going to get from this SBLN is marginal at best. And the final truth is there has been no proof offered whatsoever that somehow South Hills being populated by rat run and um that traffic exists in all its commuter roads and that children are getting exfixiated with with murderous pollution. So the whole basis on which this SBLN is is founded is is simply on a bed of untruth. Now with truth, can you start to wrap it up now because uh I’m running over time. My as I look to you sir, my my my humble please is that it’s no bad thing to admit that this SBN is a imposition that is completely and utterly flawed. So I humbly request you to um to have a good long hard think about progressing this scheme. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Um next I have Sue Hughes. Um Terry Bremer. Yes. Thank you. I didn’t realize I only had a minute, so I’ll do the best I can. these severe restrictions that you’ve decided or the SPLN has decided to enforce upon us under the guise of designing safer and quieter streets to encourage people to walk and cycle and will well this is already how we live and unfortunately this scheme in an area that is asin has said really livable as it stands is fueling and this is from personal experience of talking to people in the street my my neighbors my my friends polarization and vehements, confusion, despair, and certainly frustration. Few of us who few of us, so it seems to me anyway, use cars unless we really need to. Certainly in Salsville and generally more these days. Now, if you’ve got a car in the RPS sale, you pay a hefty rate. It’s doubled from what it was. Now, I don’t know whether you realize because you may not live in Southville, but at night it’s jam-packed. I know I live there. I have a car and if I dare to go out at night or anytime close to the early evening, I come back and I can’t park. Occasionally, maybe yes, but generally no. And that means I have to drive around releasing more fumes wherever it is. I’m driving around to find a parking space. That is not healthy. So, you can’t you can’t remove spaces. That’s just not going to work. If we if we’ve got cars, it’s because we need them. Should we Should we if there’s any last thing you want to wrap it up with, but want to stay shorter journeys? It states this is going to bring about shorter journeys. It can’t. Just think about it. I won’t even go on about that one. That’s nuts. And you talk about cleaner air. Well, if you think that displacement of traffic results in cleaner air, I don’t know what you’re talking about because to me that sounds very and utterly selfish. It cannot work. So, I would also like to just point out that for the orange zone, we’re all going to have to exit onto Coronation Road. That’s not going to work. If something happens to Coronation Road, we’re stuck. And the fines that will ensue will mess everybody up. So, that’s I’ll end on that. Thank you. Thank Thank you. Um Terry Bremer. Oh, sorry. Um Caroline Dunn. Caroline, can I uh if you can try and stick to a minute, that would be helpful. I will try, but I am not well today. I will do my best. This is disability hate crime awareness week. Uh not publicized, but the council uh raised a flag to it. I feel that the counselors themselves should be educated about it so that they realize that the impact of committee decisions can have exactly the same impact as hate crime and sometimes appear as such. This is in both large and small matters. The transport committee in particular, I feel, should consider the outcome of their decisions because while presumably unintentional, the outcome of many decisions has hit the disabled people of Bristol very hard indeed as a large matter, the extension of the EBLN situation um for many people is the equivalent to a psychological assault. ended consequences this may be but its consequences we all suffer from the civilization level of a society in my opinion rests on how compassionately it treats its vulnerable and disabled people and on that basis this regime fails and when we tell you what you could do to make things better you don’t listen to us even on the small things Overton’s disabled space overton roads disabled space to replace one outside boots when the bus lane operates has finally been replaced with one even further away up a steep steep slope. Non-regulation size being far far too small with car doors opening onto bards. To get up there you also have to sometimes avoid flying bikes. Um I’m frequently having people disabled people particularly complaining to me about bikes going far too fast and also about bikes being on pavements. And meanwhile, we are throwing away decades of road usage and regulation, long, long hours in the House of Commons getting us decent legislation, including, I’d like to point out, equalities legislation. And yet we are just throwing this away and we are one hopes inadvertently making Bristol actually a great deal more dangerous and in particular for disabled people. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Caroline. Um Brendan Taylor. Thank you. Uh, thanks chair and I will try and keep this to a minute at least. Um, I’m usually quite calm at these meetings and I’m not going to try and blame anyone here, but to be honest, I’m absolutely disgusted at the state of the bus services. Yes, we are doing better with night bus services than on weekends, but we are under threat of losing that from next year. We have to find 15 million pounds by April to keep these bus services running. If we don’t find this money, a lot of bus services like the Y8, the Y2C, the 25 in Bristol that goes via St Wards will be cut. I also want to add that the night bus services need to keep running. I understand that these are funded by the clean air zone from the money that whacking from the clean air zone, but the this funding needs to be found and it needs to keep running throughout 2026. As a wheelchair user, I rely heavily on these life buses so I can have some sort of a social life. And I find it absolutely disgusting that we’re looking at cutting bus services rather than funding them. Duck Clam Bald and Bob Pin are not miracle workers. They want to run a service but they cannot run a service without the help of financial support from the Western England combined authority. We also have um concerns on Metro West services such as the lift at Lawrence Hill station being installed, the Hemu line. And I also want to add um disabled people should be able to use their concession pass on local Metro West services to seven meet and western super flexibility in their travel. Thanks. Thanks, Brendan. Uh Samira Samira Moose Mus. Sorry, it’s just questions. Okay. Is there anyone here who submitted a statement that hasn’t had a chance to speak? I’ve got to the end of my list of all the people that said they were going to be here today. Okay. Should we move on to questions? So questions and uh questions have been submitted. Uh each questioner has had a written reply and that’s been published. So what we do is we assume that people have been able to see that reply and we take supplementary questions uh up to two oral supplementary questions. If you’ve asked two or more questions, uh it really must arise out of your original question. You can’t introduce something new. Um I’ve got a number of people who have said that they are attending to observe. So I’m going to just go through the people who’ve actually said that they’re here um and actually want to ask a supplementary question. So first up is Melissa Topping. here. Thank you for confirming the long timeline from my question. However, you have repeatedly failed to site the specific legal justification for continuing the traffic regulation order. Can the officer state explicitly and for the record, has the council received specific current legal advice confirming that continuing data collection for a scheme demonstratably increasing risk and restricting essential services pro for protected groups legally satisfies the Psed? If the answer is yes, will that legal advice be published immediately or are we to conclude that the continuation of this TTRO is currently running without PSD compliance? Thank you. I’m not sure. Uh Adam, do you want to answer that? Um um yeah, we haven’t taken any specific legal advice. The TRA are in place are permanent TAs. Um the trial is assessing data collected over a period of time. At the end of that trial, a decision is then made as to whether the scheme remains permanent or whether those um TRO are then undone. Um right. Okay. Well, the consultation was on a sixmonth trial. So can you please explain how you are legally continuing that for a further six months when that initially was based on disability discrimination? it is based on lies. Um so I mean I disagree with the assertion about disability discrimination and lies. Um the the TTRO was um consulted on and enacted appropriately as per the legal requirements. Um we’ve set out that we’re doing a six-month assessment of the data. It takes time then to collect that data and do that assessment and during that time that the scheme will remain in place until a decision is made. Thank you. Uh Allison Bremmel, just uh scroll to make sure you can see the answers on the screen there. Questions. Did you have any uh did you Allison, did you want to ask any any follow-up questions? No. Okay. Uh Sue Hughes, would you uh you’ve said that you’re attending to observe, but uh would you like to ask any follow-up questions? Um if we could scroll through Do you want to have a moment to read that and I’ll move on or or we Yeah. Um, next is David Regwell. So, oh, was Sue, were you still reading? I’ve got a paper copy there in a moment. Okay, we just get you a paper copy, Sue, and we’ll move on to Dave for now. uh these were published last night. Um Caroline, while we’re just waiting for people to catch up, um you did ask uh questions. The I’m not sure why they were mislaid. It was a mistake. Um, the answers will be given to you as soon as possible and published alongside the other answers. And I’m very happy to offer you a reserve slot to be first to ask questions uh at the next meeting if that suits you. So, I’d like to apologize, but we we haven’t got answers for you now and we we’re not going to be able to answer those on the fly. This isn’t the first time. I’ll read those questions for you Apparently, Bristol City Council is trying to get rid of eye points at passenger interchange hubs, railway and bus stations, etc. This is essentially another damaging event for the independent living of disabled people, many of whom rely on them for bus and rail information, etc. This is okay. This is about removal of eye points and uh that this is uh a damaging event for the independent living of disabled people who rely on them for bus and rail information. um especially true of blind and partially cighted people. And uh Caroline, I think you want to know why that we’re doing that. Is that a fair summary? Thank you. Question two, uh when are we going to get external lifts to a road crossing over the portway so disabled and elderly people can cross over to Shy Hampton safely? The sorry Shy Hampton train station, not just safely, but able to cross at all. And question three is the EBLN got a petition debated by BCC. Uh I think you’re asking why aren’t we hearing it? Is that right? Or are we you asking why aren’t we hearing the petition? No, it’s about um extending the extending that. So we’ll get you an answer. It’s extending the um period of EBLN. So we’ll get you an answer to that one as well. I think we’ve heard about that from other people already. I’m asking why is it being understood? Um, so would uh Sue was it um did you have a follow-up question? But in the answer that all properties are fully accessible, all vehicles at all times, which is just completely not true, we provided evidence of that. Um, what do you propose to do at that about that immediately so that all vehicles can access all properties at all times? Um, so the schema is designed is designed to enable access to all properties at all times. If there are specific issues that you want to send to us, we can look into those for you. We’ve got much evidence of vehicles unable to access streets via ignoring it. We haven’t ignored anything. We we respond to the the stuff that is sent to us. Um it may disagree with with what you believe to be the case. Um with videos Melissa, if you want to if you want to um send those questions again and that evidence again and if you want to copy me in, then we’ll look into it for you. Um, David, yeah, try not to share it with everybody this time. Thank you. So, I’m aware of the answer except I’m in a wheelchair, guys. I’m in a wheelchair. I can’t do what you can do. So if a bus pulls in the middle of the road in Broad Key, which happened the other day trying to get to meet Helen Goodwin and and your colleagues at Wcker, I can’t parachute myself into the middle of Broad Key and get on that number 70 bus. I can’t do it right. You’re playing games for First Group. Be honest. Qualities act. Those buses are parking up there. They are taking layover there. your officers sitting down in wcker offices in these offices and agreeing all this stuff. There’s no passenger engagement. There’s no engagement with the qualities people where Ed we need to go through a proper discussion of the bus service advisory panel which I do to find an answer. What I want to know is what are you going to do to make this work? I cannot fly into the middle of a road with a bus there. I’ve complained to first bus. I’ve complained to first group headquarters. It’s got to be resolved. Disabled people are not able to join buses at many. So the question I think the question is what are we going to do? I’m just getting answers are officer answers about people are ablebodied. I’ll be honest and I’m not happy with it. And I don’t disrespect your officers. I I think the answer is that we have to continue to try and work through this with um WAR and with the first bus and um the groups that we have in with which to engage with the public and you’re a vice chair of West. you’re involved with the panel. Can we have a panel some with wet’s bus advisory panel with um your office coming on trying to find some answers? That’s all I’m going to ask. Um I obviously can’t really commit uh Wacker resources at this meeting. Um so um you raise it. That’s all I’m going to ask. Okay. Yes. If you want to make an action for me to raise that and we’ll put that on the log. So and my only the other question I want to raise is well you’ve heard it from most of us in this room. We are extremely worried about the funding of the bus network. I say compliments to you for putting the buses back. Yourself personally and Tim and the officer team and Wcker and the other four industry authorities. But we’re a cliff edge unless we get this money. First group and stage coach aren’t financially viable as a business nor is Big Lemon without large sums of public money from the West of England combined authority. Can can you turn this into a question Dave? I think we want to want to get on to the debate. What action is the council going to take with the other union authorities to put this out to budget consultation the raise of the transport levy and what is it going to do to raise with the MPs and the secretary of state to make sure we get that bus grant we desperately need for the combined authority and into the surrounding some clership Wilshire areas. Thank you. The answer is we’re every bit as worried as you are and we’re doing everything we can. Funding is tight and we’re trying to find the funding. Is there anyone here who’s asked a question who hasn’t yet? Uh uh yeah, Brendan. We got Joe as well. Joe, Sergeant, and then Brendan. Yeah, Joe. Hi, thank you for the answers. Um, I just want to um ask firstly when you say you’re working with Wacka, does that include actually working with the other um unitary or local authorities um because um going up and then back down again isn’t necessarily always the best option. Sometimes you need to go side to side. So that was the first question and then regards to the second one around location of workplace parking levies. It’s great that you’re focusing on the city center, but I think um can I ask or request that you are uh really sure about the access for all people from who live in the Wacker region definitely to locations in the city center because whilst the buses are better going into the city center than they are other places, they’re not necessarily great for everyone. That was a question I think. Um I think the answer is yes. I quite regularly uh am in contact and I think our officers are regularly in contact with other unitary authorities. We don’t just do everything through wcker. And the second one I’m going to offer an answer which is very early days yet. We’ve got a lot of um modeling and studying to do of the workplace parking levy. We will be working with the business community especially to make sure that we model all what what I want to do is make sure the business community in particular with whom we need to work because this is a levy on them is uh uh agrees what we will model so we don’t have a situation where we have people asking maybe we could have modeled something else. I don’t know if you want to add anything that to that. Ju just to say obviously the city center is the most accessible part of the the region um and the city. Um we have park and rides, we have rail stations with with car parks. Um we’ve got lots of bus services, lots of cycle routes that all feed into the city center. Um a workplace parking levy is typically paid for by the employer and it’s up to them to decide whether they charge it to the employee or not. So, um there’s lots of ways that an employee would not necessarily be um disadvantaged by this. Um the last one on my list is Brendan. Thanks, Ed. Uh working alongside David Rich. Well, I’m just going to get straight to the point. Um, I know what the answers will probably be, but I just wanted to uh ask a question. Um, the first question I had is, um, and I can see the answer out there. Um, I know the X14 is not funded by Bristol City Council and is funded by North Somerset Council, but if we could get in contact with Hannah Young and get her to answer that question, that would be good. One of the questions I do have for you is why are you removing the eye points from the metro bus stop? How are people meant to buy tickets? Because drivers cannot sell tickets on the bus. And yes, we have this tap on tap off, but not everyone uses cards or feels comfortable using the tap on tap off system. So if you remove the eye points and um people can’t buy tickets on the bus, does that mean everyone gets a free ride? Does it? Because that’s how it’s looking. Is that how desperate you are for money that you’re removing eye points to try and find some extra funding? Because that’s what it feels like. And question number two, what are we doing about the night bus services? We’ve only got funding until April 2026. More hospitality is going to be opening up. The world just doesn’t stop in 2026. more hospitality is going to open up. We need to find funding and we need to find it now. The night bus services, can it just stop? We need to work with the West of England combined authority to find funding for those buses to run. And the final question is um Brendan, you get two questions. Your first one was about I um eye points. I think the important thing is that I think we’ve answered it already which is that um we’re actually currently seeking views from Metropus users on how they use eye points and no decision has been made yet. So please do make sure that you put your viewpoints across. Um the second question I think we’ve kind of already answered um Dave’s question which is we’re doing everything we can to make sure that we continue to find the funding to keep the buses uh that are currently supported by the public pur going and on your first point I’m very happy just to prove what I said to Joe earlier uh that to forward on your question to Hannah Young in North Somerset. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um I’m going to move us on now to the petition debates. Um we are skipping forward uh to agenda item 15. Um we have up to 20 minutes. The com the purpose of this report is to consider and debate the petition stop Southville roadblocks as presented petitions. Uh this has basically uh reached a trigger of 1,870 signatures to date as verified of which 1510 were from Bristol residents. that was verified as of the 15th of October 2025. I have seen it’s gone uh above that. We have five minutes for the petitioner to speak and then 15 minutes for the debate amongst counselors in turn uh according to uh numbers of representation. So uh who is going to speak? Uh you have five minutes. Uh Allison. Hi. Thank you. Uh forgive my shaky voice. I’m a bit of a nervous public speaker. Uh firstly, I’d like to thank the chair for letting us present today. It means a lot uh to us to be able to participate in the discussion. Uh my name is Allison Braml and I’ve lived in South Bristol for 18 plus years and on Stackpool Road for 16 years. Ironically, that is long enough to remember when there used to be a public bus that came down Stackpool Road and through Southville. Now, wouldn’t that be nice? For context, I cycle to North Bristol for work. My husband walks to work, my daughter takes the bus to six form college, and my son walks to secondary. You might think I would be the ideal supporter of the council’s livable neighborhood proposals. And yet, here I am, the lead petitioner for the stop Bristol uh Southville Roadblocks campaign. A few weeks ago, a small group of objectors met with James and his boss from the Bristol City Council engagement team to discuss alternative scheme ideas. In this meeting, I said to James, “Can you explain what pro- cycling measures your proposal is putting forward in Southville, i.e., where are you putting the cycle lanes?” He then told me that the only thing they are proposing is to reduce the traffic so that all roads in Southville are safe to cycle on. Then he said, “We need to reduce the traffic on the roads to a level that an 8-year-old can cycle on the road.” Well, as I said, I have two children and they were both cycling on um at 8 years old on all the roads as they are um and even younger and loads of their friends were the same. In fact, I still see eight-year-olds cycling up and down Stackpool Road every day on their way to and from school. What I think this story represents is a sentiment that I’ve been hearing so many people say. Southville is not broken. The roads are quiet. The people walk and cycle a lot. Families walk and cycle a lot, probably more than any uh many other parts of the city. And we love a community event, too. We have street parties, the tobacco factory market, Upfest, and the Lantern Parade. We have all these while still allowing our residents to make essential car journeys easily without having to take long detours or sit in idling traffic. We started this petition because the council kept saying to us, “You asked for this. We consulted you and this is what you wanted.” And we thought, “Hang on a minute. You asked us if we like trees and nice public spaces and if we didn’t like speeding cars and pollution. You never said, “Do you want your streets blocked up? Would you like to not be able to access your local shops easily by car? Would you like to make it more difficult for emergency services to reach your house?” No, this is not what we asked for. The council’s own engagement report tells us that there are three top concerns raised in Southville. Lack of parking, speeding traffic, and lack of crossings. none of which were addressed in the council’s proposal. In fact, I find the proposed design uninspired and lacking in rigor. It lazily applies livable neighborhood principles to our neighborhood without understanding how residents use the roads, without understanding our boundary roads, without understanding South Bristol factors uh such as ashen great um events at Ashen Gate Stadium, the crumbling riverbank, the clean air zone, the redevelopment of the western harbor, and the changes coming to Bedminster Bridge without understanding the disruption it could cause for people to people’s lives. We are here to tell you that what Bristol City Council has proposed is not good enough. The opposition campaign is filled with so many brilliant and passionate people. Please don’t dismiss them. Please read their questions and listen to their comments and ideas. In them, you will find the voice of Southville. We come to you today with this petition to say that we already live in a livable neighborhood. Can we please scrap the roadblocks and just have the improvements we asked for? traffic calming, more cycle infrastructure, better parking, and safer crossing and junctions. Please, let’s keep South moving. Thank you. Thank you, Allison. Um, we have we now have councilors will debate this. If members can be brief, I’d like to try and make time so that everyone has a chance to speak if they want to. But for the moment, I’m going to go through each party in turn and and ask for one person to to say something uh each. So, first up is the green representative. I think Emma, you were going to say something. Thank you, chair. And um yeah, thank you. I have been I have been listening intently to everything you’ve been saying and and and thank you for bringing this because I don’t I don’t live in South Bristol anymore. Um, I’ve looked at the maps and sort of I’m getting an idea of what it looks like. I can tell in my area it’s it’s a bit of a paradox because in my area everybody wants a Liverpool neighborhood and and and you know it’s not happening yet. Um, we’ve had areas of of our area which have been done and people love living there. Bit like what you just were just saying about how you know this is how Southville is but then other areas since that’s been done have been worse. And so this idea of doing a much bigger area seems to be a really important part of of of any livable neighborhood scheme. And I’ve heard you talking about Southfield, but this this is a very very big area. And so I’m imagining it’s having to take the whole thing into account. Um I mean more generally about Liverpool neighborhoods. I mean obviously this has been a controversy, you know, since certainly the last couple of years. Um and you know sometimes it’s like well why are we why are we even doing this? You know, we have days like that. But this isn’t new. Let let me finish. Let me So the reason we are doing this is because for those years before certainly before the Greens got in, we were going to Lambbeath, we were speaking to Oxford, we were speaking to Wen Forest, we were going to these places where they said they are really unpopular at first and by the end of it everybody I mean I’ve just somebody me somebody yeah in those areas. So, somebody mentioned Oxford and I’m just looking up the Oxford thing. 83% satisfaction. A 57 56% increase in business for businesses there. Um 23 new businesses opened on the main road in the East um Oxford Liverpool neighborhood. Um and um 56% of people uh backed the initiative once it had been put in. So there is a little bit aspiration. So what I will also say is we are looking at how things are now and you’re looking at how things are now and there is, you know, we could kick this down the road, but the truth is Bristol is growing. There is going to be more developments, which means there’s going to be more cars. There’s going to be more pollution. And if we don’t put these in now, then in 20 years when the city is absolutely gridlocked with with cars, people are going to ask us why we didn’t do anything about it now. And I and I know that there is the argument about putting in um you know more active travel, more buses. But we are doing that. We are doing that. We we’ve already putting in more bus more dedicated bus lanes and this is going to help those cycle lane the those cycle um um routes. So I I can look I just I’m just I’m going to get through this okay because I can feel the strength of of feeling in the room. This is not a done deal. We you’re in this is the middle of the consultation already. changes have been made from the first part of the consultation. So the first part of the consultation was made and then changes were made. So please just engage in the in that consultation and put those views into it. I’m done. Thank you. So next uh is someone speaking on behalf of the labor group? Yeah, thank you Jeb. just one of us will speak. Um, thank you petitioners for taking time to be here today, uh, especially on such short notice. Um, I do think it’s concerning that despite the move to a supposedly more democratic system, this council seems to be making some of its most controversial decisions without a committee vote or discussion. Um, for example, licenses for dog walkers in parks, pulling out of council housing developments, which was a decision worth 92 million, uh, creation of a new executive director post to the tune of over £200,000. Those are examples. And now the South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood. The council should always try to do things with communities, not to them. And the same goes for those voicing concerns about a flagship policy. Petitioners could have been asked if they wanted to defer this debate until December, but I don’t believe that that I believe that decision was made for them rather than consulted on and and this petition has the required number of signatures and it was submitted before the deadline. Um, so it should have been up to to you whether you wanted to defer it or not, but we are here now so that’s good. Um, these live livable neighborhood schemes are the most controversial schemes in Bristol and in nearly 18 months since the election, this committee hasn’t specifically discussed them once. Um, if you look at the public forum today, these aren’t ideological objections. These are wellthoughtout, reasonable objections from people who think their lives will be negatively affected by this. Um, just to be clear, this is not an issue solely for Southville. People in my ward email me a lot about the East Bristol scheme, and South Bristol counselors in other areas have had a number of people raise the South Bristol scheme with them. So, a counselor’s first duty is to Bristol rather than their ward, which is why the committee and I spent an afternoon recently visiting various bridges across the city, including Southville. So, I’m I’m not happy, to be honest, to be told that we’re only getting involved for political reasons. We all want to see the best solutions implemented here to achieve shared goals. And I do think most people welcome the aims of the scheme. Everybody wants safer streets, improved cycling routes, and less rat running. But I don’t know whether so-called modal filters, bolards, and planters are always going to be the best way to achieve it. Within the SPLN scheme, the matchday parking is certainly welcome and and needs to be a priority, but the different zones clearly need a rethink. Uh rat running is an issue on some of the roads, but solving this by the bulcanization of Southville is a bit like using a sledgehammer to bang in a nail. We think we should be looking at new technologies and how we can better use them to achieve some of these aims. So, in their current form, Labour counselors will not support these proposals. Uh, and I hope the council leadership takes your concerns seriously and addresses them. We’ll continue to listen to local residents and provide constructive challenge where it’s appropriate for us to do so. Thank you, Nick. Thank you, chair. Um yeah, I I’m a little confused about where this has come from to be honest. Um I’ve only been on the council for 18 months and the the general rule is if a if a zombie project turns up, it was probably left over by the last labor administration. And so if uh we have been here for for all that time, I would have appreciated a paper coming to this committee before going out to the public launching a consultation. I think that’s the the right way of bringing people with you and checking that you’re doing something which is which has support. However, the consultation is ongoing. I think the the um the petition that we’ve received today is an important part of that consultation and it should be considered alongside all of the other responses in this process. So I’ve had a look on our uh on our public website about what the process is that we have the consultation closes next week then modifications and we definitely should be making modifications to proposals based on consultation feedback followed by further statutory consultation as required by law on the revised proposals. I didn’t see in that public facing list where the council vote was in that uh that hierarchy. I hope that there will be one and I suggest that we should put that onto the the list to be absolutely clear that there is a process here. There’s there’s certainly a sensation in this in this chamber we try and listen to one another. We try not to interrupt each other and I’d like to Nick to resume please. So there does seem to be the impression that because a consultation is live right now then something is going to happen at the end of it and that a decision has already been made. Now no decision has been made which I think is a failing. There should have been a decision to go out to consultation but we should also be clear that there are additional steps and there will be further decisions and setting out this process at the beginning about how the governance works I think will save us a lot of issues for example if we were doing a trial is it going to be 6 months or 12 months so if you get that sorted at the beginning so as people know where how the process is working then we can all work within that process and make a decision to implement not implement or modify at the end of it. No, you can’t. Um, it’s Sorry, I’m sorry. We I’m going to move along now to Jonathan Hucker. Thank you, chair. Um yeah, I’d like to um thank the uh petitioners uh for bringing this uh debate and um I think that there was uh a lot of good uh valid points made about the um South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood uh during public forum. Um I have um huge reservations about it. Um, I’m deeply uh skeptical about the um South Bristol uh Liverpool neighborhood. Um, you only have to look at the concerns of the people uh that live in the East Bristol Liverpool neighborhood area. It’s um very controversial. It’s um uh divided communities and the South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood actually covers a larger area. Um it is it goes from um Ashton Veil to Totterdown. So it’s um it covers a a huge area. Um I’m not convinced that um a scheme that that had to be rolled out in the middle of the night uh with police present is something which actually has the actually has the the consent of the people. Um I I’m concerned that um uh it will displace traffic onto other roads. If you look at East Bristol, um traffic has clearly being displaced onto Church Road in Blacksworth Road. And I’m concerned that the same thing could happen to Coronation Road. I would imagine that um Coronation Road would be um an absolute nightmare um if this scheme is rolled out. I also have serious concerns about the impacts on emergency services and um and waste and recycling collections. Um I question whether this is a sensible use of taxpayers money. Um I I I I know that I know that the um I know that the scheme is funded by Wacka, not Bristol City Council, but it’s still um taxpayers money. Um I think that the council should uh not proceed with the implementation of the scheme until a full assessment of the impact of the East Bristol Liverour neighborhood has been made. Um I I I think that uh consultation um needs to be improved and uh should should be carried out as widely as possible. In actual fact, personally speaking, I would like to see um a referendum on the proposal. So I I I would I I I would I would like to I I would like to give the people who who actually live in the area um a chance to say yes or no to this because I I because I I do not believe that it should be imposed on them without their explicit consent. Thank you, Jonathan. Um, I always get a little bit worried when I hear Tories talking about referendums. Um, it it saddens me that people think this is a done deal. Nothing is further from the truth. We we will make we we will make changes. We’re already making changes and we will bring proposals to this committee, amended proposals. And for anyone um that has the time, I urge them to read Tony Dyer and Christine’s statement. There’s many people contacting us in South Bristol who say that this doesn’t go far enough. It’s we we always thought that these proposals when we would take something from the traffic engineers, we put against people with real life experience and hopefully meet in the middle and find something better. That’s what I’m hoping for. I’ve um we’ve got about um one minute left and Rob Bry’s just uh indicated that he’d like to say something. If you can make it in about one minute and then we’ll move on to East Bristol. It’s a really quick point. It’s just for the public record. The way that this scheme was funded, if I understand correctly, was through a budget amendment of the budget in February 2023 or 2022, I think it was 2023. Uh at which uh the Labour um member for transport at that time, Mark Bradshaw stood in that seat over there and agreed to the funding and said it was a great idea to have a liable neighborhood in South Bristol. We also had councelor Richard Eddie standing just over there supporting it. The conservative party supported funding this scheme. So to say that there’s been no decision may be accurate. It is accurate. But what’s not accurate is saying that they were not supportive of this when it was a general idea. And what we need to make sure as Ed has said is that all of the feedback that you’re giving that’s really useful and really valuable is included in the scheme and that we have an opportunity to take that balanced approach and actually kind of you know work on iteratively. That’s a really important aspect of these schemes. Thank you Rob. Um the recommendation now is that the policy committee notes uh sorry we have noted it. What happens next is that we I will send a formal response to the petitioner after the meeting and we will note some of the uh issues that have come out from the uh public themselves and also some of the issues that members have uh raised that that’s we’ll issue that to the petitioner and we’ll also publish it on the website. Um, right. I’m moving on to agenda item. We are moving on to agenda item 16 now. So that is a petition debate EB uh East Bristol Liver Halt the East Bristol Liver neighborhoods. The purpose of this um uh agenda item is to uh consider and debate this petition as presented. Uh this has previously already been to full council because it triggered um a uh the the I think the 3,500 trigger and we’ve had a further 1637 um uh signatures from Bristol res residents verified as of the 9th of October. So that has triggered a further debate at this committee. We have five minutes. Uh Melissa, is it you that’s going to present this um petition? And uh would you like to start your five minutes now? Hello, chair, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to address you this evening on a matter of critical important to thousands of our residents. I’m speaking today on behalf of those thousands to demand the immediate removal of the traffic measures in Redfield, Lawrence Hill, and Barton Hill. Specifically, the bus gates on Aanville Road, Marsh Lane, and Pile Marsh, along with the planters and bolards on Cobden Street, Barton Hill Road, Duchi Road, and Victoria Avenue. Return us to the Liverpool neighborhood we once had. This is not a fringe concern. An official petition calling for the removal of these measures was presented to the full council in December 2024 with 3,500 signatures. That number has since doubled and this petition now carries the overwhelming weight of 7,174 signatures with a total of 63 6,333 verified signatures online. This includes 56 on paper, too. Sadly, those affected whom work in the area but with the South Glostershare post code are not allowed to be counted. This num this does this number does not include 78 businesses from within and boarding the scheme that have signed a statement opposing the trial. Also, this growing public mandate cannot be ignored. The measures along with the way they were cruy implemented at 3:00 a.m. using the force of police and security have caused undeniable and widespread harm, creating a crisis of access and safety within our community. The restrictions have severely hampered mobility, making trips to the GP surgery, local businesses, and community organizations unnecessarily arous impossible. We must open up our neighborhood and restore equitable access for all. Furthermore, these barriers have had a profound and negative impact. Our streets are now demonstrabably less safe. Antisocial behavior and crime is rising daily. Local businesses are failing due to reduced footfall and access. And we are seeing an associated rise in mental health problems with the loss of crucial support networks for our elderly and disabled residents, many of whom are now stuck in their homes due to the physical barriers you have placed, increasing time restrictions for those who were once able to support these vulnerable people. Other parties and local organizations, including the Wellspring Settlement, are also publicly calling for a media end to this scheme. Most crucially, the process under which these measures were introduced is fundamentally flawed. The consultation period for the six for the original six-month trial involved demonstrable disability discrimination failing to adequately and inclusively engage with local disabled groups or residents and their unique access needs. Much has not been taken into account for these protected characteristic groups that have been ignored. This trial has not complied with the Equalities Act 2010 section 149 and does not fall in line with the government published LTN guidelines. This unacceptable procedural failure invalidates the entire premise and continued existence of the TTRO. The six-month trial period is now officially over. Therefore, there is no justification, ethical, legal, or logistical, for these measures to remain in place a moment longer. We acknowledge that this community has long needed effective speed calming measures. The current scheme has not solved this problem. Instead, it has created new dangers and in some cases increased speeding on the shortest of residential road sections. We are not here to disc to discuss a future for this scheme. We are here to demand its immediate end with a complete reassessment and muchneeded speed calming measures measures introduced. We urge this committee to take swift divisive action to immediately terminate the TTRO in place on these roads. Following termination, once all bus gates, planters and bolards have been urgently removed, we will be interested to engage in a full mutually cooperative fundamental reassessment of community needs to identify targeted and truly effective solutions that genuinely address speed and safety without re restricting access to our community. Opening our roads for every resident, GP patient, worker and business. A truly livable neighborhood for all can be achieved. Will the transport committee please agree to a vote on this? Thank you. Thank Thank you, Melissa. I’m timing. I’m t This is my timer. I’m trying. We have a very packed agenda today and I’m going to move us on to Rob Brier who’s going to speak on behalf of the Green Group. I I have listened to every single word that every person has said today. I focus and I listen. This is a timer. Thank you. Rob, would you like to speak? Can I speak now? Thanks. Uh, so the petition um obviously we’ve seen this petition before, but the petition talks about sort of drastic changes that have been imposed without proper consultation and consideration of their full impact. Uh there is of course an open consultation right now that residents, businesses can feed into and there have of course been about three years of public discussion of this scheme. Uh there has been and continues to be a consideration of the full impact of the scheme on communities that will come through the consultation and through the conclusions of that consultation and of course there will be a vote eventually on whether to adopt a permanent scheme. So we can agree to that the final thing you said immediately because we will there will be obviously a vote on that. Um it would be good to hear. It would be good to hear. Can you listen please? We’ve I’ve just been accused of not listening. I’d like you to listen to the elected members talking now. It would be good to hear what taxpayers money and we’ve got to remember what this where this money’s come from. It’s a UK government funded pot ring fenced for transport schemes what we could have better spent it on. Uh the petition demands the development of alternative, more cost-effective and community supported measures that will reduce congestion, improve safety and protect our local economy without the waste of public funds or disruption to our daily lives. I I do not know what measures, you know, genuinely other than road pricing or a much longer term scheme such as a tram scheme, an underground scheme on church road we could introduce that would be more effective at reducing congestion in the short to medium term. If in a response to a question about feed a road um today being regrettably difficult to implement a protected cycling route on, the council response was there are other routes such as the Wesley way which is part of the East Bristol Liver neighborhood trial and has provided an improved active travel route from the east of the city to the city center. I think there’s been a lot of talk um particularly in the statements today around roadblocks. That’s been a phrase that’s been repeated over and over again. And I just want to just make clear modal filters are not roadblocks. They are the opposite. They are the opposite of a blockage. They’re opposite. They’re enablers of sustainable travel. If you’re walking, please could we please could we show some respect and listen please? I know emotions are running high but you need to please will you respect please will you respect and listen walking wheeling cycling scooting taking the bus these methods to a large extent to a greater or lesser extent were blocked in the community I represent before the scheme came in due to road danger you’re making me emotional this is becoming an emotionally charged thing this Because a lot of residents came to me ahead of this being introduced and I’m going off off piece here came to me to express how scared they were in their homes and on their streets. The road danger in my ward I’m not talking about the whole scheme but on Bowoot Road was intolerable for the residents there. Okay. So if I’m acting as their representative I have to listen to them as well. Okay. I’ll listen to you but I have to listen to what their experience of road danger was. They had vehicles smashed into. We had far too much traffic going down that road. So that is why I’m a strong advocate for this scheme. Okay. So EBLN has made it has made has been an enabler for safer, healthier, and happier journeys for many residents. I think that’s undeniable. So I’ I’d want to turn to the range of impairment. There’s a range of impairments that cause people to be disabled and there are people who consider themselves disabled who are in favor of the scheme. The 2021 census shows that in Bristol the proportion of disabled people without a car or van was considerably higher than for people who were not disabled. So we need to give those people better options as well for active travel because yes some disabled people are you do use active travel modes and of course public transport and this scheme has improved public transport. We’ve been able to put a new bus route through this area to better enable people to get into the city center from where they live. The petition suggests throughout that the scheme diverts traffic onto smaller residential streets when it does the exact opposite of this. It places traffic on roads that are wide enough to cope with it or at least better able to cope with them. I’m not sure any road in Bristol is coping well with the volume of traffic on it currently because there are simply too many cars on the road. And this is what the scheme aims to tackle. It aims to get people to think differently about how they travel. And that’s not everyone, but it is a large number of people who could do that. I think the position does raise some valid points, but it sadly over eggs them. I don’t think there’s been a devastating impact on local businesses, but I do think for some businesses there has been a negative. If you listen, I’m actually explaining a nuance position if that’s okay. I do think for some businesses there has been a negative impact which we must as a council do better to address and do more to accommodate and for many others there has been little to no impact. For a small number there’s been a positive impact. But saying anything about how businesses have been impacted in a blanket way is just not factual. Finally, I would like to say that I have in August and September conducted a local informal consultation in my ward. It shows there are mixed views on the scheme as a whole, mixed views on particular scheme measures and a whole lot of community knowledge and understanding that produced some excellent suggestions for amendments to the scheme to improve it for residents. I’d like to thank all of the many St. George West residents who engaged from my survey and contact me. It’s great that I’ll be able to represent the community’s wishes by asking for some of these changes to be made for any permanent scheme proposal that’s comes forward in the coming months. And I would just like to say I don’t bear any ill will towards the people in the public gallery. I understand how passionate you feel about this and how important it is that your voice is heard. At the same time, we must keep things in a in a way that we can actually engage with each other. I’m happy to meet with anybody who wants to meet struggling. I’m going to move us on the labor group now. Uh is someone speaking on behalf of the labor group? Cass, would you like to speak on behalf? Now, I really ask you that the council chamber is a room where we have an exchange of views. We ask everyone to speak and listen with courtesy and respect. We’re going to hear from the labor group now. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, and thank you to the petitioners for bringing this here today. It’s important you have an opportunity to make your views heed. This petition was submitted ahead of the deadline, clearly met the signary threshold for debate. It’s been well over six months since it was first presented, so there’s no good reason to block it. Uh, this is especially important considering the survey the council’s issued does not give you this opportunity. It asks questions like how do you travel to X, Y, and Zed? And how often, but not once does it ask you, what do you think? When spending all this money on more consultation on something that’s a trial, there should this should be a key question. And I note the public forum concerns about what constitutes a trial and what six months really means. I know it’s felt like the council dismisses your concerns and that’s wrong. which is why we wanted this petition presented. My Labour colleagues and I have met with some of the people here today to hear you out. The concerns raised are totally valid and your suggestions of how to improve the scheme are reasonable. It’s clear that the Liverool neighborhood isn’t working in its current form. This is why we’ve been having engagement with the community and we’ve listened to you and listened to people who like the scheme as well and we’ve released some proposals of how we think the EBLN should be improved. We are continuing to listen and will soon launch our own survey which will help us inform our views further including on some contested parts of the scheme. Not everyone would be happy with our initial proposals with a scheme as controversial as the EBN EBLN. That’s given. This is an attempt to reach a middle ground and bring the community together. By rem removing some of the planters in Barton Hill and installing AMPR cameras, we could get the best of both worlds. No rat running, but residents are able to access access their homes. By turning off bus gates, the Barton Hill businesses may not lose on as much trade. These are surely worth consideration. And for any politicians who want to dismiss his concern as just politics, I would encourage everyone to read the Wellspring Settlement statement. The fact that an organization for the local community is extremely concerned should set off alarm bells. They have no motive serving their community. Well, springs say that the feedback from the local community by the EBL is being dismissed as fundamentally in opposition to the scheme and as a result constructive feedback is not being listened to. This is a huge cause for concern. Something needs to change. I appreciate the Greens aren’t too keen on listening to Labour counselors, but I hope they will listen to the community. The Greens have already acknowledged they have to make changes to the South Bristol Liberal Labor. So, why can’t they do the same for East Bristol? I do not know. So I hope your concerns are listened to, taken on board, and changes are made. Thank you, Kaz. Nick, thank you. Okay, so unlike the South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood, we’ve got a a paper trail on this one. So this definitely did come from the last labor administration approved in March 2023. Uh so uh 23 I’ve got the papers in front of me. Um so the and as is traditional of uh of that cabinet system it gave extensive delegation to officers over the details and I think that is perhaps the cause of this great confusion uncertainty about what is approved what’s got political support and what hasn’t because that’s allowed things like exactly how does the assessment work to be to be decided um by officers um as as they are rightly delegated. to do so by that paper. However, it gives the impression just um doing a six-month trial and then leaving the thing in place of permanence that it’s going to be there forever. And that’s the undercurrent that there’s something we don’t know about has always been a problem with this scheme over the last year, the time that I’ve been on the council. Now, I don’t own a car. I’ve cycled here today as I often do. I I should be an obvious supporter, especially of something called a livable neighborhood, but I can I am still uncomfortable about what what we’re doing and every time that we discuss this without a proper paper in front of us, I continue to be uncomfortable about what the council is doing here. So the where we’re at now then is that we have collected six months of data and that is to be assessed as a paper to come to committee that is on the forward plan for March 2026. Perhaps that decision could be brought forwards earlier. I I know it takes a bit of work to write papers. We want a proper job, but does it need to take the the full six months? We’ve got a meeting uh two meetings before then. or if the decision is going to be a full 12 months after implementation, do we use the longer data set rather than just cut at 6 months, use the extra data that gets made in between times. So I’ll uh I’ll conclude there saying I think lots of people want to support the ideas of livable neighborhoods, but we have done ourselves absolutely no favors on the implementation of these two projects to date. Thank you, Nick. Uh Jonathan, thank you, chair. Um yes, I um previously expressed many of my uh reservations about the South Bristol Liverpool neighborhood and those um apply equally uh to the East Bristol Liverpool neighborhood. Um there seems to be um a great weight of public opinion that’s been uh presented to uh to full counsel. Um there’s been uh petition, there’s been statements, there’s been questions. Um so certainly the evidence that I’ve seen um indicates that this is um an unpopular scheme. I’ve uh Uh, I’ve obviously not spoken to everybody that lives in the East Bristol Liverour neighborhood area, so I don’t know whether or not it commands majority support. Um, but the evidence that I’ve seen and I have spoken to people who live in the area uh seems to uh indicate that it doesn’t. Um, but I think there’s uh only one way through this. Um, I think we have to find out whether or not it commands majority support and that means giving everybody a vote on it. If if the if the majority say it should remain, it should remain. If the majority say that they do not support it, then it should be removed. And I think that that’s the only way through this. Um, we’ve pretty much used up all the we’ve used up all the time and more. But I did see one a hand from David Wilcox. So, and if anyone else wants to very I mean, can you keep it really short, David? And if anyone else uh who hasn’t spoken yet wants to say anything, then let me know. Yeah, I’d just like to clarify a point that councelor Self made about the uh initial consultation. We need to remember that was actually run under a labor administration according to their uh guidelines and we worked on that and created the scheme as a result of that and that’s the scheme that was deployed. The in fact the TRO’s were made permanent and signed off before the last election and unfortunately in order to reverse any permanent TRO you need to go through a TTRO process again. So um that’s where we are once again. Once again, the the top the the topic of the debate, the petitioner’s views, the policy committee’s views will be referred to me, and I will send a formal response to the petitioner after the meeting, and that will be published on the internet. I’m going to suggest that we’ve already been here for some time. We have a 10-minute comfort break if that’s okay with everyone. And uh I look forward to seeing you in uh what time is it now? So, uh, let’s say, uh, 1840 to resume this meeting. And I’d like to thank all the members of the public. You’re welcome to stay. I suspect you probably had enough already of democracy. Um, so, uh, so, uh, please do do feel free to stay, but we, uh, do also feel free to leave. Thank you very much. full 10 minutes. Um, particularly like to thank officers for their patience. Uh, it’s going to be a it’s going to be a long night, isn’t it? So, thanks officers. Um, right. Agenda item seven, management and mitigation of the CRSTS scheme delivery. I don’t know if someone maybe just go and close the door. Thanks, Phil. Um, this this report agenda item seven is for noting only. The purpose of the report is to update on the likely short-term in impacts of constructing the city region sustainable transport settlement schemes and the mitigation measures being put in place to minimize direct disruption. Uh the deadline for all the schemes is uh end of March 2027, but we’ve recently been informed that the DFT will permit some limited construction past this date up to March 2028, but their expectation is still that most funding must be spent by March 2027. We’ve had quite a lot of speeches and and so on today and I’m actually going to make a bit of a statement now before um I invite officers uh to speak. Um CRSTS is an unprecedented 540 million pound investment in sustainable transport across the region. We’ve been working with mayoral combined authority also known as wcker uh and our partner unitary authority since its announcement in 2021 to invest it wisely in transformational projects. Last week, Wcker made some adjustments to CRSTS with Bristol getting a reduced amount. Uh the forward plan for this committee published on the 23rd of September has a new agenda item for December called CRSTS budget re reallocation to respond to this change and this challenge. Whilst this is in some ways disappointing for Bristol, it reflects the fact that our constituent unitary authorities are constructively working together for the good of the region as a whole and our focus now has to be to continue on project delivery. The paper before us shows all the comprehensive work that our officers have been doing to ensure that all the individual contracts are managed well and moreover coordinated across the program both to ensure we deliver and to ensure we bring in significant additional capacity to manage the highway network throughout the program so that any potential disruption is kept to a minimum. It’s positive and telling that both heads of service have put their names to this paper and it reflects the high level of internal collaboration between teams and disciplines to meet the unprecedented opportunity to transform the network and especially our public transport offer. I have every faith that we’re gearing up to deliver well and to support our city to grow and to develop. Most of all, we needed to prepare for our ongoing success as a city and all the extra journeys that a growing population will bring. We know there’ll be some disruption as we deliver projects that the city needs and we will need to work behind the scenes, back office to coordinate and front of house to communicate with the public as we deliver this ambitious program. So, I’m pleased to announce as part of this agenda item, our new website, Bristol on the Move. It’s a one-stop shop to find out more about our three main transport corridor projects funded by CRSDS, including the city center, the number two bus route, and the A4 potway. how construction work could affect journeys and how to access incentives like free bus vouchers and bike loans. The website will make it easier for people to understand what’s happening and why and access information while we’re in the construction phases. A backdrop to all this is that the combined hall authority has been working hard with all constituent councils to improve its key relationships, governance and purpose as part of recovering from the best value notice last year. This makes it more important that we are giving Whiteall confidence in our ability to deliver and collaborate. As such, I look forward to constructive challenge on all our full business cases from the combined authority. But I ask that all feedback is timely and issued within the time scales and project milestones already agreed by their project assurance team. We cannot delay this work. I note that some of the transport for city regions fundings has already been committed to the CRSTS over programming. we collectively agreed through the combined authority and I look forward to collaborating to allocate the remaining611 million pounds that’s been allocated not including match funding to deliver an agreed transport vision that will be published soon. This level of funding is such an opportunity to continue our transport transformation. We simply must not allow parochial concerns or party politics to get in the way. Our residents and businesses deserve nothing less. But I do have one serious concern. When we delivered Greater Bristol bus network, the bus operators were part of the bid. When we delivered Metro Bus, we ensured that we had a quality contract in place which was as close to franchising as we could get at that time. Both have been highly successful projects which shows that we can deliver impactfully. We have no such agreement in place for our current transformation plans. We need to get on with franchising our buses therefore as soon as possible. I know the other unitary authorities feel the same. The question is not whether but how. Anyway, I now hand over to uh Adam and Duncan to introduce this paper. Thank you. Um Duncan, do you want to introduce yourself and then and then the paper? Yes, thank you very much chair. So for those you haven’t met me, I’m Duncan Vennis, network operations group manager um basically responsible for the highway network. So the CSTS program will introduce significant changes to Bristol as we just heard from the chair. The likes of which that haven’t been seen for many many years. These changes will increase the sustainable travel in Bristol, making it easier to walk, cycle, and travel by public transport as well as improve the public realm for all to enjoy. The aim being to increase those who travel to, from, and around Bristol sustainably. With several schemes being developed for completion in 2027, the next couple of years will see significant construction works in the central area, as well as some strategic corridors such as the A4 and A37. During the construction period, there may be reduced capacity on the network as lanes and routes are closed to allow the space required to construct the schemes. Possible increases in journey time should therefore be anticipated. During the construction, pedestrian routes will be maintained or they may be diverted. Cyclists will be accommodated either on existing routes or where it isn’t possible will be accommodating the carriageway. Bus routes will be maintained throughout the works with temper provisions made where required for things such as bus stops. Mitigation measures will be put in place throughout the works period as detailed in the report to ensure those that have no option other than to use private car can make their journeys whilst those that do use sustainable transport options continue to have reliable journeys. It’s expected that modal shift required to ensure these schemes are successful will start to occur during the construction period. This modal shift must then continue to offset the increases in population growth in and around Bristol. These CRS schemes will change Bristol and ensure its transport network continue to meet the growth needs of sustainable transport. Thanks Dan. Um you’ll no doubt be glad that I’m not going to go through a 17page um presentation for you. Um there’s a lot of slides attached to the paper that sets out our approach to how we’re managing all of these different schemes and different work. Um setting our our experience, how we utilize the operation center, what we’re doing with public transport. Um how we then resourcing ourselves as well. So we’ve got a construction manager in place and we’ve also got some traffic management specialist company support who are drawing up um traffic management plans in advance so we can see how they all coordinate. Um we’ve got extra highway network um programming resource and we’re doing a lot of engagement with contractors to to understand how they would build the schemes. Um and then we’ve also done some analysis of of how the schemes might interact with each other. So so we’ve set out how York Road has impacted the the network and how that has been how we’ve managed to localize that to to the area around York Road. Um and then we’ve looked at the the kind of main areas of work. So Park Street, Triangle, um Union Street, uh Bedminster and Redcliffe. And we’ve done some analysis using TonTom data um to show that actually that the city center is generally a destination. There is there is a throughout element which is generally via Kabat Circus. So if you kind of think of it as a bit of a tea, you’ve got stuff that goes to and from Kabat Circus and M32, but generally most of the other trips are coming in two locations in the city center. So for example, if you’re driving in via Bminster Bridges, you’re very very unlikely to be driving up to um Park Street and the Triangle. So I think what our evidence demonstrates is that there isn’t much um linked impact between those two key areas. What we do however find is that there is quite a lot of traffic from each of those areas going to the Cab Circus area. So what we’re proposing to do is delay the bomb streak scheme which is around cab circus um between uh the James Barton and the M32 until we are well advanced with the other schemes because we can do with the the changes to the the spending rules. So as councelor Clouden said we still the DFT’s intent is that we still spend as much money as possible by March 27 which is what we’re still pushing to do. Um the bond street scheme is a relatively small scheme so we’re looking to delay that until March 27. Um and then we have until the paper says March 28, but they’ve actually agreed till March 29th. So we have two full years following that once we’re in contract to deliver the remainder of of the scheme. So that’s the kind of main mitigation we’re doing to to separate the impact of the works. But obviously all the stuff we’re doing in the background with the Bristol on the move website um use of uh working with first working with the combined authority and all the other things we put in place are key to how we’re going to manage the city center through through the period of delivering all these schemes. Thanks uh Tim. So uh I think we do question I’m assuming that we’ve got questions for officers first and then any comments people want to make uh from there. Is that right? Um yeah. Um the first thing I was going to say is um Bristol on the move looks looks excellent. Um, I did call I think at a previous committee for for us to be readvertising the reasons why we’re doing some of this and I think this, you know, this is a great way to do it. I was just going to ask having done all this work to to produce this, are we going to make sure that people get to know it’s there and and see it? You know, what are we doing um to sort of communicate on that? Yeah, we’re we’re obviously running a comprehensive coms campaign and and we’ll be highlighting every opportunity we can to direct people to to that website. Um, it is often difficult to get people to information that they really want at times. So, so that is is a key element of of what we’re doing is to engage with people and and get them to visit the the website and understand what’s happening and that will be reinforced um throughout all the programs. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Adam. and Duncan for presenting the report. So, Bristol on the Move is live now. We’ve been perusing it here for a couple of minute a couple of minutes now. Um, I’m just going to ask about the granularity of the communications you’re going to be putting out over it because one of the the issues that we found out uh with Muller Road phase one, which was quite a a large scale um project was that um residents thought that nothing was actually happening on the on the roadworks there for long periods of time. So, can we make sure that there are status updates about each individual project published regularly so that we don’t have accusations of uh contractors not doing any work on the site for weeks on end that we had on Muller Road phase one. Please, it reminds me of um uh pledge right at the beginning of the May uh Marvin Reese’s uh uh tenure of no idol roadwork. So um but yes in I mean I think one of the the key points I would make um if you look at Victoria Street for example it’s very evident all the work going on there on a continual basis um the way we are managing and awarding contracts we’ve evolved that as well in terms of how we are challenging contractors to deliver at pace and to resource schemes appropriately and then holding them to account on that basis. Um so that that’s a key factor of it. That said, there are always things like if you put a concrete bus pad down, you’ve got to wait for a few weeks for the concrete to cure before you can do anything around it. So, that can be confusing, but yeah, I think it’s it’s a very good point to keep regular updates on where schemes are and what they’re doing. We’ll certainly ensure that gets fed in. You may may have noticed on the Bath Bridges that it actually has a big sign on both sides of the tent which says um people working underneath the bridge because uh it was very obvious that people were there in numbers every single day but most recently they’ve been underneath so we put big signs to make people aware of that. Uh Emma’s next. Thank you. Um yeah echoing just been looking at the website and it it looks great. Um so a couple of things obviously um yeah it’s about sort of mitigating when those those road works are taking place and also modal shift and I just I’m very very cautious around modal shift as you go into winter because it’s sort of the time where it’s the hardest to you know people who are maybe thinking of moving away from private cars to to to bikes or even to buses when it’s dark when it’s cold, especially if it’s dark, and that also impacts maybe women as well. Um, so I just wondered if if you’d had any thought about how weather and and sort of time of year is impacting this and if that’s had any influence on some of the sequencing. Um, so the the major the majority of the kind of major impacting schemes currently planned to start in sort of springtime, right? Um so yeah, you you’ll get that opportunity to understand how the road works are going to impact people before you get to the to the winter period. Um generally bus use certainly is higher during the winter months than it is during the summer months which is different to cycling and walking which tend to be the other way around. Um obviously we’ll be doing lots of this comm’s campaign in advance to to get people thinking about what alternative options are available. Um we’ve um I know from from other schemes they’ve they’ve made an assumption that a comm’s campaign like this can achieve something like a 15% reduction in in car trips depending on on how you how you manage it. So the comm’s campaign is really key to to ensuring that that that we get all of this to to work well. Some of the schemes that we’re proposing will um deliver some of that behavior change up front. So um the part triangle scheme for example would provide a benefit to buses up front early on in the scheme so that you you get that that improvement embedded um immediately so you can start getting the modal shift happening even while the scheme is is being built. So um there’s there’s lots of different things that that play into it. Ultimately there is going to be some congestion. It’s going to take time for people to adjust their their their modes. Um but we’ll be doing everything we can to assist people with with um adapting to the to the road works and how things are changing. Great. Thank you. I’ve got Nick and then Cass. Thanks. Uh two questions. One on the master plan and one on on cycling. So Ed, did you just say um there was a soon to be an announcement of 600 million of agreed investment across the uh the region? I thank you for for letting us know that but like to have been part of the process. Uh this was announced by the Conservative government and then reannounced by the Labor government. So it’s been around for some time transforming city regions. So we don’t have um we don’t have a program yet. Um we be submitting with the combined authority a very high level outline program um at the end of this month and then more detailed program uh I think later this year. So is the program a series of proposals um um not not at this stage? No. Um there aren’t a list of proposals within within the program. So um we’ve had a previous meeting with um committee and councilors on TCR ambitions. Um, we are looking at how Yeah. Yeah. You were there, Nick. Like that that was an hour and a half phone call. Um, that and we Yep. But but we didn’t have a vote or a any kind of decision at the end of it. No, no, not not a formal not not a formal paper. We’re nowhere near that stage as yet. Um, we will then be looking to see how we can incorporate councelor’s views further into the development of this high level plan. Um we’re working with the combined authority to understand when we’re going to get to the stage of getting towards more detail. At the moment it will be high level pots of as as was in the in the announcement mass transit rail bus services etc. Well okay so if you think that sorry if if the administration believes that the engagement with councelor’s box has been ticked that was not what I was hoping. No, no. And I’ve we actually um we are going to run another workshop, but um we are Wcker is in the lead with this. We’re working with WA and uh we’ve already the paper that went to the WA committee last week um identified how much of the over program from CRSDS is going to be carried into TCR, but that’s about the limit of it. And um Weter then delegated the authority to u move forward TCR to uh officers and we will absolutely be doing all we can to do that in as transparent and collaborative uh way as possible both working upwards sideways and within Bristol. So then do we have um a a proper series of engagement sessions towards the um the movement plan which is due to be voted on in February but presumably needs to be um co-designed with members of this committee before then. It’s probably the sort of thing we should have a task and finish on. We don’t have a task and finish group on on the movement plan, but um I’m sure we’ll be um sending out plans to consult on on on it as we develop it. Okay. All right. Um my second question is about um access for cyclists during construction as I think that was highlighted as something which is work which is planned for and has been done in the past. Um I I do observe that in Park Street the the prince the work that we’re doing right now the highway has been maintained the pavement has not been maintained it’s been moved into the cycle path so the one mode which has been excluded is cycling and also Victoria Street that has made for a very unpleasant experience cycling to the station for me um there’s an opportunity for a contraflow coming back but there there isn’t so what is the plan to to maintain maintain cycle facilities during these road works so we don’t go backwards while we’re attempting to improve them. We’re certain you’re well aware of the road user hierarchy um and we’ll certainly prioritize based on that. So making sure that pedestrians have very very clear routes and safe routes is obviously the main priority for us. Carrying out these works we are going to have take up highway space. A lot of the sustainable schemes that we’re putting in are going to provide additional measures for you walking, cycling, and also public transport. To build that, we’re going to have to reduce the highway space there. Where possible in my introduction, we will try and maintain as much as we possibly can um of existing infrastructure. That may not be possible. Where we can’t maintain infrastructure, then we’ll make sure that um on street there are clear signing. We’ve done this before for schemes such as Temple Circus where we advise cyclists to either take up a central position in lanes um vehicles not not to overtake etc. We will do what we can to make sure that we can maintain um cycle routes but I cannot sit here and promise that we’ll be able to do that when we are taking up um and reducing that size of the highway network to deliver the schemes for the ultimate benefit of cyclists in there. I’ve just I want to say obviously thank you for the paper. Um there’s a lot going on in the city and it’s really encouraging to see the thinking about how we can keep moving. So I welcome the uh the new website. I haven’t actually looked at it yet myself but as councelor Wilcox said you know people um are interested in these sort of things. Um when we looked at the um roads gone on on the A418 this says this will take two years um if as counselors we’re able to answer some of the questions that come to us that’d be very useful. Um my only question was really a little detailed point on page 19 about the um evidence base. You talk about 55% active travel 25% public transport and 20% car use is required and a university study. Um, I’d be very keen to get a copy of that university study and to know where we are today with those numbers, where we are and where we want to get to. Don’t have to answer that now. It’s more of a question you can come back to me on. So, which which slide was that on? Sorry. Page 19, evidence base and context. It talks about modal shift is essential. Okay. I I think it’s the study that was done a few years ago and informed the one city um target. So, uh there you go. Um we’ll make sure we take an action that um officers will send you a copy of that report. K. Does anyone else have any questions or comments? Tim. Yeah, just very quick one. Um it’s good to see that there’s been a bit of leeway given to us in terms of uh the spending on CRSTs because I know everybody raised that at several meet several of our past meetings. So it’s good to see there’s a bit of um movement there. Um obviously it’s really good as well that we have a paper and we’re clearly thinking about how we’re going to make all this work together. The proof will be in in the pudding as we know. So, um, you know, hopefully we’ll get updates on a regular basis to say how it’s going against how we thought it would go. Yeah, I’m happy to bring regular updates and um we can point outside hopefully when it’s when it’s all start being built to maybe take people of a tour when when some of it’s up and running as well. I think it’ll be good. And I’d like to see as much of that information put um as per David’s request that um um as much information as we can on how it’s going and uh why people might think not enough is happening uh put on our new website. Um okay, last one. Rob, it’s a very quick point. It’s just say thank you because I think we’ll get a lot of residents who obviously commute into the center, use the city center who will need to like understand the whole context. So that website is going to be invaluable when we’re writing back to residents to say this is what’s going on. So thank you for putting that together and I’ve been very keen that um through the disruption you know we’re managing it well which I think officers have demonstrated but also that we um we have built in the outcomes we want to see. So the outcomes and the benefits we want to see is a certain amount of modal shift. Well let’s try and achieve that through the works and I particularly been glad to see the way we’ve managed the Bath bridges. Um, and actually the bus company have told us they’ve not seen any significant delays on either the A4 or the A37 going into uh into Bristol because the bus lane brilliantly goes all the way up to the point at which it’s narrowed and so we haven’t seen that sort of delay. I apologize to the mo some of the motorists who’ve seen some delay. Uh uh we have to fix that bridge but it’s great to see that actually we’re prioritizing the road user hierarchy that Duncan mentioned. Thank you. So the recommendation is that we note this report except that we’re entering into a period of works that may cause delays and congestion. And uh we’re doing everything we can to mitigate the impact and uh also note that um the CRSTS schemes follow Bristol transport policy and the themes identified in the one city transport plan to promote and deliver sustainable transport to reduce the impact which is positive of city growth and city population growth. Right, let’s move on again. We’ve got residents parking scheme expansion. The purpose of this report is to set out the case for expanding our residents parking schemes. And it outlines how the implementation of RPS can support BCC in better managing parking and prioritize more sustainable uses of the curb site, reduce private vehicle trips and enhance safety and environmental quality across all wards. A costed delivery plan under uh underpins this report providing the basis for drawing down funding from relevant funding streams. This is a key decision report involves over 500,000 and impacts several wards. So Adam, would you like to out introduce and outline the report? Sure. Um there’s quite a lot of detail in in the report that um sets out the the background to RPS, the the elements that weren’t delivered from the original plans to to the north and the south. Um and then give some of the policy context as well. Um we also refer back to the um discussion we had at the previous committee where we talked about priorities for how we prioritize um new RPS schemes. Um, one of the things I wanted to highlight under challenges is about reviewing the current operation of residents parking schemes. So, um, we did a an RPS review um, under the previous administration and one of the things that was highlighted within that was the size of some of the residents parking scheme zones, whether they were too large. For example, we’re encouraging kind of cross zone trips. Um we’ve also had quite a lot of representations from specific kind of work sectors saying I really need a pass that enables me to go from RPS to RPS that wasn’t considered um viable in the original RPS. So that is something else that we want to consider as well. So there will be a wider review of the existing RPS in that sense looking at the RPS policy. Um and obviously there will be consultation on on the RPS schemes. So um generally the way it is there’s an informal consultation to say this is what we’re proposing to do and then there’ll be a statutory consultation on the on the TTRO. Um all that said we have the prioritization criteria. Um I’ll come to the finance bit in in a minute. Um and we’ve used that to draw up a delivery plan. Um one thing to highlight we have also included the parking charges on the downs which was a a separate um I think full council um or committee decision. It was committee. Yeah. um in order to um deal with some of the parking issues around the downs, people um parking there for long periods of time etc. um and and also to encourage more sustainable usage of of of the downs area. So um we’ll be looking at that as well in this context and then also the impact that that has on surrounding areas. So some of the priorities that we talked about previously were proximity to major trip generators. So um things like Ashton gate, the downs also being a large trip generator. Um so having said all that, we’ve used that criteria and we’ve come up with a delivery plan. Um I’m going to skip the development stages initially just to set out when we’ll be looking to do implementation. So implementation would start in 26 27 um and we’re looking at um Ashton Gate RPS um starting the Downs and Henley’s Westbury um Luckwell uh Parson Street um Totter Down. Oh, that’s implementation. Yeah. Um and Windmill Hill. Um so those are all implementation in 2627. Then in 2728 the implementation schemes would be Ashley. So that’s generally to the south in the first year then which links in with with SPLN. Then um we have uh Ashley down implementation in 2728 um along with um Ashton Veil Bishopston finishing downs and Henley’s Malag Veil Perro Park St. Andrews Upper Eastston and Totterown East. So one thing to note that we’ve swapped Upper Easton with St. Worberg. So the original RPS plan had St. Worbergs within it. Um there has been more demand for a uh an RPS in Upper Eastn which is um the area just to the east of Eastern Way um which does suffer from a lot of um problem parking. Um and then we have four slots in essence for scheme development. So we have three new RPS developments which we will seek views from counselors as as to what they should be. Um and then St. and were which has been moved from the earlier implementation phases into a later implementation phase. Um so just then covering the finances we’re asking for a total of 7.5 million or just over um some of that comes from existing section 106 allocations. Some of it comes from CRSTS um and then the majority of it just under 5 million um is coming from the clean air zone. The expectation being then that the um pay and display and some of the permit income and the PCN income repays the cost of that of those schemes back into the CAS fund. So that money is then re regenerated to be used again. Um so so that the the income from the schemes will be targeted to fill that hole in the first instance. So the recommendations then are to improve approve the undertaking of development of implementation work for those RPS areas as per the delivery plan. Um approving the spend of 7.5 million including allocating 5 million of clean air zone money. Um and then authorizing the exec director um with the chair to award the project line procurement routes um and progress the scheme development um alongside public consultation. So I’ve got Tim then David then Don. Yeah, thanks Adam. Um, yeah, we I think we have serious concerns about um this paper mainly uh around the fact that we’re spending5 million pounds of CAS money uh on expanding these RPS’s. Um in my opinion, there are better ways to help improve air quality connectivity in the city and remove cars off the road. Um, I think we could be spending that £5 million to provide a whole host of additional bus services or improved frequencies which would get people from outer parts of town into the center and then they wouldn’t need to to park in residential areas. Um, you know, it really is about5 million pounds of CAS money. Is this the best way we could spend it? And and in my opinion, uh, it it isn’t. We were also told, of course, that livable neighborhoods would would mean we don’t need RPS’s anymore. Um, and that was certainly what that as a as a local counselor in 2020 when I asked about RPS’s we were told we liveable neighborhoods are the way forward by well I don’t I didn’t want to um put anybody in the hot seat but by officers um so you know the fact that we’re now being told that you you have both in the same thing seems to be a bit of a contradiction there. Um I’ll leave it at that. So, I’m just going to reply to that that um we uh you may notice that South Bristol livable neighborhood the foundation stone is residents parking because we believe that quite the opposite is that actually the foundation of a good livable neighborhood is residents parking and I think I’d also like to say it’s very very clear in that paper that all that money will be coming back into CAS. still headroom in cans if if yeah I do know Ed that the the report says finance have not seen the evidence to quantify the time frame for this replenishment and I struggle to believe that our RPS’s are going to make £5 million to pay back into that pot certainly within any any reasonable time frame that we could be spending it on other things so that’s our view thank you chair and thank you Adam for your report uh I’d like to ask a clarification about the down parking charges on the downs and when these might actually be implemented because each of the yearly de development delivery plans mentioned something called the downs and I’m wondering when it might actually happen please. Um so as per discussions I think initially at the um curbside task and finish group there is a need to link the downs parking charges to RPS changes around the downs because obviously if you put parking charges on the downs people might park in those surrounding streets. So we’re looking at bringing forward those two together as as a project. The aim is to get the downs parking charges in um kind of in early 2027, but the expectation is it might be a bit later on in 2027. So we’ve got it over the 26 27 27 28 financial years. Um expectation being that it will be delivered in the in 2027. We’re aiming to get it as early as possible. It depends on I think on how quickly we can move through the the consultation and design development because it becomes quite a big scheme when you incorporate the RPS’s around it as well. I think it’s also worth mentioning that all of this is subject to consultation. Do thanks. Yeah, one of the, you know, and it’s highlighted in the report, one of the wellestablished risks of um RPZs is displacement. And uh I can certainly see some very very sensitive areas like around Southme Hospital um around the MEM etc etc where these are going to border on RPZs um they’re our wards of course interesting to look at the list of wards there but uh this is5 million pounds of CAS money CAS money is is like gold dust because it’s not ring fenced So you can use it for all kinds of things like buses and you could use it as a bargaining chip with WA for instance to improve our bus services and get cars off the road. Not to use it as for car parking for the most privileged areas of the city. I wouldn’t mind if I thought that the charges were going to be realistic, but you and I have differed on that in the past. I wanted them set at one level and you preferred them to be set at another level. I would prefer those uh charges to be set at a level where they brought in income for the highways authority from the people who can most afford to pay it. And that then that extra income went to fund our bus services rather than spending what we desperately need for next year. Okay, we may get it back, but we’re not going to get it back for years. it’s next April that we need the money for buses. Um, and that’s why I have enormous enormous problems with this this paper. So, next I’ve got Emma and Nick. Rob, thank you. Um, so it’s I just find it bizarre, you know. I mean, eight years of labor, they didn’t put a single one in and they’re carrying this on even though so many people have said that they want this. And not only that, when we did those inquiry days to the Liverpool neighborhoods, when you when you were the cabinet member for transport, we were saying we’ve done this research and that um that that residents parking is a good precursor to all of those other traffic calming livable neighborhood schemes. We we’re currently doing a curbside and parking strategy in a task and finish group. This has not been brought up that you that that that you don’t want to spend the money on this. This is going to provide bike hangers, uh extra trees, parklets, whatever. Um electric car parking. We need to get we need to get parking um controls in those areas before we can do all that stuff that we have. I thought we all wanted because they’re going to improve those streets. you helped devel you’re helping develop that policy and so I just find this backtracking very very very strange um as for the um you know the fact that it will it it spreads out absolutely which is why those areas who who are next to uh places where there has been a resident’s parking zone has suffered from that um I would love this to go quicker it’s a shame it’s not because I think some areas are going to struggle for a while um uh I’m very pleased to see that that I think we’ve uh discussed that that there will be more pay and display around high streets so that high streets don’t suffer. But this is this is stopping areas being car parks. It’s not making them car parks. They are already car parks because people park in them. They get the train. They get the bus. They get an e scooter in and they are using it as free car parking spaces. And I’m just a standard that you don’t want to challenge that in any way. That was direct. Would you mind if um I let Don just say something brief? You absolutely do not have to have residents parking zones in order to implement all those good things. We’ve put trees in in a mouth and we’ve taken away parking uh spaces. We’ve not installed a parking zone. You can put in cycle hangers without a parking zone. You can put in pocket parts without a parking zone. Making a parking zone is giving space to cars. There’s no link between that and all these other things which can happening in the East Bristol Liverpool neighborhood without a residence parking zone. All those good things are in there. This is something separate and it’s parking for people in the wealthier areas. I wouldn’t mind that if they were charged properly and I wouldn’t mind that if it wasn’t the money that should go to our bus services. Um when the transport planning society last came to Bristol, we had the uh quite a lot of the board there and I gave them a presentation about Bristol and they said the cornerstone of all transport policy is being able to control parking in cities. So I think this is a really progressive measure. I’m going to move on to Nick. Thanks. Um and I’ll be a lot more positive about this paper um than I often am. So I’d like to put it on the record that we haven’t discussed this with Nick at all. No backroom deals. This is I was asked by this committee not to talk about um uh residents parking in the task and finish group and that’s what I’ve done. I brought this committee and I’m sure Nick will agree to that that we haven’t discussed this offline or done any backroom deals or smoke fil rooms or anything like correct. Although I am very welcome to engagement as happens in a in a committee. But yeah, this I said at previous committees when we were talking about parking on the downs, if we were to charge for parking on the downs, which is something I’m still opposed to, then it’s absolutely necessary to put in controls around the downs to prevent the kind of overflow. And I’m very glad that Adam and the officer teams have recognized that in putting this paper together. I still don’t think that uh putting charges onto the downs right now is a good thing. We need to sort out our van dwelling policy which is on the way and we need a resident’s parking scheme. Glad to see that is also on the way. So if those deliver at the same time then we will reduce uh the uh the harm there and then further I think that there are benefits to uh to controlled parking and they pay for themselves. That’s the whole point in legislation that you’re not stealing money from a bus budget. You are borrowing to pay for a revenue generator. They are self-funding. That’s how residents parking schemes work. If we were to spend 50 million of um capital all in one go, then it would be gone. That would be a problem for next year. Whereas spending investing in a resident’s parking zone which pays for itself means you still have the money to spend on buses at the end of the process. Rob, thank you chair. Um I’m really excited we’re going to be able to deliver these schemes. You know, we’ve had eight years of complete failure to address the problem from the previous Labor administration, which is which is pretty bad. You know, they didn’t really listen to what people wanted. I mean, there’s loads of wards in the city who wanted this who who the local councils actively were receiving emails and and and and communications constantly to ask for these kind of schemes. So, it’s it’s just wild to me that you think that it’s a bad idea. Residents parking schemes or managed parking areas, as I could more accurately call them. I’m I’m I’m probably losing that battle of naming it, but there you go. Uh this is what they do. They discourage commuter parking in predominantly residential areas for no cost. It reduces car use and that over capacity at the curbside. They help with excessive vehicle ownership and storage. Um they that leads to more than is necessary and therefore increased more use than is necessary and thereby increased air pollution and carbon emissions. They help with that. They address the plight of pavement parking. Marked bays make people far less likely to pavement park when they know an area is being patrolled by CEOs, uh civil enforcement officers, what used to be called traffic wardens. um curbside electric vehicle charging becomes more of an option. Uh the increased likelihood there being capacity for cross pavement charging. Um and also they just feed into the curbside and parking strategy which you know two of the Labour councilors present today have been very actively engaging in and provided really good good feedback on how we want to do this. They they give us more ability to shift out car parking spaces for the for other more sustainable uses for bike hangers, scooters parking, parklet, sustainable urban drainage systems, all kinds of different things we can do if we have greater control over the curbside in a greater amount of Bristol. Um I do think it’s important to focus on areas expanding outwards as that’s generally been the trend with with these or at least the trend up until eight years ago. Uh but we have we have already heard from a few other wards. I think it’s interesting you’re talking about deals because you know we we know that that in Horfield for instance where there is a you know our labor counselors that there is demand for that. You mentioned already the hospitals you know we know that that’s a potential area that that might need a new one. So there’s you know three three spots available. I would I would encourage the labor counselors if they want a parking scheme to cover that area. We weren’t offered you got them all. Well that’s fine. But that’s the point isn’t it? Is if you want them there’s three spaces available. So, you know, that’s up to you whether you want to take them or not. Um, and and feed into that feed into that process. Um, the 27 to 28 delivery plan doesn’t have a full plan yet. So, that is a great opportunity for the Labor group to feed those ideas in. Um, the final thing, um, I just think that overspill that’s been mentioned, you know, there’s undoubtedly going to be overspill as a result of these schemes. um not least in the one we’ve taken out and the one we’ve put in if you see what I mean with the Murburg eastern change there might be some overspill there um but that just means we need to keep expanding honestly I mean I I know that it’s it’s a it’s a strange thing for a green to be talking about infinite growth uh but in this case we at least the boundaries of Bristol we do need to like keep thinking about how we manage parking across all of our streets not just the ones that happen to be in places as you maybe correctly say in some of the wealthier areas it’s not just about that it’s also about places like the bar Easton which aren’t aren’t particularly wealthy or at least not not uniformly and and think about how those people um have to deal with parking issues as well because it’s not just the wealthy people who do have to deal with this then Tim can we make it quick because I think we’re we’ve all been um so I’ll try and be as quick as I can you know I echo comments made about the £5 million we hear this evening about um in public forum about concerns about funding of buses going forward So, you know, putting buses on it’s a bit more carrot and a bit less stick. Uh, in terms of the the Downs and um, Henley’s um, you know, I thought one time that was going to come to the curbside and parking strategy and then that seemed to disappear and the downs committee, we know running a deficit. They’re not going to get any money from um, potentially from this parking that we’re going to charge on the downs. have concern about the downs and the way this is going to extend in Westbury and Henley’s perhaps even to to Southme one of the most deprived wards in the city I live in Henley’s I can’t remember any consultation from Libdem counselors in terms of whether I want a parking scheme in my area um so and in in terms of the in terms of the um we’re paying for it yeah and the curbside side and parking strategy. Yes, I am part of that, but we’ve had some um stakeholder feedback. Um I would have wanted to have seen a a proper strategy. If you look at Cardiff, for example, uh they’ve got a an announcement recently about a strategy to charge for uh heavy vehicles and polluting vehicles. They’ve got a lovely document on a resident parking scheme. But I’m really concerned that what we’re happening what’s happening here is we’re just extending this scheme out entire across the entire city city until we got the ultimate thing that some green counters want which is traffic to move to the countryside or to evaporate altogether. I think there’s very good evidence that combined with the greater Bristol bus network, residents parking schemes made for a massive expansion in bus usage in around about 2012 to 2015 to 2017. So much so that first bus were able to reduce the fair for me to get into town for example which is 2 miles from 285 to 150. That came on the back of the growth in patronage because of residents parking. For me, that is something that is sustainable and will drive people onto the buses in a good way rather than putting all the money into supporting bus services forever and a day using our public funds. So, that’s one of the reasons why I brought this paper here. And I’d also like to say that I did specifically go to the part uh the task and finish t it’s been a long day task and finish group for parking and curbside strategy. And we all agreed that we would bring a paper. We wouldn’t talk about residents parking at that task and finish group. We would bring a paper here. That’s what we’ve done. I am going to um just be clear that this is to approve the undertaking of development implementation work for RPS to commit money to it both from uh from various sources as Adam outlined and put in delegations uh to put that in place. I move the report. Would anyone like to second this? Uh, take your pick. Rob, go on then. Um, would uh who would like to vote in favor of this piece? So, that is Rob, David, Emma, Nick, and me. Who is against? We’ve got uh uh Cass, Don, Tim, and Jonathan. Um, so that’s carried. Let’s move on. So we’ve got CAS exemption and financial support package. This is to seek approval of a time limited exemption package for eligible residents with clean air zone non-compliant vehicles impacted by the introduction of a bus lane and bus gate on Queens Road as proposed uh as described in this report. Um it’s key decision report. It does uh relate to a decision affecting two or more wards. And Adam, would you like to just uh let cut to the chase and uh introduce this report? Yeah, sure. Um so this is about mitigating the impact of the bus gates in essence um to access Park Street um you without going through the bus gates you would need to go via St. George’s Road which is within the CAS. So um this paper is about a number of properties at the top end of Park Street which will be impacted by that um and then required to go into the CAS. So the proposal is to enable them an an exemption to um the bus gates in essence. So um a an ability to go through the bus gate to access their properties rather than having to go through the CAS. Um they would be initially time limited um as far as practical um and then that would be reviewed um in in future. Obviously the CAS won’t be there forever. Um that’s one thing to consider. Um the CAS itself has been in operation for quite some time and it’s now at the point where nine out of 10 journeys in the CAS are compliant. So that the levels of compliant vehicles have gone up significantly. Um the following groups of citizens will be eligible. Um so residents visitors to those residents properties are known to the resident. Um vehicles belonging to businesses operating from properties within the area defined in figure one. Um so operational vehicles in essence um informal carers and professional carers. Um other groups that will be eligible that will be impacted but won’t be eligible are business owners, employees, customers, delivery drivers, trades people, visitors to St. George’s Hall, the Georgian House Museum, Brandon Hill Park, um and blue badge holders. Um however, I think it’s important to note that there will be alternative um uh options for for blue badge holders. So um obviously people can pay the daily CAS fee. Um they can park outside of the CAS. So you got West End car park which is 500 meters away. You got St. um you’ve got disabled parking bay which plays on triangle south as well which is part of the um the part street scheme. Um and also there is the um financial assistance financial support process which is um currently set at £30,000 and is under review to keep in place with inflation. So that enables people that are eligible to seek financial support to upgrade their vehicle and all blue badge holders are always um uh included in that. So are able to seek that financial support. Um so that’s kind of one of the main um elements. I think it’s also worth noting that obviously um those properties are right on the edge of the CAS at the moment. So um will have already been making decisions about whether to upgrade their vehicle being that close to the CAS um and in terms of kind of exemptions and such like we need to ensure that what we’re doing is is the same across the whole of the of the clean air zone. So there were a number of other options considered um not doing anything which we um felt wouldn’t be reasonable. So we wanted to bring forward um some exemptions to mitigate this impact. Um temporary time limited bus lane and buskate exemptions for compliant non-compliant CAS um a business CPZ CAS exemption bus lane and bus gate removal relocation and delay implementation. Um all of those the reasons for rejection those are set out in the paper. So the recommendation is to approve the preferred option of offering a time limited exemption um one year from the date of opening of the bus lane and bus gates um and financial support packages for those eligible citizens with non-compliant vehicles who were impacted by the introduction of the bus lane and bus gate at the northern end of Park Street. Just reminding ourselves that it’s still proposed and not yet a done deal and still certain uh hoops and yeah this is all should the Park Street um triangle scheme be implemented. David, thank you chair and thank you Adam for your report. Um the report suggests that there is uh financial support available for people to upgrade their vehicles. Um the council website page about clean air zone financial support talks about a package of 42 million pounds. I’m assuming that that uh figure needs to be updated. well needs to show how much has actually been spent so that that we can have an idea about what is left in that financial package. I think that would be useful please. So there is based on our analysis um sufficient funding left within that pot to to provide um vehicle upgrades. There is essentially more more than enough funding within there um based on the the number of people that apply for the financial support. So um we are in you know in discussion about how that funding is used and and there will be an update on that um coming through. Um but yeah there is definitely sufficient funding to enable vehicle upgrades. So has has that the financial support closed for the rest of the clean air zone or can people still apply? Uh it’s it’s still open and and I say we’re in we’re in discussions about how that can be um used going forwards as well. I think that would be something positive to do. Thank you. Yeah, thanks Adam. Can you explain how the the mechanics of people are exempted how that will work? So they would have an exemption to the bus gate at the top end of Park Street. So the way they can access their properties at the moment um without going through the clean air zone is only via the top end of Park Street. So there would be a exemption to the bus gate. So that number of vehicles would go on like a a gray list um in terms of the bus lane enforcement cameras. So if they drive through there, they wouldn’t be issued with a ticket. Um once in, they can exit northbound because there isn’t a bus gate proposed northbound to exit Park Street. If they want to go southbound or come from the south, they have to go through the CAS anyway. So they would be um paying the CAS charge either way. So the technology will identify him as somebody living in that area and as a result it won’t issue them with a with a ticket. Yeah. So that’s technology that we do have available which could be applied to other bus gates. It it already is because we’ve given exemptions to blue badge holders and other exemptions in East Bristol which weren’t in place before uh uh weren’t in place under the previous administration. So that was a question. I have got a comment. Can I do you want me to make that now as well? Um yeah, a bit of a concern on this that this wasn’t raised at the time that we debated the Park Street Scheme. Um because it could have, you know, it is a a factor that maybe people might have needed to take into account when they were deciding on on that scheme. So a bit bit of a disappointment that that didn’t happen at the time. Um, as you know, we we abstained on the scheme at the time. Um, I think that’s a fair comment. I think it’s also fair to say that uh this was particularly resident us responding to residents concerns as we hope to for both South Bristol and East Bristol Liverpool neighborhood. Um, residents came to us, we realized there was an anomaly and so we’re trying to do something about it. So, this is specifically us listening to the concerns of residents uh based on the proposals that were voted through on this committee. And I appreciate you say it’s probably only one in 10 vehicles now that’s that’s not um that is yeah not compliant with the CAS but I do still have a worry um particularly in terms of disabled people visiting um Park Street who can now only access it through the CAS and some of them will have old old vehicles that they haven’t been able to replace. Um getting up to places like St. George is um you said about parking outside and then mentioned 500 m. Well, that is a long distance for somebody who is disabled to to travel. So, I would particularly like us to look at whether there’s any way of offering exemptions towards um you know, blue badge holders or or or something that we can do for those people. So on our forward plan, we’ve got uh bus gate exemption policy coming and uh that’s probably the time when we have that discussion and that will be before these bus gates go. Should I move it? Uh I move that uh we approve the approach to future delivery. Oh no, sorry, wrong. uh prove the preferred option of offering a time limit exemption one year from date with uh with a review and uh at that point and financial support package for eligible citizens and non-compliant vehicles. Who would like to second that? David. Uh so can I have a uh in favor? That’s uh Jonathan. I’m not going to read everyone. Can you see that? Do you want me to read everyone’s? Uh no. Rob, David, Emma, and Ed against and abstaining. That’s Nick, Cass, Don, Don, and Tim. Let’s move on. Agenda item 10, cycle hanger policy. This is to seek approval to enact a target policy outlined further in the in the policy paper for the delivery of new cycle hangers up to 2030 and adopt the proposed position. Um I think it’s worth saying that um quite a lot of the target is not funded. Uh but what we want to do is make sure we’ve got good policy in place like we did with residents parking last time um to um make sure that we can uh when when funding is available that we can get on and uh deliver it according to the priorities set out in in in here. So I don’t know if you you want to Yeah. So the the aim of the paper is to seek approval for the policy which will um seek to deliver at least 400 additional cycle hangers by 2030. So we’ve got 102 existing cycle hangers. Um priority will be delivery for social housing in areas experiencing higher deprivation um especially neighbored areas with high household occupancy of terrorist flat shared converted or commercial property types. Um that’s that’s the kind of policy for how many as as council plen says there is some funding already secured through the latest active travel fund. Um we expect there to be further funding coming forward. So we’re seeking approval to spend up to4 million pounds on delivery of those 400 cycle hangers. Um and that’s yeah that’s in essence what the report is is asking for and there’s huge amount more to say on it. Yes. So when I saw this paper, my first reaction was that4 million pounds was a lot of money to be spending up to 2030. But um I looked at in more detail when we look at what we spend on footways and carriageways just in one year. 1.3 million long footways, 6.2 million long carriageways. Um so I I I became uh a bit more warm to it at that point. Um but we need you good highways to encourage people to cycle as well. So um we need to sort of be fitting in potholes and stuff like this. So um it’s not just about cycle storage but also cycling infrastructure. Um the one thing I did want to pick up on was the 7% gap between the most deprived dies desile and the city average of people cycling once a week. Um and the high deprivation you mentioned and I think the issue was the sort of geographical distribution. Now I understand that’s maybe coming from houses of multiple occupation and stuff like that. It was very s concentrated on the sort of central part. I’m just wondering because I I was at a place in South just um a couple of weeks back a block of flats, threetory flats where some of the cycles was being stored in the um corridors. I just wonder if maybe we can look at the whole city for more cycle storage um as well, but I appreciate obviously the main issue is the typical terraces with the people the cycles in in the hallways. That’s the only point I wanted to make. Yeah, and certainly we’ll include that. Obviously, um we do want people to come forward with suggestions for where they want cycle hangers. I think we’ve cited that there’s 500 locations suggested so far. So, this would enable us to deliver all those locations. Um but yeah, also we need to be going out and practically installing them in in places where people are going to need them. There is, you know, different types of housing across the city and and that tends to lead to more demand in certain areas. So, one of the other authorities in the area um handed some money back because they didn’t have enough demand because the way their housing is, they it didn’t generate that demand. So, um yeah, there are some complexities to it. Thanks. Um I’m in favor of installing cycle hangers. I remember when I’d lived in my slightly smaller terrace house, uh applying for a cycle hanger and obviously not getting it because we weren’t installing any back then. Um, now I’m in a slightly larger terrace house and I leave them in the shared hallway. But what um what I’m asking is about how our priority list has been worked out. Obviously, we want people to start cycling who are currently driving and where the barrier is. They don’t have anywhere to store the bike because of the arrangement of their house. So that suggests that areas with high household occupancy of terrace, flat, shared, converted and commercial property types, that’s the most important. So why is social housing prioritized above that? Um so I think social housing is often designed without that storage space. And um as as someone else mentioned there is a fairly significant difference between cycling rates in um the lowest decile and the highest decile. Um and you know I think cycle safe cycle storage is has a part to play in that. So, you know, it’s it’s not just saying we’re just going to do it in social housing, but we need to be aware that those are areas that that need um cycle hangers as well where like a lot of the newer um housing and newer flats will have cycle stores built in because we insist on them through planning. Um that’s often not the case in some of the older blocks and and particularly in some of the social housing blocks. So you’re saying that social housing isn’t a uniform block that there are some places which maybe are terrace flats, shared converted or commercial property types that would need it. So that suggests that the the decider is not the tenure of the house, it is the the nature of the dwelling. So why put tenure ahead of the the type of dwelling? I think the the policy is talking about the type of dwelling as as certain types of dwellings um don’t have good cycle storage ability and it’s identified that social housing is one of those types of of dwellings and that there is a deficit in um Okay, I appreciate We’re talking about like blocks of of flats where we’ve installed them previously and they’ve been um very well very well received um in terms of providing that safe cycle storage for people and and it’s not all about um getting people to get out of cars and cycle. It’s giving people access to to more modes of of of getting around because you know we we know a lot of the um the more deprived people in the city don’t have access to a car. Um if they don’t have access to a bike that gives them even fewer options. So, you know, it’s not just getting people out of a car, it’s giving people that that wider accessibility to to transport options. Um, you might want to think about an amendment to this, but uh if if that’s what you’re concerned by, you may want to propose a change to that. Um, I’m uh who’s next? Rob, I’m interested. I think you made a good point. Um, but um what I was going to ask are two different things. Uh I’m a big supporter of this and I I’ll vote for it and I’m not a skeptic of the policy. I’m a skeptic of just this policy because is really important obviously that people have access to secure storage near their homes but I’m also concerned that we might not be putting so much into on street and you know uh cycle stands at places where people go. I mean my own experience is it’s just very frustrating in certain places around Bristol to kind where you high streets even sometimes you know places where you think people are going to come come on their bike and they haven’t necessarily got somewhere to lock. So it’s both it’s both sort of home homes and and addresses that need it there close to them and that’s why the cycling policy is great but I also think we need to just do something about that. The second thing is just um eventually it feels right to me that this is something that’s paid for at the moment, isn’t it? The cycle hangers. So you have to pay a fee to to do this. Feels to me if we’re trying to encourage people, particularly we’re thinking about those um places you were talking about where people perhaps have are on lower incomes. It would make sense eventually to have the aim of making it so that they don’t have to pay for use of the cycle hangers. I understand that’s not probably feasible now, but I think it should be kept in mind. So those are the two points I’d make. But yeah, I’m interested to hear about in terms of how we are thinking about public bike stands as well as the cycle hangers. So obviously when we do schemes um we put in significant um bike parking as as part of that. We don’t tend to get big slugs of of money from the government to say put in Sheffield stands. Um I was speaking to the team about this and there are um there are certain companies developing um uh like cycle stores that you can use in city centers where you use your card or your phone etc to to access them and pay for it. So that’s something else that we’re we’re looking at as a slightly different thing rather than a kind of council promoted thing. it’s it’s how can we bring that sort of option forward for somewhere like Broadme so you have that safe cycle um facility so yeah that is a gap that we are looking at alongside of this this policy um and and as I say throughout our schemes we will put um cycle cycle storage in just for the record um Glasgow are doing a thing now where um there’s public access to cycle hangers and so I’ve asked the team to look into that I’ve also asked the team to look into if we’re going to if we are doing all the sort of via surveys and everything to put in a cycle hanger whether or not we could put in a couple of Sheffield stands next to that. So, that’s something I’d like the team just to have a look at is making sure that we’ve got the Sheffield stands right next to the um the hangers. I’m uh I’ve got lots of hands going up. So, I’ve got David next and then is it David next? Uh then Tim, then Don, then Emma, then Jonathan. Okay. All right. Well, why don’t we go Don, Emma, Jonathan? Um, was there anyone else? Thank you. So, when we had the previous roll out, Adam will remember that it was it wasn’t our strategy, but there wasn’t much of a strategy. It was loudest voice and you know, we know we know where the how the spread of those cycle hangers went as a result of those who are most computer literate and those who’ve got the most expensive bikes obviously being the first to demand the hangers. So very much support the approach which we tried and has worked of getting those in or near our tower blocks where cycles are and those of us who go in and out regularly find them in blocking fire escapes tied to doors and things and kinds of things going on because you know as as Adam said for some people their bike is an absolute necessity. It’s all the transport they’ve got, but they seriously don’t have anywhere to store it that is safe. So, they have to we’re telling them don’t put it in the fire escape. And they’re saying I have to put it in a fire escape. So, I think this cuz this there isn’t there’s much granularity in this paper. What slightly concerns me is with the roll out of RPZs. first response is going to be, well, we need to see what spaces get the cycle hangers in there before we rent out all the rest of the space because we’re going to lose most of it then. Uh, what I’m saying is if you want to do that, that’s fine. It’s your street space in your wards. I can think of much nicer things to do, much more aspirational things to do. But don’t leave our social housing out and while you sort out your problems of your car parking down there because it’s really essential for many people. One of the other things I’ve asked the team to do is um make sure that residents parking zones are much more um the the TTRO is more flexible. So if we do want to put in uh you know take out one space for a tree or another space for a cycle hanger then that’s um oops that’s possible without necessarily changing the entire uh uh TTRO and I think that’s something with digital TRO is more easy to do more that’s a recurring theme isn’t it Tom um Emma I was going to talk about charging. So, um yeah, in terms of of sort of funding and putting funding back into this, you know, I mean, I absolutely agree that those areas certainly where people don’t have access to a car and we, you know, active travel is their travel. It’s like, you know, it’s not modal shift, it’s how they get around needs to take priority. Absolutely. I also know that there’s areas where geographically, which may be more affluent, but because of the geography, those places go like hot cakes. you say, “Oh, the cycle hanger, the spaces can be booked from 8:00 a.m. and by 8:30 they’ve all been snapped up.” So, I don’t see why we wouldn’t charge for those because, you know, as you say, we’re going to like if people are willing to pay it, is there a way then that that money can be then reinvested to allow more more cycle hangers for for for for social housing. So, current currently the fee that people pay pays for the maintenance of the of the cycle hanger. So it doesn’t generate any income to the council. Um you could look at um setting aside income from somewhere else to to fund it. So you know we talked about RPS’s earlier. You know in the future if you had spare RPS money you could say that’s going to pay for the cycle hangs. There’s lots of different ways you can you can do these these things. You know it’s all decisions about where money is being spent. I think if you look at some of the current um cycle hanger locations where they’re not in an RPS people have got a free parking space for their car but they have to pay to park their bike on the highway. So, you know, there’s there’s lots of things to consider when when you’re thinking about what to charge for and what not to charge for. Um, you know, that that is something for for counselor for committee to consider in future. I think um and and decide on what you’d want to do in regard to that. And I think I’m right in saying the price has actually come down, hasn’t it? Uh from when we first put them in 8 10 years ago, it’s now uh about 60% cheaper. Yeah. I mean, and and the places go very quickly, you know, it’s it’s very they are very popular. it shows there is a there is a huge demand for them. So um you know we we’ll be looking to roll them out as quickly as we can. It can be challenging with finding an appropriate space and that sort of thing but um I also agree with councelor Alexander we do need to make sure that they are put in places where people aren’t always shouting for them as well because you know think we need to have equity on it as well. Yeah absolutely thank you Jonathan last word. Yeah thank you chair. Um yeah thanks for the paper. Um yeah, so you’re um proposing a a citywide approach rather than um sort of limited local uh rollouts. Um have has the work been done on this to and you’ve identified the criteria um you know as to which um uh areas um would qualify. uh but have you actually done the detailed work which identifies where in the city these will go or is that something which will happen further down the line um if this gets approved? Um so there’s been a load of evidence brought together about where the need is in terms of um people people’s requirements um and where they’ve asked for them um and also where the types of property are that that would seem most in need of cycle hangers. Um, as I say, we have 500 requests for locations at the moment, and that will obviously be a key part in determining where where we put cycle hangers. Um, but there will be more targeted looking areas where we think they need to be put in place as well. I’m going to move the move this to a vote. Uh so the recommendation is we approve the approach to future delivery and the 2030 installation target and we authorize all the normal uh delegations which I’m not going to read out before. Uh would anyone like to second this? Emma and uh let’s uh so if you’re in favor show your hands now. Uh carried unanimously. Hooray. Yes. Yes. Right. uh we center line policy. So this is to seek approval from the committee on a policy position that um where we do not reinstate uh center lines by default following resurfacing. So road safety benefits can be realized uh by the maintenance program. So it’s I think it’s a great thing to do uh and only sorry only reinstated where determined essential by the road safety team and then there’s a safeguarding process to make sure that if if uh we have a bit of regret then we’ve got the chance to put it back later. Um, and I I think it’s really good to um have a situation where we’re not always putting back like like for like after maintenance. I’d like to uh ask Mark Spadusi, the group manager for road safety to introduce and outline the report and also to say thank you for waiting so patiently through such a long committee uh uh meeting and um uh so take it away Mark. Thanks chair and actually uh you know I’ve been involved in many of the things that have come through so it’s just been nice to watch it anyway. Um yeah, I’m not I’m not um Sean, but this was a joint paper between myself and from a road safety perspective and the highways maintenance team because this is about how we can embed some road safety benefits through the maintenance programs that Phil next week sort of works on as well. Um it’s something that we’ve done over the years. Um, and this paper is really just about putting it down in writing as to this is how we are going to do it so that it’s clear for everybody when we’re doing it, why we’re doing it, and um, and the steps that we’re going to go through to try to make sure that we only put them back in um, where we deem them necessary from a road safety perspective. that will hopefully deliver the benefits that we’ve seen from some of the re research that’s been done nationally and more locally um through hopefully reducing the speed of traffic and also drivers giving more space to cyclist as they overtake. Um there are going to be occasions where we need to keep center lines in place and we’ll have to make sure that that’s sort of done on an exception basis but based on our road safety experience of people in my team um and like you said there’s a one of the complaints complaints really but one of the um issues that we’ve had in the past was where we’ve done this people have then come back through or directly or through the counselors saying why is this center line gone it’s made things less safe um that we’ve now built into this new process a way that we together can can look at that and see if there’s a way that we can um review and rein reinstate the center lines where we feel it’s needed. Um so it’s really just putting that down is is a very clear way forward. Um that’s what the recommendation is there and nothing the pro the process is in the appendix um which hopefully sets out exactly those steps that both of us will work to. Thank you Mark David. Um, thank you chair and thank you Mark for your report. This is really useful and I think it’s a uh an excellent thing that we can actually do to improve road safety. One small wrinkle I would suggest that we actually inform ward counselors that we’re uh removing the center line from individual roads uh that already have a uh a sensible speed limit because I think that that’d be something important to do to actually make sure that war councils are fully up to date on the process. I just checked with Phil as to how many rows would likely to be in the list each year and we’re talking about 150 to 200. Um so yes, we can have a look at that clearly. Um how we can you do that. Um might be a bit more of a challenge. Um but that’s why we’ve wanted the policy in place so that that’s there if you know so you can see why we’re doing it even if we not able to do that very cleanly. Hope that helps. Do we kind of need a policy? Because in my one meeting with you, you come across me as somebody who’s much very much an expert on this and um somebody who’d be able to make decisions without even needing a policy. So perhaps, you know, we can just let the officers get on with their job. Uh and my concern really is the the research that has been mentioned here um seems a little bit flaky. you know, um the it talks about the University of West of England research which refers to a an A- road in a Hampshire village. Um and it does actually say the search for studies using a robust research criteria largely concluded that there is a deficit of such studies in the international English language peer-reviewed literature. Um, so I’m concerned about the the lack of robust research and on this one and bit reluctant for Bristol to be a kind of guinea pig. also concerns about learner drivers um elderly drivers who might need center lines and I know Don didn’t want me to mention autonomous vehicles but as I’m on the uh public safety and public safety and production committee where we have discussed those you know um they may well be that they need center lines as well so um yeah I I’ve got concerns about this particular item I can try and answer a little bit of that really. Um it this approach was something that we’ve been doing from a technical perspective for quite some time and we yeah you know and that’s been supported by that work that we’ve done then and others that have been working on it um 10 years ago with us. Um the what I can say is that we haven’t seen any we haven’t had any evidence one way or the other to say whether or not those roads that we removed center lines in in the past have generated any other safety concerns because of the approach that we’ve taken to try and make sure that we’ve only done it where we feel there’s a road safety benefit. So there’s only been one or two rows that have been raised over the years where residents have come back by their counselors and said we’re concerned about these. Um and even then that wasn’t supported by any evidence of any collisions happening. It was really just their fear of of things happening. So um I think I have confidence that this is something that we can we can do. Um you know I live in a street where there’s no center lines. It’s it’s just how many residential roads are are built. So we’re not talking about taking out sent not reinstating center lines on major routes. You know it is those roads where we really feel that that’s a sensible approach. A lot of the time the center lines are down the middle of the road parking at both sides. It it serves no purpose um really. Um but we will take a a view on each one to see whether or not we feel on the balance of risk that it’s best to leave it in leave it in in part not reinstate it. So um hopefully that will will cover those sorts of issues. Yeah, I think just to echo what Cass says, I’m a bit concerned that we as a council would be making policy on such thin evidence. Um but also um it does seem that we’re we’re pursuing um a strategy whereby we will review every single one that we do and make a decision on whether or not to do this. So it seems a bit odd that we need a policy to say the default is one or the other because we’ll make a decision on each one based on what we think the right thing to do is. Um the other thing I have a bit of a concern about is how residents will view this. Um, we have an awful lot of road markings in our city that are not um, up to scratch at the moment. You know, need repainting. And I think people will just see this as as us trying to cut corners. I appreciate that is not what this is about. And the the finances, you know, are negligible, but I think it could be perceived by people to to be that. We I just want to say that we recognize that the road markings are in not a good state. That’s a legacy that we’ve inherited and we are uh I think we’ve got now four we’re organizing for four crews to be out out there. two uh proactively going and doing an area and two responding to uh concerns from counselors and prioritizing things like uh some of the double yellow lines which are safety features and particularly uh zebras which I’ve had a discussion with Sean and the team and uh I feel uh and we’re going to be uh zebras will be one of our focuses. So, this is not about not renewing uh paint, quite the quite the reverse, but it’s about trying to improve road safety and um uh encourage drivers to uh manage their risk more appropriately. There’s a lot of evidence that shows that um uh uh drivers when if they know that they’re within the line and the oncoming vehicles in the line won’t do anything to compensate for risk. Whereas, if it’s not so clear, there’s a thing called risk compensation. and they’ll slow down and uh uh and that’s that there is papers from transport for London and other places that show that this worked. Yeah, I think our worry here is the fact that we we’ve been the evidence that’s presented in this report even that says we don’t feel there’s enough evidence to make a decision on this. So we’re making policy based on on very thin evidence in here. If there is other evidence perhaps it should have been in the report as well. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, I’m concerned about the uh robustness of the of the evidence. It’s um uh it from a road safety perspective it um does feel counterintuitive and um speaking um as a driver with 43 years experience. Um I know that I feel safer when I’m on a road which has white lines down them down the middle. Um, so I’m I’m struggling to support this, which is exactly the point that if road if drivers are feeling safe, they’re likely to take more risks which put vulnerable people like cyclists and pedestrians more at risk. That’s exactly the point of this, Jonathan. Um, Dave, thank you, chair. Um I’d like to confirm that as part of the any uh white line reinstatement process that roundles specifying the speed limit such as 20 and 30 and also cycle markings will be reinstated please. It’s certainly not the intention to not reinstate them. Um yeah absolutely plan to put them back in. Um suppose one thing we’ll have to look at through that task and finish group if there’s other opportunities for that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Um I’m going to admit I had not heard about this and I did have a little look at it and my initial thought was that’s crazy and then I looked at it and it makes it does make a lot of sense and I think also because these days you get such a variable in the size of cars as well. You know, often these roads were demarked when all cars were pretty much that size and now they’re all over the place. So, they don’t. And also in Bristol with with the park cars down either side, it’s much better that drivers keep their wits about them and negotiate those meeting situations and and and cyclists and don’t rely on those road markings. So, it does make sense. However, I’ve not done a deep dive. It sounds like other people haven’t done a deep dive either. So I would suggest either maybe a members briefing to to brief members all members on this because as you say going war toward all the different roads that this might affect. So that could be a way to, you know, just explain it a bit more maybe um if there’s any research we can look at and or um the the road safety task and finish group because I think that’s the place where we could really sort of have a look at this and and maybe add that into our policy because it to me it does make sense but I understand you know we we always say we want to be evidence-based and if people haven’t got the evidence yet I think it would be good to just flesh that out. Does that make sense? Would you like to defer this decision? I would like to defer this decision, but I’m I’m I am interested, but I I just I want people to I think other people will be interested if they learn more. Maybe we just haven’t learned more about this. Nick, thank you. Um I would not like us to defer this decision. I think we’ve had the debate. Um and we have a expert recommendation from officers. We don’t always ask our officers to provide um peer-reviewed papers. The fact that we have had two of them provided to us doesn’t undermine the credibility of our road safety officer saying that this will make road safer. This is what we accept on every single other paper. This time we have been given more evidence than normal. Thank you, Nick. Last word to Rob and then I’m going to move a vote. Yeah, I am convinced by the evidence because um I’ve read it and I think it seems like it makes sense. I also think that that thing of mentioned by Jonathan is um exactly the point is like we can’t continue to prioritize like the safety well not the safety the perceived safety of people who drive over the safety of people who are much more vulnerable yet road users and if this does some small amount to influence that then we should vote for it. I’m going to move this. Uh so I’m going to recommend that the uh committee this committee approves the policy of the full position of not representing center road markings post resurfacing programs on residential streets and approves the process safeguarding process set out in appendix A. Uh would anyone like to second that? I I’ll give it to David this time. Um and who votes for this? So that’s uh Rob, David, Emma, Ed, and Nick against All the others, Cass, Don, Tim, and Jonathan. Thank you. Let’s move on. Vehicle towing contract. Uh this is to seek approval to reprocure the highways maintenance vehicle towing contract. Uh essential to make sure that we can um do our maintenance works. Uh and um to reprocure the contract for a longer period of time so that uh we can encourage uh uh contractors to invest in more modern fleet and equipment. uh so they can become CAS compliant. Uh this is a key decision report because it relates to a decision involving over £500,000. Phil, I can’t thank you enough for staying so patiently and so long. Would you like to say anything to introduce and outline the report? Um hello everyone. I think it’s pretty straightforward really. It’s just reprocurement of a of an existing contract. Um historically we’ve reprocured it on two-year basis. We’d like to go for a longer period this time because we seem to be constantly reprocuring it, but also um a longer contract may as you’ve already said, contractors may invest into newer vehicles. A lot of running running vehicles that aren’t even um UR6 are not CAS compliant. So that longer contract, more value to it may get them to kind of invest in that. I I don’t think there’s a lot more to say really. That’s mercifully brief. Thank you. Um, anyone want to say anything? Tim, then David? Well, I feel I have to say something because Phil’s been here for so long. It would it’d be um, yeah, rude not to ask you. Um, so just to clarify, this is a contract for moving cars away from an area of road that’s going to be resurfaced or something like that. It’s not about towing away cars that are on double yellow lines. Is that right? That’s it. So it’s purely to facilitate sort of maintenance works that we’re doing. Other teams do use it. Parks use it and so it is used by a lot of other teams. Okay. But it’s it’s not traffic enforcement. It’s is not um and I think I mentioned this at the agenda briefing, but something that’s been raised with me, but it seems almost no other councilors had this raised, but I have had it raised that people have had their vehicles moved and then not known where they’ve been moved to. Um, so if we’re recontracting this, can we just make sure we put something in the contract to make sure that the communication is robust with people in those streets that they know where to go and look if they turn up and their car has disappeared? Yeah. So if you if you think so this contracts kind of facilitate other works. So for instance, the road reservicing contractor would be required to notify residents by by letter as to works going on. um they will put signage up and that and and cones go out. So residents will be aware that their vehicles will be towed. the tow and contractor theirelves when they do tow a vehicle they do email us the team they email BCC customer services BCC parking services and they do also notify the police so that if people kind of turn up and can’t find their car they got various points of contact to contact uh to kind of call and hopefully locate it. Okay, that’s great. Yeah, thanks. I think it’s also worth saying um that uh anyone who’s got an identifiable blue badge, the they put the car back where they found it. Yeah. So, anyone with a blue badge, we we’d move the car, we’d carry out the works, and then we would put that vehicle back. Thank you, chair. Um and thank you, Phil, for your report. I’m going to ask a dumb question here. Why can’t we simply use the same contract that we use to clear bus lanes and off and off derella lines to do this? Why do we need a separate contract? So, we’ve we’ve checked this out with kind of legal and procurement teams. The one that parking services use, so that’s a it’s what they call a concession contract. Um so, so there the fines that people kind of get hit with for parking in s sort of on double yellows that type of thing. Um covered cost of tow in ours is a service delivery contract where we beared a cost and so that comes from operational budgets. I’m not a procurement expert but apparently we cannot mix the two. We we we have checked both procurement sound like procurement expert. Thank you very much for your answer. I’m not Uh so should we um authorize the executive director of growth and regeneration uh to reprocure and award the ve vehicle towing contract and invoke any subsequent extensions variations uh delegated. Um so who would like to uh second that? Thank you Cass. And who’s going to vote for this? Carried unanimously. Right. Let’s move on. Um now councilors, colleagues, we uh am uh moving on. Um we have two agenda items now for information only. So uh I’m very keen to keep keep going and uh uh uh hear these and uh I’m assuming that everyone else is but uh I just wanted to make the point that both of these are for information and we’ve been here for quite a long time already. We have uh extended the booking for this room so security services aren’t going to be wandering around in their pajamas and asking us to leave. Uh and so uh should we carry on? Um this uh next one is to update the committee on progress on the workplace parking libby outline business case and uh progress on key project milestones. Adam, sorry could I perhaps we could assume that everybody’s read the paper. Yeah. Okay. And then go straight to questions. Just let’s go straight to questions. You right with that, Adam? Nothing you wanted to say that wasn’t uh in the paper that you feel people need to know? No, I mean the main thing I’m keen to understand is when we come back, when we have that I think there’s there’s a point between December and February when we need to come back and we need to figure out when that best time is. So, um one of the things on our full plan is a yet another update because we uh put updates on thanks to the um the commitment we made. But um given that it’s now um whatever month we are October and uh we’re coming back with the full business capes hopefully uh in the spring uh do we really want to uh have yet another update? So um so that’s something I’d like to hear from people if they have any views on that. But uh any comments or questions on the paper? So yeah, just reading this, it the modeling, forecasting, and impact assessment will be completed by the end of January. So it would seem that that would be a useful time just to literally say whether whether we’ve actually kept to these time scales or whether it’s slipped again. But I think that’s probably all all you need at that point, isn’t it? And then um um and then the really big one is when you come to scheme development having a an update on how that’s going. Yeah. Yeah. So um I guess by December we’ll have the surveys and data collection that will then inform the modeling forecasting and impact assessment. Um and then the modeling forecasting informs the scheme development. So you know I guess we’ve brought forward petitions that were going to happen in December. There’s an option to have a brief update in December that sets out what data we’ve collected or we can come back in the next committee is early February which should be according to this just after completion of the modeling forecast and impact assessment where we could come back and discuss what that looks like and then get your views so that feeds into then the final development of the WPL scheme. Well, February would make sense to me but yeah I do have one question. um some of the time scales been cut down in order to still get to April 2026. Um what’s the impact on on your team doing the work that they’re having to do it in less time? I mean it’s the the main impact is on the consultants. Obviously my project manager has a little bit more to juggle but um we’ve onboarded the consultants now and they’ve set out the time scales they think they can work to which is which is where these dates come from. So um is is with them in terms of you know collecting all the data and then turning it into something useful. So um we think these these um these time scales are reasonable at the moment. One thing I may have done is added a bit of uh extra because as I said uh we’ve got we’ve got to work with business to make sure that this is acceptable to them. And I’ve asked um them to bring together the stakeholder panel to make sure that we’re modeling the right things because I don’t want business to say what about this why didn’t you model that. So I’m trying to we’re trying to get business in early to make sure that we don’t have a sort of what about in a few a few months later. Uh Nick, thank you. Um I think that this is a hugely important policy. It would uh if a business is offering a perk to their staff that has negative effects for the rest of the city, i.e. a free parking space, then we should move to charge for that and thereby reduce demand for driving into the city or at least take compensatory payment so that we can do something about it. So, I think that we need to do this as soon as possible, which is what I said at the last time that this was presented to us. And I said then that I thought that the program was too generous uh and that the early stages looked like they were being dragged out a bit. Um so I’m I’m disappointed that we’ve not been able to to hit that and therefore skeptical that the remainder of the program could be achieved having uh having been cut down there. So I urge the team delivering this to uh work very closely on the project management to identify issues and make sure that all of the milestones are hit when they say that they are going to be and get a look ahead to identify issues and solve them before they occur so that we do deliver this on this program or I think ahead would be much more beneficial to the city. I think we say thank you and challenge accepted don’t we? Yeah. Any uh Cass just a very quick comment um on the finance advice. You say um for future implementation requires an IT system and no system have been scoped. There may be a cost risk later. I just wonder if you can make sure that we sort of see what that cost risk might be when we come back to this in the future. Yeah. Yeah, we’d certainly expect that to be detailed in the OBC. I’m going to recommend that we note this uh report and move on. Thank you colleagues. So last is our quarterly finance report. This again is a report for information. Alex, you finally have a speaking role. Uh well, I presume should we work on the same basis as the last report that um Everyone’s read it. The key the key the link is the actually the appendix A6 which can um contains the information. Wonderfully brief. I’m sure people are going to want to talk about the money. David, thank you chair and thank you Alex for your report. Um, I’m interested in uh the issue of a uh £27,000 uh risk associated with the energy price pressure on the street lighting budget because I thought our upgrading to LED lights across the city was actually going to save us money. I used to run street lines. So, um they they still have to buy a lot of energy. So if the energy price goes up even though they are reducing it significantly um that that can cause a pressure. So um I think you know years ago it was like 23 and a half million kilowatt hours. Um that would have come down to probably at least half that by now. Um it’s still a lot of money that we spend on on energy. So um fluctuations in the price will still impact and and it’s kind of purchased on a regular basis as well. got the uh ability now to dim or brighten lights. Uh is there any way of offsetting that by actually using that amazing new technology and facility to uh does dimming actually save energy? Dim dimming saves energy obviously has to be done in in the right way to retain safety because the key thing one of the key things with lighting is you don’t create light dark light dark. You need to create enough light so your eyes adjust properly. So, um, dimming is is a good opportunity, but you still need to provide enough light for people to get about. And, you know, something like turning lights off at night has its own issues with people tripping over pavements and and not feeling safe when they’re going to shift work and that sort of thing. I don’t think we’re in a hurry to turn them off altogether, but if they can be uh dimmed in a a way that helps to mitigate that, that would be possibly helpful. Any other comments? No. Okay. Um, I’m going to say thank you all for your attendance. Thank you all for uh responding really quickly to uh uh uh the um debates that we had at very short notice. The next meeting of just do a formal meeting of that. Oh, sorry. Uh apparently um so the recommendation is we note the report as per the recommendation and now thank you for your attendance. Thank you for a healthy debate very short notice. The next meeting, the uh this committee is on the 4th of December at 5:00 p.m. It may be necessary to bring forward the start time to 4:30, but uh we will let you know if that’s a a possibility. Uh that may be a slightly less of a possibility now we’ve had two uh two debates uh today, so hopefully that will we won’t need to do that. Thank you all.