Henleaze, Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Partnership

Date: 7 March 2016

Time: 7 pm Place: Portway Rugby Centre, Sea Mills, Bristol. BS9 2HS

Ward Councillors Henleaze - Clare Campion-Smith, Glenise Morgan Stoke Bishop - Peter Abraham, John Goulandris Westbury - on - Trym - Geoff Gollop, Alastair Watson Neighbourhood Partnership Ward Members Henleaze - Valerie Bishop, Helen Furber, Vacancy x 2; Stoke Bishop - Gay Huggins, Alan Preece, Peter Robottom, Peter Weeks; Westbury-on-Trym - Alan Aburrow, Sue Boyd, David Mayer, Vacancy; Co-opted members - Graham Donald, Stephanie French, Wendy Hull (Neighbourhood Watch)

Other representatives: Graham Donald (Co-optee), Stephanie French (Co-optee - Tree Champion), Wendy Hull (Co-optee - Neighbourhood Watch), Paul Bolton-Jones (Police Neighbourhood Manager), Jenny Hodges (Equalities representative). _______________________________________________________

Agenda

1. Welcome and introductions, apologies for absence 2. Minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Partnership held

on 7 December 2015 page 3 3. Declarations of interest (Council Members)

AGENDA

1

4. Public forum

5. Feedback from working groups (20 minutes) page 9

(i) Transport (decision)

(ii) Environment (including Tree report) (decision)

(iii) Communication (information)

(iv) Older people (information)

(v) Governance (decision) 6. Wellbeing (for decision) (20 minutes) page 47 7. Neighbourhood Coordinator’s report (for decision) page 52 (20 minutes) Date: 19 February 2016 Neighbourhood Coordinator: Andrew McGrath e-mail: neighbourhood.partnerships@bristol.gov.uk Telephone: 0117 922 3029 Clerk to the meeting:

Steve Gregory e-mail: democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk Telephone: 0117 922 4357

Participating in Neighbourhood Partnership meetings

If you wish to speak about any matter on the agenda then you can submit a written statement. A written statement allows members of the partnership to be clear about what you are saying and allows time for them to understand and give consideration to the point(s) you have raised. If you decide to submit a statement please send it to the clerk to the meeting (contact details above) by 12.00 noon on the working day before the meeting. The statement will be circulated directly to members of the partnership and copies will be available at the meeting. Statements will normally be heard when the agenda item to which they relate is reached. The matter raised will be considered at the meeting if time allows. If not the matter will be considered at an appropriate time after the meeting or, if necessary, a report may be submitted to a subsequent meeting to deal with it in more detail. Please note that for copyright reasons, we are unable to reproduce or publish newspaper or magazine articles which may be attached to statements as supporting documentation.

2

DISCLAIMER The attached Minutes are DRAFT. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information and statements and decisions recorded in them, their status will remain that of a draft until such time as they are confirmed as a correct record at the subsequent meeting

Agenda item no. 2

Minutes of the meeting of the Henleaze, Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym

Neighbourhood Partnership held at Henleaze Junior School, Park Grove, Bristol

7 December 2015 at 7 pm

Members

Ward Councillors Henleaze - Clare Campion-Smith (A), Glenise Morgan (P) Stoke Bishop - Peter Abraham (P), John Goulandris (P) Westbury-on-Trym - Geoff Gollop (P), Alastair Watson (P) Neighbourhood Partnership Ward Members Henleaze - Valerie Bishop (P), Helen Furber (P), Vacancy x 2 (A) Stoke Bishop - Gay Huggins (P), Alan Preece (P), Peter Robottom (P) Peter Weeks (P) Westbury-on-Trym - Alan Aburrow (P), Sue Boyd (P), David Mayer (P), Vacancy (A)

Other representatives: Graham Donald (Co-optee) (P), Stephanie French (Co-optee - Tree Champion) (P), Wendy Hull (Co-optee - Neighbourhood Watch) (P), Paul Bolton-Jones (Police Neighbourhood Manager) (A), Jenny Hodges (Equalities representative) (A). Also present: Andrew McGrath-Neighbourhood Co-ordinator, Steve Gregory-Clerk to the Neighbourhood Partnership. 1. Welcome and introductions, apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Clare Campion-Smith, Paul Bolton-Jones and Jenny Hodges. The Chair announced that two new agenda items be added to this and subsequent NP meetings in respect of ‘Police’ to follow after public forum item and ‘Governance Working Group’ as part of the regular feedback from working groups item.

3

2. Minutes of the meeting of the Neighbourhood Partnership

held on 28 September 2015 The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendments – (a) Minute 5 - the word ‘the’ being removed from point five, second sentence; (b) Minute 6 (iv) – all wording to be replaced with ‘The report was noted. In a brief discussion about the citywide meeting to be held in October 2015, it was noted that potential participants needed to register as soon as possible. There were eight optional topics (including the effects of the boundary review) of which participants needed to select three’; (c) Minute 7 – remove ‘had apparently not been made available to date’ from second paragraph; (d) Minute 11(c) being amended to replace “referred to the Henleaze Road & Northumbria Drive parking issue” with “referred to the Henleaze Road, the section between the junction with Northumbria Drive that leads to Westbury Road and the Downs, parking issue”. Matter arising – Minute 10, resolution 3 action had been taken.

3. Declarations of interest None declared. 4. Public forum

A statement from Gay Huggins in respect of the Working Group for Older People (WGOP) was received requesting that an extension for the time limit to spend the Grant money, be approved.

Arising from the statement and subsequent discussion the Neighbourhood Partnership agreed that –

(a) Any unused part of the £3,000 granted, towards the cost of running outings for the over 60’s, could be carried over from 31st March 2015 until 31st May 2016;

(b) The WGOP produce its accounts for scrutiny at the next Neighbourhood Partnership meeting on 7 March, 2016.

5. Police

4

No business was reported however a member referred to recent reports of vandalism of two bus shelters and vehicles on Ladies Mile and other roads on the Downs.

6. Feedback from Working Groups

(ii) Transport

The report was noted. With regard to lack of stakeholder involvement regarding the Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) Councillor Gollop said he would organise meaningful representation from NP’s affected by the proposals.

Neighbourhood Committee Decision(s)

Resolved: That -

(a) an increase from £2,500 to £3,750 for this year’s “Minor Signing & Lining” budget, to cover the installation of traffic bollards (in The Drive and Westbury Road), the expenditure of £10k for pavement works in Eastfield Road as a “minor works” project and £1k for the design and consultation for the possible relocation of the in-bound bus stop in North View, be approved;

(b) the Henleaze Parking Review, and the subsequent implementation of any revised parking arrangements, remains the NP’s preferred minor traffic scheme choice for 2016/17.

(i) Environment report (including Tree report)

The report was noted.

Devonshire Road – funding for proposed installation of tree pits, as project was not being progressed, be re-allocated to the Wellbeing Fund;

Canford Park Fireworks – the event was well controlled;

Ebenezer Lane, strimming work - issues still unresolved. Neighbourhood Coordinator to pursue with appropriate Council officers;

Trees report was noted.

Update -

5

(a) Inappropriate placing of public notices on young street trees now resolved;

(b) Two replacement trees for Stoke Bishop would be planted by March 2016 despite earlier misgivings.

(iv) Communication

The report was noted. Regarding the Mayor’s visit there were still some points about the itinerary to sort out. Councillor Gollop had offered to help to plan the visit. Once the outstanding issues had been finalised details of the visit would be publicised.

(iii) Older people

The report was noted.

(v) Governance Working Group

As this was a new item there was no business to consider, a report would be brought to the 7 March, 2016 NP meeting.

7. Wellbeing

The Partnership received a report of the Neighbourhood Co-ordinator regarding the allocation and recommendations of the Wellbeing Panel. In addition the NP was informed that £4,080 funding initially allocated for Green Capital spending would be returned to the Wellbeing Fund. A decision that was deferred at the last meeting regarding Westbury Baptist Pre-school was still outstanding, the Neighbourhood Co-ordinator agreed to chase up. The Neighbourhood Committee Members present voted on the recommendations as set out in the report. On being put to the vote it was unanimously – Resolved - that the funding allocation as recommended by the Wellbeing Panel as set out below be approved -

Name How much Requested

Discussion and Recommendation

NP3 transport WG and NP3 Tree Champion

£1,475 WITHDRAWN Recommendation: 0

6

Name How much Requested

Discussion and Recommendation

Sneyd Park Residents Association

£150 Unanimously agreed Recommendation: Fund fully

8. Neighbourhood Co-ordinator’s report The Partnership considered a report of the Neighbourhood Co-

ordinator updating on various issues and for decision. The Neighbourhood Co-ordinator also clarified that £10k would

need to be taken off the overall amount from the Devolved Section 106 monies to allow for the Stoke Lodge tree carving project.

The NP considered that the Joint Spatial Plan and Joint Transport

Study should include CPNN issues. Resolved – that:-

1. The brief updates from the last forums be noted and that the commencement time of Neighbourhood Forums be confirmed as 7 pm;

2. The brief update on the citywide NP conference be noted; 3. The update regarding the proposed changes to BCC grant

funding be noted; 4. The meeting schedule and proposed dates be noted: 5. The updates on this NP’s devolved budgets and the update

on non-devolved S106 funding allocated to this NP area be noted including removal of £10k to allow for tree carving project at Stoke Lodge;

6. The update on the Joint Spatial Plan and Joint Transport Study and the consultation process relating to this subject be noted and that issues relating to CPNN be included;

7. The information regarding the Mayor’s visit to the NP on 21st January 2016 be noted.

9. Neighbourhood Partnership Plan - update

The Neighbourhood Coordinator gave an update on the Neighbourhood Partnership Plan. The generic nature of the Plan was noted and the Chair suggested that information concerning the NP3 area could be readily

7

transferred onto the Plan. Work on this had already been done in relation to Transport issues and had proved to be successful. Regarding E11 the Friends of the Downs to be included on the invitation list and for E12 it be noted that the PROWG Committee had yet to decide on this issue.

10. Any other business None reported.

(The meeting ended at 8.35 pm)

CHAIR

8

Agenda Item 5 (i)

Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Partnership (NP3)

7 March 2016 Report from the Transport Working Group

1. Introduction The Working Group’s last quarterly Meeting was held at Westbury-on-Trym Academy in mid-January. Notes of the Meeting have been circulated to all attendees and can also be viewed on the NP’s website (www.activenp.co.uk). 2. Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) Nothing has changed! This is what was reported to the last NP in December: “The debate has continued as to the efficacy of the GBBN bus lane on the approach to the White Tree Roundabout. At last year’s June NP Meeting [2014], the Area Manager (Highways) took an Action to produce a “draft monitoring plan” to review the current situation. We continue to await the results of the monitoring survey (reportedly completed a year ago, before the 2014 Christmas school holiday period) and, more importantly, any interpretation ascribed to the survey results. At the March NP Meeting [2015], the Area Manager (Highways) took an Action to present the results to the June NP but no update was provided”. 3. Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) After a year of near-silence from BCC’s Transport Development Team, information appears, at last, to be dribbling down to Stakeholders. BCC’s proposals for mitigating the effects of the CPNN development on the transport infrastructure in north Bristol were due to be given to north Bristol councillors and selected NP Reps at a briefing in late February. Unfortunately, this briefing was scheduled after the deadline for compiling this Report and, therefore, a verbal update will be given to the NP on 7 March. 4. Minor Traffic Schemes Attachment 1 (“Open Highway Issues”) includes details of all the schemes that are currently in progress, as well as those schemes that could, eventually, be prioritised for funding as minor traffic schemes in our NP area. The Attachment also includes details of the 11 schemes that could be centrally-funded as a result of the CPNN Mitigation Review. 4.1 Recent Scheme Consultations Park Grove Pedestrian Improvements (H118) - There were 82 responses to the recent Public Consultation, mainly objecting to the proposal to ban southbound vehicular entry into Park Grove (from Springfield Grove). Publication of the results and revised proposals are currently dependant on the availability of Highways’ resources (estimated scheme completion, September 2016). Coldharbour Road Zebra Crossing (H125) - revised scheme currently being worked-up, prior to publishing final proposals. However, the scheme is now to be delivered as part of a larger Cycling Ambition Fund scheme. Estimated completion: May 2016. Shirehampton Road Zebra Crossing (S117) - There were 36 responses to the initial consultation and a large number had suggested an alternative location. The alternative location, nearer Queen’s Gate, has now been rejected following a second consultation and the Crossing will be installed at the location proposed originally. The scheme also

9

includes improvements to the mini-roundabout at the top of Druid Hill (S119). Estimated scheme completion: September 2016. Southmead Road Zebra Crossing (W117) - Following a second consultation, the crossing will now be located near Kelston Road. Estimated completion: May 2016. Westbury Parking Review (W136 etc) – There were 117 responses to last year’s Public Consultation. These are currently being reviewed and proposals should be published by the end of February 2016. Scheme completion: September 2016. 4.2 Proposed Minor Works Projects Following the recent guidelines issued by the Area Manager (Highways), the following four projects have been classified as outside the constraints of the current city-wide diktat of “one minor traffic scheme per year (per NP)” and are being funded from the NP’s minor traffic schemes budget: (1) Exit From Tesco Site on Henleaze Road (H115) – Highways recently published a Feasibility Study (RS12058) which covered possible safety improvements - including the provision of bollards and additional white lining. A further option for a major junction realignment at a cost of approx £10k, could be reconsidered at a later date, if deemed necessary but would constitute a “minor traffic scheme” for NP prioritisation. Funding for the installation of the bollards was sanctioned by the Neighbourhood Committee at the last NP in December and work should be completed by the end of March. (2) Westbury Road (W138) - Inconsiderate parking and damage to the grass verge continues to be a problem, even though disputed footway ownership has recently been resolved. The NP’s Environment Group will consider planting additional street trees at some time in the future but, in the short term, the installation of some street bollards was sanctioned by the Neighbourhood Committee at the last NP in December and work should be completed by the end of March. (3) Eastfield Road Footway Realignment (W109A) – this work was sanctioned by the Neighbourhood Committee at the last NP in December and work should be completed by the end of April. (4) North View Bus Stop Relocation (H138) – The Taxi trade are not against the current taxi rank being removed from outside Henleaze Library and, therefore, relocation of the current in-bound North View bus stop to this site is viable, subject to local consultation and the requisite funding. In the first instance, the Neighbourhood Committee sanctioned funding for the design and subsequent local consultation at the last NP in December, prior to committing to any further funding. 4.3 Other Minor Traffic Schemes/Open Issues (1) Westbury Park (H136) - feedback from the recent Redland RPZ Review is currently awaited, as this could have a major influence on any proposals to amend the current traffic arrangements for Westbury Park (the road). (2) Wellington Hill West Zebra Crossing (H137) - joint funding of £10k from NP3 and NP4 has facilitated the provision of LED halos on the Belisha Beacons (completed) and anti-skid surfacing on the approaches to the crossing. However, scheduling the application of the anti-skid surfacing is subject to review - as a result of the 2016/17 road resurfacing programme in the area. (3) Parking Provision at Sea Mills Station (S122) - the use of the former prefab site to provide a car park was discussed with The Mayor during his visit to NP3 in January. However, current advice from BCC’s Historic Environment Officer is that, as the area is part of the Scheduled Monument of the Roman town of Abona, any works within this area would require scheduled monument consent from Historic England. Furthermore, any proposals for a car park on nearby green space would require Planning Permission that was likely be rejected, as creating a car park in this area would have a negative impact on the character of the Conservation Area, as defined in the Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal.

10

(4) Chock Lane (W114A) - installation of 3 over-runnable chicanes and high-viz red surfacing on parts of the highway was completed late last year as part of a traffic-calming scheme. Subsequently, the NP brokered a site meeting between Chock Lane residents and Highways’ engineers to discuss some residents’ concerns with the standard of the workmanship and the efficacy of the recent installations - plus the residents’ aspirations for additional measures. At the Meeting, the NP was represented by Cllr Alastair Watson. Highways will now report-back to residents and the NP on any additional practical works that could be considered for funding by the NP. (5) Coldharbour Road Zebra Crossing, near St Albans Road (H140) – various safety concerns have been raised about this particular Zebra Crossing – including visibility and the number of near-misses with vehicles not stopping. As a short-term practical expedient, the Transport WG has recommended the installation of LED halos on the Belisha Beacons, to improve driver-awareness for vehicles approaching the crossing. However, as the crossing straddles the NP boundary, the proposals would need to be jointly funded with the Bishopston, Cotham & Redland (BCR) NP. Therefore, the NP3 Neighbourhood Committee is requested to sanction £2k from NP3’s devolved funds for this “minor works” project - subject to £2k by way of match-funding from BCR. (6) Stoke Road (S105) – proposals to widen Stoke Road have been “on hold” for several years, pending the implementation of the long-awaited parking review for The Downs area. Notwithstanding the parking problems that have arisen in some local roads as a result of the “unintended consequences” of the new parking restrictions, Stoke Road itself appears to be operating satisfactorily for all road users – in particular busses and other large vehicles. Addressing the “unintended consequences” in Parry’s Lane and Stoke Park Road etc will be covered in BCC’s Post-scheme Review – carried out after a minimum period of six months, ie July 2016 at the earliest. (7) Devolved Section 106 Monies (ZCD 967) – proposals for a new upgraded in-bound bus stop on Henleaze Road (near Rockside Drive) are currently awaiting final approval. (8) Henleaze Parking Review – a comprehensive Parking Review in Henleaze (to include H127 – H132 plus H135 and H139) and the subsequent implementation of any proposed changes, was sanctioned by the Neighbourhood Committee in June 2014 as the NP’s “one scheme per year” for 2016/17. The Neighbourhood Committee subsequently reconfirmed this as the prioritised Scheme for 2016/17 at the last Partnership Meeting in December 2015. 5. BCC’s “Traffic Choices” Website (www.trafficchoices.co.uk/bristol-neighbourhood-partnerships.shtml). There is a facility within BCC’s Traffic Choices website for members of the public to directly submit their own proposals for traffic improvement schemes. Whilst the website suggests that such issues should first be raised at the NP’s local Forum Meetings, there is no absolute obligation to do so. The potential shortcomings of the Traffic Choices process were brought to the attention of the NP at last December’s Meeting. In particular, this highlighted the sketchy quality of some of the submissions and a process which may give the false impression that any proposals will be delivered upon receipt of the request! This new Traffic Choices process is in addition to our NP’s existing, well-established, process for managing traffic “issues”. However, Traffic Choices accepts any proposal whether it is viable or not and it also accepts any proposal whether it has public support or not. During the past 11 months, or so, 35 proposals have been added to the Traffic Choices database for our NP area and the number appears to be growing exponentially.

11

The apparent lack of a clear “process” for such submissions was debated again at the last Transport WG Meeting and the WG reconfirmed that it would be better if, in the first instance, the resident submitting the request should be invited to present their proposals to an Open Forum in the Ward concerned. This would provide an appropriate arena to canvass local opinion and, perhaps, garner support before being referred to the WG for scheme prioritisation at some time in the future. Accordingly, our Area Coordinator has agreed to invite the residents concerned to the next relevant Open Forum, to present their views for debate. Unfortunately, it was too late to instigate this proposal in time for the last round of Forum Meetings in February. Any viable projects with local support could be added to the NP’s existing register of Highway Issues and then considered for prioritisation and funding as part of the Transport WG’s normal process. Currently, the WG has over 60 projects on its register (Attachment 1) that are either: (a) in progress, (b) with funding approved but not yet started or (c) awaiting prioritisation and funding. Furthermore, there are more schemes than BCC can resource and there is a quota system limiting the NP to one scheme per year. However, there could be scope to consider some Traffic Choices submissions for funding as “minor woks” projects, outside of the one scheme per year diktat. 6. Recommendations The Neighbourhood Partnership is requested to:

1. Note again the lack of progress with publishing the results of the traffic survey that

is a prelude to the possible removal of the remaining section of bus lane on the approach to the White Tree roundabout, or to justify its retention (Item 2, above).

2. Note that after nearly a year of complete silence, BCC’s Transport Development Team are at last engaging with selected north Bristol Stakeholders on their proposals to mitigate the potential impact of additional traffic volumes on the A4018, arising from the Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) (Item 3, above).

3. Note that the parking problems in Parry’s Lane and Stoke Park Road etc, due to the “unintended consequences” of new parking restrictions on The Downs, will be addressed in the Post-scheme Review – carried out after a minimum period of six months (Item 4.3 (6), above).

4. Note that a process is being developed whereby suggestions for traffic schemes received via BCC’s “Traffic Choices” website will be referred to the Neighbourhood Forums in order to canvass local opinion, prior to the Transport Working Group considering such schemes for prioritisation (Item 5, above).

The Neighbourhood Committee is requested to: 5. Approve expenditure of £2k from the NP’s Devolved Minor Traffic Schemes budget

for the installation of high-viz LED halos at a Zebra Crossing on Coldharbour Road, as a “minor works” project. This is subject to £2k by way of match-funding from the Bishopston, Cotham & Redland NP (Item 4.3 (5), above).

Alan Aburrow Chairman, Transport Working Group (17 February 2016)

12

Attachment 1 (Page 1 of 4)

13

Attachment 1 (Page 2 of 4)

14

Attachment 1 (Page 3 of 4)

15

Attachment 1 (Page 4 of 4)

16

Agenda item 5 (ii)

Stoke Bishop, W-on-T & Henleaze Environment Working Group

Coombe Dingle Sports Centre Thursday 14th January 2016

Present: Sheila Preece, Alan Preece, Hilary Long, Gill Brown, Val Bishop, Clare Milne, Mike Blundell, Helen Furber, Eileen Poad, Sue Boyd, Stephanie French, Susan Mayer, Alan Aburrow, David Mayer. Apologies: Cllr Glenise Morgan, Cllr Clare Campion-Smith, Graham Donald, Gary Brentnall Meeting Chaired by David Mayer – 1. Minutes and Matters arising from 29th October 2015 meeting: Notes considered accurate with the following exceptions or continuing actions: 1.1 Phoenix Lane Weeds. Eileen confirmed that the work had been undertaken but was still incomplete in certain areas. Gary agreed to investigate. C/F from October 2015. Action: Gary to check

1.2 Japanese Knotweed. Correction to the assertion that the Knotweed

problem on SL emanates from the Kitchen Garden. There is no Knotweed in this location.

Recommendations: 1. To note the contents of this report and the Tree Report 2. The Neighbourhood Committee is asked to agree the funding of £3,986 from the NP’s CIL funds for the purchase and installation of play equipment on Stoke Lodge playground (See section 5 below) 3. The Neighbourhood Committee is asked to agree the funding of £5,000 from the NP’s CIL funds to support the improvements to the PROWs discussed (section 9) 4. The Neighbourhood Committee is asked to agree the funding of £980 from the NP’s funds to provide an information board at the Roman Villa (section 10)

17

1.3 Weed Killing. A further assertion that the WHOP has found there is no harm to health. Evidence that it is was considered flimsy. There is continuing analysis. 1.4 FOSPNR. Janet Brinnand has now stepped down as the OSPNR rep on this group. The meeting gave a vote of thanks to Janet for her input. Claire Milne is taking over Janet’s role 2. Trees

Stephanie reported that she had had a meeting with a BCC officer, who had shown her a flow chart of costings for tree replacement. The flow chart only shows S106 funded trees. No other funding sources shown. The PIPs programme is taking up most of the staff resource, so we are not sure how many other trees can be planted by the team. Further comments on the flowchart included the mystery of how one gets to box 10. The arrows seem to send you back to the beginning. Alan noted that the timescales were impossible to achieve. It doesn’t mention tree pits in roads. The biggest challenge for the tree champion is getting responses and action from BCC. Stephanie needs support in this work. Reps should talk to people and report back to Stephanie and Gary. This is the right group to make recommendations on expenditure.

3. Tree Sculpture update This is becoming increasingly difficult and complex. The scaffolding cost is high. There are possible costs of reinstatement. We need to make the case for not having to pay for this. It would have had to be done anyway if the whole tree were cut down, so there oughtn’t to be a charge for bits of it being taken down. Action: Gary to check on this There had been a quote for scaffolding under £3k but this was quickly withdrawn. A quote has additional conditions attached to it: method statement; H&S statement; drawings of plan; Public Liability Insurance. Some of this is unreasonable. We are now trying for 3 further quotes. David stated that some of these requests are reasonable and shouldn’t be beyond a professional scaffolder. Afternote: Stephanie has secured a quote for under £3k. This provider needs to be checked out. It appears he is on the BCC approved contractor list. We just need to clarify the

18

permissions needed Action: Gary to check and, if possible, give the okay to engage the identified scaffolder. If this doesn’t work out and if further quotes are more than £3k we will need to think about how we can secure further funding locally. A vote was taken that the NP shouldn’t have to pay for reinstatement costs. This was unanimously agreed. Vote taken to agree further quotes should be obtained. Unanimously agreed Do we support local fundraising to make up the difference, if needed? A vote was taken. Unanimously agreed

4. Clean and Green

Still haven’t spent £500 per ward this year (2015/16). Action: Andrew to check. Afternote: Checked and confirmed. Funding still not spent. Can be carried forward to 2016/17

5. Stoke Lodge Playground There is a current well-being application for £3,986 for extra play equipment. The Well Being Panel supports the project but has agreed that the funding should be requested from CIL funds. As CIL recommendations are made by the Environment Working Group, the panel has agreed to recommend awarding the funding from Well Being only if the recommendation to fund it from CIL is rejected. The project has appropriate quotes and is supported by BCC Parks Officers. The EWG agreed (unanimously) that this should be paid for from the NP’s CIL funds. The Neighbourhood Committee is asked to agree funding the new play equipment, fully priced at £3,986, from the NP’s CIL allocation.

6. Sensory Garden idea

Sue showed the meeting some ideas for a sensory garden that could, potentially, be sited in the old kitchen garden of Stoke Lodge. The idea came about following discussions with parents of disabled children in the area who have been delighted by the playground and use it very regularly. A sensory garden would provide further opportunities for many local people, including disabled children. This is clearly a project that needs further investigation. There is a lot of advice available to help this idea. It was suggested that the WGOP might be interested in getting involved. Andrew spoke about the potential for

19

funding as well. One member of the group spoke of a report written about a similar project in Sheffield. Action: Andrew to dig out this report and cascade. Afternote: See http://www.landscapeprojects.co.uk/sheffield-parks/ The group agreed unanimously to support this idea in principle and to assist with its development. Afternote: The idea was discussed with the Mayor on his visit to the NP on 25th January 2016. He was extremely keen and supportive and was very interested in the possible location of the garden. He also suggested that advice could be available from the University Botanical Garden near the Downs.

7. Japanese Knotweed

Alan has put together a simple leaflet explaining what Japanese Knotweed is, what it looks like, and how to eradicate it. The suggestion is that it could be given to all houses backing on to Stoke Lodge. The meeting agreed wholeheartedly that the leaflet is excellent and a great help. It would benefit from being branded as a BCC leaflet. Action: Alan, Gary, Andrew to investigate getting it produced as a BCC leaflet. It could be given to local community organisations and possibly as an insert or page in BS9 and Henleaze & Westbury Voice

8. Ebenezer Lane

Sheila has performed a lot of work rebutting the details of a long reply to her concerns from a senior BCC officer. Some of the content of the letter seemed to be inaccurate. For example, a pile of cuttings that was supposed to have been removed was still there, a long time after the letter was received. There is an intention to ask the BCC officer to come and see the problem for himself. It was agreed unanimously that David will send a reply to the officer, as per the draft provided, including an invitation to attend a meeting on site and to attend the next ENV meeting on 28th April 2016. Action: David to send letter. Afternote: Letter sent on Tuesday 9th February 2016. Officer to be invited to attend next ENV meeting

9. Additional funding for improvements to 2 PROWs

Alan provided the meeting with information on a request from BCC Highways for the NP to provide £5,000 of its funds to support the levelling and improvement of public rights of way (PROW) in the NP area.

20

The funding is requested to complete the improvement to three sections of pathways around Golden Hill, Henleaze (please see appendix 1). The total cost is £24,500 and constitutes approximately one third of the total annual citywide budget for such work. After some discussion the meeting agreed (Votes in favour = 9; votes against = 2; abstentions = 1) to formally request the Neighbourhood Committee to agree to release £5,000 of the NP’s CIL funds to enable this work to proceed. Why have these particular lanes been chosen? It was agreed that this needs to be taken up with the councillors. Concern was expressed that by agreeing to support this project we might be setting a precedent. It is BCC’s statutory duty to ensure these lanes are accessible. We need to treat this as a one-off issue. Unfortunately, in the current funding climate, NPs may need to accept that they will have to support projects that were previously paid for from central BCC funds. At least the NPs get to agree to fund which projects they want.

10. Roman Villa display board A quote has been provided for an interpretation board to replace the sign that disappeared at the site some time ago. The quote includes the wording for the board. The quote is £980. The meeting agreed to formally request the Neighbourhood Committee to agree to release £980 for this board from NP funds

11. Any Other Business

11.1 Thanks were given to Sue Boyd for her years of service managing Westbury-in-Bloom. It has won numerous prizes and has been a great success. The meeting gave a unanimous vote of thanks to Sue for her wonderful work over the years. The hunt is now on for Sue’s successor. 11.2 Gill reminded the meeting that there are significant plans for upgrading the facilities at Coombe Dingle. Everyone is advised to keep a close watch for important dates. The work on Coombe Dingle will start in May. A public meeting was being held on 19th January. 11.3 Claire discussed the on-going silt problem in the lake in OSPNR. The plan is to install a silt tank and reed banks to counter the problem. The FOSPNR may come back to the NP to discuss help with funding.

21

12. Date of next meeting - 2.00pm Thursday 28th April 2016pm. Venue tbc

Tree Report Henleaze, Westbury on Trym and Stoke Bishop Neighbourhood Partnership

(NP3) 7th March 2016

Quite a bit has been going on and I have been quite busy over the last 3 months, but there is not much outcome to report to you this quarter.

1. Planning Applications that affect trees: Canford Lane Westbury: This has been named “The Bunker”. The application has gone to Appeal. I outlined in my December report how trees were involved in this development, both concerning the loss of existing trees and the rather bizarre suggestions about mitigation planting put forward in the application. We await the outcome. Church Avenue Stoke Bishop: There is what I think is a hugely important planning policy in Bristol - BCS9 - which sets out (amongst other things) that proposed development of land must preserve green infrastructure where possible - even if this means re-orientating the building in the plot of land. Very recently this policy has been put in force in our patch and a planning application has been turned down because it would have meant the loss of a major Scots Pine tree, and, in the opinion of the Planning and Tree Officers, the planned development could have been re-positioned on the plot of land and there was no need to lose the tree. I did object saying just that on the planning website - but that is not why it was saved. It was saved because the Officers knew what they are doing. So Thank You to them. In fact the Tree Officer went even further in his reporting and stated that, were the applicant to apply to fell the tree separately from any planning application for buildings (something occasionally seen), then he would make the tree the subject of a TPO. I.forwarded the refusal on to the Chair of the Residents’ Association for him to publicise so that householders and developers in the area can be perhaps more thoughtful about their new buildings where significant trees could be affected - we are on the lookout, we do not want to lose the trees unnecessarily and we will object, and BCC Officers will apply the Bristol Core Policies. This leads neatly on to a current application 15/06605 - the redevelopment of Southmead Police Station and the building of a Care Home on the site. This could lead to the loss of a major tree - a Wellingtonia - and again just a little bit of reorientation of the proposed building in the plot could save it. So I have objected most strongly and encouraged others to do so too - and they have. Thank you. I understand that it is going before the Development Committee on April

22

6th. This is an important site and a large development, and maybe too hot to handle as a delegated decision. Those who have objected will be notified and I would urge them to write in again when given the opportunity and maybe even turn up on the day to support our efforts.

2. Trymside: This is still a sorry sight and site, with thick clumpy weeds already growing vigorously where Wessex Water had their temporary depot. I’ll wait a short while but not long before finding out what WW plan to do to renovate the site, that is both acceptable and restores it. A gentle rake and a packet of grass seed are unlikely to be adequate.

3. The Cedar of Lebanon sculpture: The sculptor has found a scaffolder - one who has done major work for BCC including the recent scaffolding of City Hall - and we await the OK from BCC to start the project. The quote from the scaffolder, together with the fee for the carving, is within our budget.

4. There is a new Tree Request Process going through its birth pangs. Delivery is expected soon. The work I have been doing on this on behalf of the Tree Forum has been taking up most of my “tree time”. It will mean that the Environment Group of each NP will have more work to do but we will also have more input. Just as importantly it also means that we are more likely to know where we are with any new tree plantings. I am 80% of my way through writing an explanatory document for people to use, and when it is done I’ll circulate it amongst you even if there is no relevant meeting imminent, for you to digest, because it will take a while. I am reluctant to say too much now in case some answers to questions I have put to BCC do not get the answers I expect or want. NP3 Environment Group has been warned about these changes and has agreed to take it on and to help out. Thank you. I should warn you that there will be a large price rise in one category of tree. In NP3 we are jumping the gun a little - getting off to a brisk start - and before it is in place we are consulting on three schemes that would fit in very neatly with the new proposals. 1) in Westbury Road opposite Majestic Warehouse 2) on Henleaze Road opposite Quarry Park and 3) in Church Avenue (SP). In Westbury Road I am working with Alan Aburrow, in Henleaze Road I am working with an interested resident and in Church Avenue the Sneyd Park Residents’ Association is conducting the consultation following some help from Gay Huggins and from me about what to put in the letter re: cost and the NP involvement etc.

23

A very brief summary of the new process would be “If you find the spot and fund the trees we’ll plant them that year provided there are not services underneath”. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that and more on this later.

5. Replacement Trees: A brand new tree planted on Druid Hill died within 6 weeks of planting just about a year ago. It has now been replaced. A tree on Stoke Lodge Parkland that was supposed to be planted last year, but time ran out, is just about to be planted. I went with the BCC Tree Officer Josie Sadler to put a large orange spray paint “X marks the spot” only last week.

6. University of Bristol large tree in new tree pit scheme: We have indicated to the UoB (more than once) that we have some sites for tree planting for this new line of funding but having been asked to be patient and wait a while longer. The New Year is long past and no news yet. So I am asking again and may be able to update you tonight.

Stephanie French NP3 Tree Champion

24

25

PUBLIC FOOTPATHS BCC/127(part) & BCC/125 HENLEAZE / HORFIELD COMMON

The public footpaths have a natural earth surface and provide the only pedestrian access

connecting The Crescent to Dyrham Close or Lime Trees Road and Horfield Common. The

attached plan and photographs show the route, distances and current condition.

During path inspections the routes are consistently in use by shoppers and walkers, the

surface is not of a suitable standard for the amount of footfall it receives, throughout the

year.

Public rights of way are legally classed as highways and as such the Council has a statutory

duty to ensure they are unobstructed and fit for use. Ensuring rights of way within Bristol

are available for all to use and encouraging communities to make best use of them is

fundamental to keeping them open. In order to do this we upgrade paths whenever funds

will allow. Over the recent years an ever increasing number of paths have been upgraded to

a stone surface.

The preferred contractor will be working in constrained conditions using appropriate

equipment, wherever possible the sections of path will not all be closed at the same time.

The total length is nearly 800m or ½ mile and is anticipated to be 30 days in duration.

To complete the three sections has been costed at £24,500 by the preferred contractor, the

request is for a contribution of £5,000 from the neighbourhood partnership to ensure

completion of the whole scheme. To put the request into context, the cost of this scheme is

about 1/3rd of the capital allocation for rights of way work over the entire City. This scheme

though is considered of high importance for the residents of the area and should not be

delayed further.

A second scheme is also programmed for this financial year surfacing a 1m tarmac width

within a short section of unadopted lane which is well used by residents and as a route to

school. The condition of the route is again unsuitable for the amount of use it receives. This

is at Hollymead Lane connecting to Hollybush Lane and within this neighbourhood

partnership area.

26

Surface Example

27

Agenda item 5 (iii) Notes of NP3 Communications Group Meeting

Tuesday 12 January 2016 at Westbury-on-Trym Library

Present: Alan Aburrow (AA) Valerie Bishop (VB) Helen Furber (HF) David Mayer (DM) Andrew McGrath (AM) Alan Preece (AP) Sheila Preece (SP) Apologies: Peter Weeks

1 Notes of last meeting

Approved.

2 NP Plan leaflet It was confirmed that the plan was included as the four central pages of the January 2016 edition of BS9.

AM confirmed that he has a supply of the printed NP Plan and that he will provide ward representatives with these so they can be distributed. HF asked AM to wait until she had received a reply from Andy Frazer (editor of BS9) regarding which streets in BS9 he delivers the magazine to. We can then focus on distributing to households/leaving in local shops etc where NP3 residents have not had the opportunity to read the Plan in the magazine.

3 Website At the October meeting, AM advised that he had been in correspondence with Knowle West Media Centre (KWMC) regarding hosting servers and providing training and guidance about NPs’ websites across the city. Subsequently this led to AM raising the issue at a NP co-ordinators' meeting. Five NPs are interested in meeting with staff at KWMC to discuss possible services and the associated costs.

It was agreed that NP3 want to make progress as soon as possible and that HF, AA and AP will represent the NP at a meeting with KWMC. AM will arrange the meeting.

AM also referred to email exchanges in December with members of the Bishopston, Cotham & Redland NP regarding their website and its future development. AM agreed to circulate the emails to Communication Group members.

4 Finance It was agreed that a request should be made to the NP Committee at the March 2016 meeting - via AM's co-ordinator's report - for £2,000 to be allocated to a fund managed by AM on behalf of the NP. The money allocated can, subject to agreement, be used to fund ongoing website and advertising costs.

28

5 Traffic Choices With a high number of issues being 'posted' to BCC's Traffic Choices website, it was agreed that we need to communicate a process for responding to contributions.

It was agreed:

• Requests are posted to the website in summary form by Rob Grieve (RG).

• RG should advise AM about the requests. • AM should then invite the contributor to make his/ her case at the next

Forum. If Forum participants agree that the request is for an action that should be considered, it will be raised at the next Transport meeting.

Once a request has been considered and either dealt with or rejected, it will remain on the website but with a colour change.

It was agreed that, (1) All communications group members will look at the website and (2) AM will send an email to RG to ask him to send details of requests to him.

6 BCC Marketing Plan

HF advised that Penny Germon had given her a copy of the "Marketing Plan" in October (headed "Communications - BCC and NPs: Overview 2015"). However it appears that it has not been officially issued outside of BCC.

AM said that points in the document about NPs having twitter and facebook accounts would be discussed at a co-ordinators' meeting on 13 January.

It was agreed that as HF would be seeing Hayley Ash on 13 January, the document's availability and implementation should be discussed with her.

7 NP event on 24 October

HF asked for feedback on the event in advance of a debrief meeting with NP representatives. The general consensus was there is no need to have an annual NP conference but shorter meetings on appropriate topics could be held on a case by case basis throughout the year.

8 Annual NP3 elections

It was agreed that notice of the elections should be included in the April edition of BS9. HF will contact Andy Frazer and try to get this as an editorial rather than a paid advertisement.

In addition to the BS9 notification, we will refer to the elections at the upcoming Forum meetings, AM will issue an email to the 600/ 700 individuals on the NP database and we will maximise use of local notice boards.

9 Mayor's visit George Ferguson (GF) is due to visit NP3 on 21 January between 11am and 2pm (previously scheduled for between 10am and 3pm). Separate meetings of the Communications Group have taken place to arrange the visit.

As of 12 April we were waiting for the Mayor's office to comment on the proposed outline programme.

10 Next quarterly meeting

5pm on Tuesday 12 April 2016 at Westbury-on-Trym Library. (venue is subject to confirmation)

29

Agenda item 5 (iv)

Working Group for Older People

Report to the Neighbourhood Partnership - 7th March 2015

WGOP aims to promote the health, well being and quality of life of older people within the NP3 area.

Pick-Me-Up Activities are for those people in our NP3 partnership who have difficulty in using public transport and who may feel isolated.

Pick Me Up Activities

The WGOP Pick-me-Up outings are much appreciated and considered to be a very worthwhile activity by those who choose to take part and give us feedback. We receive numerous Thank You cards following the outings.

The Pick me Up trip on Wednesday 9 December was to the Wyevale Garden Centre at Congresbury followed by a Festive two course lunch at the Walton Park Hotel, Clevedon and was enjoyed by 43 participants. A raffle and a Christmas Quiz added to the fun.

The next Pick me Up outing is planned for the 16 June. Booking forms will be available shortly and adverts will be on notice boards in the NP3 area and in local publications.

What's On Booklet

The 2015 edition of the Booklet “Activities for the over 55s” in our NP area has been available in the local community facilities in our wards since early September.

The booklet was updated by the WGOP in conjunction with LinkAge using their citywide publication design. This second publication has proved to be very popular with our local libraries calling for additional copies.

The Group is aware of all equality issues whilst planning activities and continues to support the work of Tony Hall of Bristol Dementia Action Alliance and their work in our partnership area. A Happy days Memory Cafe aimed at Carers and people living with dementia has opened at

30

Westbury Baptist Church, Reedley Road. This cafe compliments the work at Trinity Henleaze United Reformed Church where there is a Memory Cafe and a Singing for the Brain group.

The Constitution of WGOP

The constitution of WGOP is currently in the process of being reviewed.

Future proposed meetings of the Working Group for Older People:

13 April 2016 at 2pm at the Eastfield Inn, Henleaze Road.

The group welcomes volunteers who may be willing to help in any way and welcomes suggestions for start-up activities Please contact Andrew McGrath Tel. 903 6436 or any member of the group if you are interested in our work.

Valerie Bishop

Chairman

31

Agenda item 5 (v)

HSBWOT NP Governance Working Group Report

1.0 At its meeting held on 26th January 2016, the following NP members were present:

Governance Working Group members: David Mayer, Alan Preece, Helen Furber, Andrew McGrath. Observers: Glenise Morgan, Alan Aburrow

The meeting was called due to the need to make clear recommendations ahead of the boundary changes taking place in spring 2016. The NP area will undergo profound changes:

• Henleaze and W-o-T wards will merge to become one ward with three councillors

• The eastern part of W-o-T ward (around Lake Rd) will become part of Southmead ward

• Part of Sea Mills will become part of Stoke Bishop ward

2.0 The Governance Working Group makes the following Recommendations:

1. The NP should retain the position of elected reps

2. The number of elected reps should be retained at 2 per councillor

Recommendations:

1. To note the report and discussion held on governance issues relating to the NP

2. To discuss and agree the recommendations in section 2 (1-8)

3. To note the reasons for proposed changes to the NP’s Terms of Reference set out in section 3.0 and to agree the detailed changes set out in Appendix 2 (Proposed Terms of Reference).

32

3. This means that Stoke Bishop ward will continue to have 4 elected rep positions; W-o-T & Henleaze ward will have 6 elected rep positions

4. In the first year of the new boundaries, 1 Sea Mills rep will be a nominated rep on the NP. This rep will have the same status and rights as all elected reps. This rep will be in addition to the 4 elected reps for Stoke Bishop (who could also include Sea Mills residents). This is a 1 year transition period. After the first year, Stoke Bishop ward will revert to a total of 4 elected reps

5. The Stoke Bishop reps will work with councillors and officers to develop a plan to encourage involvement in the NP by Sea Mills residents. This will include encouraging potential reps from Sea Mills to come forward and stand for election, and attend meetings and working groups

6. The new merged ward of W-o-T & Henleaze should have 1 joint forum per year, which will be the forum when rep elections take place (usually May forums); and 2 or 3 separate forums per year in each of the ‘old’ ward areas. This is to be reviewed after one year

7. The combined forum on Wednesday 11th May 2016 (Red Maids School) will also provide an opportunity for ward councillors to brief residents on their intentions and priorities following their recent election

8. The newly elected NP reps for the new ward of W-o-T & Henleaze will be asked to agree among themselves which parts of the ward they will prioritise as reps. This division of the ward along notional boundaries does not mean that reps will ignore the other parts of the ward. It is to ensure that all parts of the ward have a rep with a strong knowledge of the priorities and needs of that particular geographic area. All gaps will be covered by agreement between the reps. This is to be reviewed on a regular basis

3.0 Proposed alterations to the NP’s Terms of Reference

1.0 Due to the significant changes in the shape, size and representation of the NP, the Governance Working Group

33

is recommending amendments to the NP’s Terms of Reference. Please see the attached proposed Terms of Reference and the current Terms of Reference. The proposed additions/changes are highlighted in Appendix 2. The suggested deletions/changes to the current Terms of Reference are crossed through at the relevant points in Appendix 1. This allows for a detailed comparison of the substantive changes between the current and proposed Terms of Reference 2.0 Please note that some of the changes are needed merely to update the document because of changes to the number and size of the wards in the NP and because of other factors that are no longer in place (changes to job titles etc). The other substantive proposed changes are as follows:

• Clarifying the status of ‘specialist’ reps (eg our Tree Champion and Neighbourhood Watch rep)

• As it’s a new ward, elections for rep positions to W-o-T & Henleaze Ward, will start afresh. All 6 rep positions will be up for election in May 2016

• As a result of this change, any previous time served in previous wards will not count and will start afresh after the upcoming election for the new ward. In other words, no reps standing in the new ward should have previous terms in office in the old wards count as time served as a rep.

• The NP has to ratify Working Group Chairs who are not members of the NP. It can also remove any Working Group Chair if it deems it appropriate to do so.

34

CURRENT TERMS OF REFERENCE

Introduction:

The 14 Neighbourhood Partnerships in Bristol are each unique, having developed in response to local needs, in different ways and at different rates. These Terms of Reference have been developed over the first two years of the Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym Neighbourhood Partnership.

1. Name

The name of the Neighbourhood Partnership shall be Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym Neighbourhood Partnership and it will cover the wards of:

a) Henleaze b) Stoke Bishop c) Westbury on Trym

known as “the Neighbourhood” or ”NP3”.

2. Purpose

The Henleaze Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym Neighbourhood Partnership (hereafter “the Partnership”) aims to improve the quality of life for residents in the neighbourhood so that satisfaction levels increase, and also increase civic pride, community cohesion and community involvement by:

a) Developing a local action plan and identifying local solutions to local problems wherever possible.

b) Encouraging public, private and community and voluntary organisations to work together to deliver improvements to residents’ quality of life.

c) Tackling deprivation and discrimination in the neighbourhood, and promoting equality of opportunity for all those living or working there.

d) Considering proposed decisions of the Neighbourhood Committee and influencing such so as to use resources to best meet the needs of the neighbourhood.

e) Receiving reports from service delivery bodies and influencing service priorities within the neighbourhood in accordance with identified needs and priorities.

f) Actively engaging with local people across the neighbourhood, seeking their views and active participation in improving their quality of life. This includes seeking the views and participation of residents that are hard to reach.

Neighbourhood Partnerships in Bristol

Terms of Reference

Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym

35

g) Co-ordinating community engagement, approving an annual multi-agency community engagement plan for the Neighbourhood, accompanied by a local communication strategy to raise awareness of engagement opportunities as widely as possible, in accordance with the Bristol Community Engagement framework.

h) Considering regularly the results of community engagement activities, ensuring that wherever possible action is taken in response to the issues raised.

i) Supporting and promoting locally the aims of the Bristol Partnership as set out in the Bristol 20:20 Plan.

3. We Value:

a) Civic pride, protecting our public realm, improving it and making it sustainable b) Respect and Compassion c) Aspiration, energy, enthusiasm and creativity d) Personal responsibility and accountability e) Community development / involvement and ‘grass-roots’ action

4. Membership of the Neighbourhood Partnership

The requirements for our Neighbourhood Partnership are:

a) All Members of the NP, except elected councillors, will be expected to live in the Ward that they represent.

b) The Partnership may co-opt non-voting members during the year to provide specialist expertise from time to time on a needs basis.

c) The quorum for meetings of the Neighbourhood Partnership will be one third of voting members, to include at least two ward councillors, and at least one resident representative from each ward.

d) Observers are always welcome to Neighbourhood Partnerships, which are public meetings.

e) Any changes to this ToR can be made at the AGM.

Neighbourhood Partnership (NP3) Attendance

Number

(i) All ward councillors

6

(ii) Equalities Forum Rep – to be sole observers until June 2011

2

(iii) Young Persons rep – we will work towards a young persons forum which will report back to the NP

(iv) 4 Representatives from each ward – may be from Residents or local voluntary group

12

(v) Other members as decided by the NP (e.g. vol sector, business, arts, environment etc)

To be co-opted as and when

36

5. Neighbourhood Committees

a) Neighbourhood Committees are committees of Bristol City Council. They comprise the councillors elected to serve the wards within the Neighbourhood. Neighbourhood Committee meetings will normally take place jointly with meetings of the Neighbourhood Partnership. All Neighbourhood Committee members will also be members of the Neighbourhood Partnership.

b) Neighbourhood Committees have delegated power to take a range of council decisions relating to their respective Neighbourhoods (e.g. expenditure of certain council budgets). Neighbourhood Partnerships may consider matters that are to be decided by its Neighbourhood Committee and may seek to influence the Neighbourhood Committee as to how it exercises its powers. The Neighbourhood Committee must take into account any relevant views of the Neighbourhood Partnership but the final decision is taken by the councillors on the Neighbourhood Committee.

6. Practical arrangements

a) The Neighbourhood Partnership will meet in public at least four times per year but may of course choose to meet more frequently.

b) One of these meetings will include an Annual General Meeting, for which the quorum shall be at least three councillors and a Ward Rep from each Ward (6 people).

c) The Partnership will elect a Chair and Vice Chair at the Annual meeting, by simple majority of those present and eligible to vote. (In the event of a tie, each shall take each office for 6 months).

d) The Partnership may elect other officers as it decides are required (e.g. treasurer, secretary etc).

e) Neighbourhood Partnerships may also wish to consider co-options in order to make the partnership more balanced; e.g. by gender, age, ethnicity, geography.

f) The Partnership may establish working groups, task groups etc as required and not limited to Neighbourhood Partnership members only.

g) Minutes of the Neighbourhood Partnership meetings will be taken by BCC officers and made public (including within public libraries) within one month of the Partnership meeting.

h) An agenda showing time and place of the meeting will be published (including within public libraries) at least two weeks prior to the Partnership meeting.

i) All meetings will be open to the public, unless there is a specific reason (such as data protection) and formal vote to allow closed session. This should be avoided wherever possible.

7. Officers of Statutory Bodies

a) The following officers are expected to attend all meetings of the Neighbourhood Partnership in a non voting capacity to provide support and assistance as required:

i. Bristol City Council Area Coordinator (or their representative) ii. The Neighbourhood Police Inspector (or their representative) iii. NHS Bristol iv. A representative of the most relevant Children and Young People’s

Partnership (CYPP)

37

b) Officers of other bodies (e.g.; Avon and Somerset Fire and Rescue) may choose to attend Neighbourhood Partnership meetings if aspects of the agenda are relevant to them, or if invited by the Neighbourhood Partnership.

8. How do residents and service providers and other partners work together?

9. Neighbourhood Partnership Terms of Reference - Guidance Notes

a) Name: The Neighbourhood Partnership name will be decided by the Neighbourhood Partnership at its annual meeting.

b) Frequency of meetings: Based on current practice, up to 6 meetings per year can be supported by the Council, in terms of room rental and note-taking, although it is expected that most will opt for 4 per year. This will be reviewed at the end of the year.

10. Election of Ward Reps

a) Ward Reps will be elected at the relevant Neighbourhood Forum prior to the Partnership AGM, where the newly elected Ward Reps shall be endorsed. In 2011, as agreed, all 12 Ward Rep places were open for election. In subsequent years, 2 Ward Rep places shall come up for election in each Ward. The two Ward Reps that get the least votes will have a 1-year term in the first cycle of elections.

38

b) Nominations will be received and each prospective Ward Rep shall submit an application form by an agreed date prior to the relevant Forum.

c) Ward Reps can stand for a maximum of 5 years, however it is envisaged that 4 years shall be the norm. When a Ward Rep has been in the role for 5 years, they must stand down for at least 12 months. Addendum (agreed at 2nd December 2013 NP meeting): In the event that there are fewer ward rep candidates than vacant positions in any of the NP wards, one or more of the current ward reps who have served for at least 4 consecutive years may ask the Neighbourhood Partnership to allow them to continue for a further year. In the event that more ward reps than the number of vacant positions available are willing to continue for the further year, these ward reps are expected to agree amongst themselves who shall offer themselves for the further year. If they are unable to do so, all of the NP reps shall vote to select the ward rep.

d) All Resident NP Members (Ward Reps) of the NP will be expected to live in the Ward that they represent.

e) In the event that only 4 people are nominated there will be no election, however lots will be taken to decide the term of service (either one or two years).

11. Role of Ward Reps

a) The Role of a Ward Rep is to actively attend meetings, research information, work with service providers, make recommendations to the Neighbourhood Committee, market the work of the Neighbourhood Partnership and Neighbourhood Forums, and in some cases (e.g. The Elderly Peoples Working Group) co-ordinate some activities.

b) Ward Reps will be expected to attend at least three quarters of all meetings; this will include the Neighbourhood Partnership meetings, the Pre-Meetings and the relevant Neighbourhood Forums.

c) Ward Reps will not send substitutes if they cannot attend meetings. d) Ward Reps will also be expected to be an active member of at least one

Working Group and may be asked to chair or take notes. e) If a Ward Rep resigns, the vacant place can be offered on a co-opted basis;

however this place will have no voting rights. The co-opted resident can then stand for election at the next opportunity.

12. Equalities

The Bristol Equalities Forum will nominate one or two representatives from the Neighbourhood who will seek to make a contribution for all equalities groups. Support will be provided. The term and method of appointment will be discussed at a later date.

13. Community engagement, Neighbourhood Forums, Working Groups

a) Neighbourhood Forums will be held at ward level, four times per year. b) Chairing of the Forums will be decided locally. In some cases the elected

Members may chair, in others the Ward Reps. c) The Police in some cases may provide administrative support and provide a

note taking service. In some cases residents may be asked to do this. d) The Neighbourhood Partnership may decide that other formats are more

effective for enabling resident engagement than a standard meeting format. Whilst it will need to ensure that agreed elements, such as progress updates

39

from previous meetings, or consultation activities are retained. The emphasis should be on providing opportunities that provide the greatest level of engagement (for example, neighbourhood walkabouts with agencies in attendance, market place drop in sessions, or meetings led by young people, may from time to time be deemed more appropriate formats).

e) Twice a year, the Partnership will receive a report highlighting the issues raised during community engagement activities in the Neighbourhood (You said. We did).

f) The Partnership has lead responsibility for the quality of community engagement in its neighbourhood, and is advised to regularly consider how it may improve further.

g) Interested residents may join any of the working groups but may not chair. h) Working Groups will be convened by the Neighbourhood Partnership and will

be expected to report to the Neighbourhood Partnership and, if directed, to the Neighbourhood Forums.

i) All working group recommendations must be agreed by the Neighbourhood Partnership before they are actioned, unless they are explicitly empowered to act by the Neighbourhood Partnership.

14. The Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym Neighbourhood Partnership currently has the following Working Groups

Well-being Working Group (Chair: Area Co-ordinator), Transport Working Group (Chair: Alan Aburrow), Environmental Working Group (Chair: Vacant), Communications Working Group (Chair: Vacant), Elderly Peoples Working Group (Chair: Vacant). In time, depending on need, we will form a Young People’s Working Group.

40

PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE

Introduction:

The 14 Neighbourhood Partnerships in Bristol are each unique, having developed in response to local needs, in different ways and at different rates. These Terms of Reference have been updated to reflect the 2016 ward boundary changes

1. Name

The name of the Neighbourhood Partnership shall be Stoke Bishop, W-o-T & Henleaze Neighbourhood Partnership and it will cover the wards of:

a) Stoke Bishop b) Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze

known as “the Neighbourhood” or ”NP3”.

2. Purpose

The Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze Neighbourhood Partnership (hereafter “the Partnership”) aims to improve the quality of life for residents in the neighbourhood so that satisfaction levels increase, and also increase civic pride, community cohesion and community involvement by:

a) Developing a local action plan and identifying local solutions to local problems wherever possible.

b) Encouraging public, private and community and voluntary organisations to work together to deliver improvements to residents’ quality of life.

c) Tackling deprivation and discrimination in the neighbourhood, and promoting equality of opportunity for all those living or working there.

d) Considering proposed decisions of the Neighbourhood Committee and influencing such so as to use resources to best meet the needs of the neighbourhood.

e) Receiving reports from service delivery bodies and influencing service priorities within the neighbourhood in accordance with identified needs and priorities.

f) Actively engaging with local people across the neighbourhood, seeking their views and active participation in improving their quality of life. This includes seeking the views and participation of residents that are hard to reach.

Neighbourhood Partnerships in Bristol

Terms of Reference

Stoke Bishop, Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze

41

g) Co-ordinating community engagement, approving an annual multi-agency community engagement plan for the Neighbourhood, accompanied by a local communication strategy to raise awareness of engagement opportunities as widely as possible, in accordance with the Bristol Community Engagement framework.

h) Considering regularly the results of community engagement activities, ensuring that wherever possible action is taken in response to the issues raised.

3. We Value:

a) Civic pride, protecting our public realm, improving it and making it sustainable b) Respect and Compassion c) Aspiration, energy, enthusiasm and creativity d) Personal responsibility and accountability e) Community development / involvement and ‘grass-roots’ action

4. Membership of the Neighbourhood Partnership

The requirements for our Neighbourhood Partnership are:

a) All Members of the NP, except elected councillors, will be expected to live in the Ward that they represent.

b) The Partnership may co-opt non-voting members during the year to provide specialist expertise from time to time on a needs basis.

c) The NP may adopt specialist rep positions to the NP. These positions are to have the same rights and status as elected reps. These positions to be reconfirmed at each Partnership Annual General Meeting (AGM).

d) The quorum for meetings of the Neighbourhood Partnership will be one third of voting members, to include at least three ward councillors, and one resident representative from Stoke Bishop ward and two from Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze ward.

e) Observers are always welcome to Neighbourhood Partnerships, which are public meetings.

f) Any changes to this ToR can be made at the AGM.

Neighbourhood Partnership (NP3) Attendance

Number

All ward councillors

5

Equalities Reps

2

Neighbourhood Inspector

1

Young Persons rep –

1

4 Elected Reps from Stoke Bishop ward; 6 elected reps from Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze ward

10

Other members as decided by the NP (see 4c above) To be co-opted as and when Currently 3

42

5. Neighbourhood Committees

a) Neighbourhood Committees are committees of Bristol City Council. They comprise the councillors elected to serve the wards within the Neighbourhood. Neighbourhood Committee meetings will normally take place jointly with meetings of the Neighbourhood Partnership. All Neighbourhood Committee members will also be members of the Neighbourhood Partnership.

b) Neighbourhood Committees have delegated power to take a range of council decisions relating to their respective Neighbourhoods (e.g. expenditure of certain council budgets). Neighbourhood Partnerships may consider matters that are to be decided by its Neighbourhood Committee and may seek to influence the Neighbourhood Committee as to how it exercises its powers. The Neighbourhood Committee must take into account any relevant views of the Neighbourhood Partnership but the final decision is taken by the councillors on the Neighbourhood Committee.

6. Practical arrangements

a) The Neighbourhood Partnership will meet in public at least four times per year but may of course choose to meet more frequently.

b) One of these meetings will include an AGM, for which the quorum shall be as per 4d above.

c) The Partnership will elect a Chair and Vice Chair at the AGM, by simple majority of those present and eligible to vote. (In the event of a tie, each shall take each office for 6 months).

d) The Partnership may elect other officers as it decides are required (e.g. treasurer, secretary etc).

e) Neighbourhood Partnerships may also wish to consider co-options in order to make the partnership more balanced; e.g. by gender, age, ethnicity, geography.

f) The Partnership may establish working groups, task groups etc as required and not limited to Neighbourhood Partnership members only.

g) Minutes of the Neighbourhood Partnership meetings will be taken by BCC officers and made public (including within public libraries) within one month of the Partnership meeting.

h) An agenda showing time and place of the meeting will be published (including within public libraries) at least two weeks prior to the Partnership meeting.

i) All meetings will be open to the public, unless there is a specific reason (such as data protection) and formal vote to allow closed session. This should be avoided wherever possible.

7. Officers of Statutory Bodies

a) The following officers are expected to attend all meetings of the Neighbourhood Partnership in a non voting capacity to provide support and assistance as required:

i. Bristol City Council Neighbourhood Coordinator (or their representative) ii. Neighbourhood Police Inspector

Officers of other bodies (e.g.; Avon and Somerset Fire and Rescue) may choose to attend Neighbourhood Partnership meetings if aspects of the agenda are relevant to them, or if invited by the Neighbourhood Partnership.

43

8. How do residents and service providers and other partners work together?

9. Neighbourhood Partnership Terms of Reference - Guidance Notes

a) Name: The Neighbourhood Partnership name will be decided by the Neighbourhood Partnership at its AGM.

b) Frequency of meetings: Based on current practice, up to 6 meetings per year can be supported by the Council, in terms of room rental and note-taking, although it is expected that most will opt for 4 per year. This will be reviewed at the end of the year.

10. Election of Ward Reps

a) Ward Reps will be elected at the relevant Neighbourhood Forum prior to the Partnership AGM, where the newly elected Ward Reps shall be endorsed. Due to the 2016 boundary changes, leading to a new single ward where previously there were two, all 6 ward rep positions in the new Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze ward are open for election in 2016. In subsequent years, 3 Ward Rep places shall come up for election in Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze Ward. The three Ward Reps that get the least votes will have a 1-year term in the first cycle of elections. The three reps with the most votes will serve a 2 year term. After the 2016 election all reps’ elected terms will normally last for two years

b) Nominations will be received and each prospective Ward Rep shall submit an application form by an agreed date prior to the relevant Forum.

c) Ward Reps can stand for a maximum of 5 years. Due to the boundary changes that have led to the new ward of Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze, all previous

44

terms as elected reps in the old wards of Westbury-on-Trym or Henleaze do not count as years served. Addendum (agreed at 2nd December 2013 NP meeting): In the event that there are fewer ward rep candidates than vacant positions in any of the NP wards, one or more of the current ward reps who have served for at least 4 consecutive years may ask the Neighbourhood Partnership to allow them to continue for a further year. In the event that more ward reps than the number of vacant positions available are willing to continue for the further year, these ward reps are expected to agree amongst themselves who shall offer themselves for the further year. If they are unable to do so, all of the NP reps shall vote to select the ward rep.

d) All Resident Neighbourhood Partnership Members (Ward Reps) will be expected to live in the Ward that they represent.

e) In the event that there are not more candidates than elected rep positions available in each ward, there will be no election. Candidates will automatically become elected reps for their ward. In this case, where appropriate, lots will be taken to decide the term of service (either one or two years, as per the cycle outline in 10a).

11. Role of Ward Reps

a) The Role of a Ward Rep is to actively attend meetings, research information, work with service providers, make recommendations to the Neighbourhood Committee, market the work of the Neighbourhood Partnership and Neighbourhood Forums, and in some cases (e.g. The Working Group for Older People) co-ordinate activities.

b) Ward Reps will be expected to attend at least three quarters of all meetings; this will include the Neighbourhood Partnership meetings, the Pre-Meetings and the relevant Neighbourhood Forums. Reps not able to attend meetings are expected to give their apologies. The NP retains the right to remove reps from the NP if they fail to attend regularly without giving apologies.

c) Ward Reps cannot send substitutes if they cannot attend meetings. d) Ward Reps will also be expected to be an active member of at least one

Working Group and may be asked to chair or take notes. e) If a Ward Rep resigns, the vacant place can be offered on a co-opted basis;

however this place will have no voting rights. The co-opted resident can then stand for election at the next opportunity.

12. Equalities

The Bristol Equalities Forum will nominate one or two representatives from the Neighbourhood who will seek to make a contribution on behalf of all equalities groups. All reps are expected to support equalities legislation and good practice in the Neighbourhood Partnership.

13. Community engagement, Neighbourhood Forums, Working Groups

a) Neighbourhood Forums will be held at ward level, up to four times per year. b) Chairing of the Forums will be decided locally. c) The Police in some cases may provide administrative support and provide a

note taking service. In some cases residents may be asked to do this.

45

d) The Neighbourhood Partnership may decide that other formats are more effective for enabling resident engagement than a standard meeting format. Whilst it will need to ensure that agreed elements, such as progress updates from previous meetings, or consultation activities are retained, the emphasis should be on providing opportunities that enable the greatest level of engagement (for example, neighbourhood walkabouts with agencies in attendance, market place drop in sessions, or meetings led by young people, may from time to time be deemed more appropriate formats).

e) The Partnership has lead responsibility for the quality of community engagement in its neighbourhood, and is advised to regularly consider how it may improve further.

f) Interested residents may join any of the working groups g) The Chairs of the Working Groups will normally be members of the NP, elected

by the Working Group. If a Working Group Chair isn’t an NP member, their election as Chair needs to be ratified by the NP at its next meeting following the election of the Working Group Chair. The NP also retains the right to remove people as Chairs of Working Groups if it deems it necessary to do so.

h) Working Groups will be convened by the Neighbourhood Partnership and will be expected to report to the Neighbourhood Partnership and, if directed, to the Neighbourhood Forums.

i) All working group recommendations must be agreed by the Neighbourhood Partnership before they are actioned, unless they are explicitly empowered to act by the Neighbourhood Partnership.

14. The Stoke Bishop, Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze Neighbourhood Partnership currently has the following Working Groups

Well-being Working Group (Chair: Neighbourhood Co-ordinator), Transport Working Group (Chair: Alan Aburrow), Environment Working Group (Chair: David Mayer ), Communications Working Group (Chair: Helen Furber), Working Group for Older (Chair: Val Bishop), Governance Working Group (Chair Neighbourhood Coordinator). In time, depending on need, we will form a Young People’s Working Group.

46

AGENDA ITEM NO 6

Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP

Monday 7th March 2016

Report of: Andrew McGrath – Communities & Neighbourhoods

Title: Well Being Report

Contact Telephone Number: 0117 9036436

1. Well Being Funding 2015/16 Well Being funding at the start of the year was: £30,000 At the June meeting the NP awarded: £1,266 At the September meeting the NP awarded: £1,630 At the December meeting the NP awarded: £150

This leaves: £26,954

2. Well Being Panel recommendations

The Well Being Panel met on Monday 18th January 2016. Its recommendations are set out in table 1 below. If the recommended maximum* allocations are agreed by the NP, the total funding allocated this NP will be £7,483, which would leave £19,471 to roll over to 2016/17. *Please see specific recommendations. The amounts awarded will vary depending on the responses to further information requests to applicants

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• The NP to note the current Well Being allocation • The NP to discuss and agree the Well Being Panel recommendations as

set out in Table 1. • To note the actions for the Neighbourhood Coordinator regarding the

management of the well-being grants process

47

Table 1

Name What

they do What is

application for?

How much Requested

£

Discussion and Recommendation

Busy Bees Pre-school Group

Pre-school Group

To pay for staff to assist the weekly nature walks to Fallodon Way Play Area

£388.80 The NP is not allowed to pay salary support costs. The Panel is sympathetic to the work and aims of the group and would urge a re-think on what they apply for, to bring them within the funding criteria of the NP Recommendation: Can’t fund this application but willing to consider an alternative request.

Friends of Downs and Avon Gorge

Voluntary group that helps to maintain the Downs and Avon Gorge

FOD&AG Recruitment Drive

£1,090.00 The Panel expressed concern that the volunteer figures are incorrect. As three NPs border the Downs, the panel considers it appropriate that the other 2 neighbouring NPs also contribute towards this project. Why hasn’t the applicant applied for the amount of the cheapest quote provided? The Panel is aware of the good work this group performs (the NP has funded it before). But the group can’t keep coming back to this NP. It needs to seek other sources of funding as well. Recommendation: Award £600 and ask the 2 neighbouring NPs to assist as well

48

School’s Out Henleaze

After School and Holiday Club

School’s Out Well Being Project. Purchase new equipment

£883 Excellent group, good cause. 1 abstention due to a declaration of interest. 7 in favour, 0 against Recommendation: Fund fully = £883

Stoke Bishop CA

Maintain SB Community Hall for Community use

Replacement of original 1885 front door

£3,000 One verbal quote secured so far. The Panel will need the 2 quotes. The applicant will need to assure the Panel that it is complying with its listed building requirements when the work is performed. Recommendation: Fund £3,000 with the following conditions: 1. Two quotes are obtained and forwarded to the NPC Afternote: (copies available for inspection) 2. The SBCA must guarantee the panel that it is able to find any additional money if the cost of the work is above £3k. Afternote: Confirmation received

Stoke Lodge Playground

Community Group for parents, families and children in Stoke Bishop

Older age group (8-14yrs) accessible playground equipment

£3,968 The NP Environment Working Group, at its meeting on 14th January 2016, agreed to formally recommend paying for this project from the NP’s CIL funds. Recommendation: The Panel recommends fully funding this application only if the NP Committee doesn’t agree to fund it from the NP’s CIL funds

49

Horfield and Henleaze Children’s Centre

Children’s Centre providing services for families and children in Henleaze and Horfield/Manor Farm areas

Families and Communities Together. Bring families and practitioners together to support parenting

£3,000 Concern was expressed that the NP may be being asked to fund something that doesn’t benefit residents from the NP area. The NPC was asked to investigate with the applicant the following concerns: 1. What actually is the project? Not clear what it does and what the benefit would be 2. What is the project’s start date? 3. Where will the project be based? 4. What proportion of the project beneficiaries live in the HSBWOT NP area? Afternote: NPC contacted the applicant on 19th January 2016. Recommendation: If the above questions are answered (and satisfy the Panel), the Panel agrees to recommend funding the project at the same proportion of beneficiaries from the HSBWOT NP area compared to the total beneficiaries

3.0 Any Other Business 3.1 A panel member raised the issue of differing versions of applications and guidance documents on the BCC website and the NP’s website. These seem to change without notice. Andrew agreed to investigate and to ensure the NP website has the most recent version. NPC is also to investigate why the version control appears to be faltering. Action: Andrew. Afternote: The application process is currently being reviewed, with a view to making the application form and process simpler. This should be complete in time for the next grants round. 3.2 The panel was concerned that it didn’t receive the applications until the Friday before the Monday panel meeting. This is not enough time to consider them in

50

detail. Andrew apologised and agreed to liaise with the admin staff member responsible for sending out applications to panels to ensure they are sent out the next working day after the closing date. Action: Andrew 4. Legal Information

When councillors decide how the wellbeing fund is spent they should have due regard to the public sector equality duty that applies to all public bodies. This duty is contained in the Equality Act 2010 and came in to force on 6 April 2011. It replaces previous equality duties under the Sex Discrimination, Race Relations and Disability Discrimination Acts. The duty means that councillors are required to have due regard to the need to :

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act

• Promote equality of opportunity between different groups • Foster good relations between people from different groups

The duty covers the following protected characteristics:

• Disability • Sexual orientation • Age • Gender reassignment • Religion and belief • Sex • Race • Pregnancy and maternity

It also applies to marriage and civil partnership, but only in respect of the requirement to eliminate discrimination and harassment.

51

AGENDA ITEM NO 7 Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym

NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP Monday 7th March 2016

Report of: Andrew McGrath – Communities & Neighbourhoods

Title: NP Co-ordinator Telephone Number: 0117 9036436 1. Forum Updates Please see below a brief overview of the recent neighbourhood forums. For detailed notes on previous Forums, please follow the web link below. Next scheduled Forum dates are as follows:

Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze – 7pm Wednesday 11th May 2016 – Red Maids School Stoke Bishop – 7pm Tuesday 10th May 2016- Stoke Bishop Primary School For full meeting notes and other information, visit the NP website:

http://www.activenp.co.uk/

RECOMMENDATIONS. The NP is asked: 1. To note the brief updates from the last forums. 2. To note that a verbal update on the citywide Parks meeting will be

provided at the NP meeting 3. To note the brief update on the Mayor’s visit to the NP and to note

that an action sheet from the visit will be with the NP soon 4. To note the meeting schedule and to agree or alter the proposed

dates 5. To note the updates on this NP’s devolved budgets and to note the

update on non-devolved S106 funding allocated to this NP area 6. To note the report on the recent Citywide NP conference and to

discuss and agree the recommendations made in the report 7. To note the information regarding the NP Plan and to agree that the

working groups should review and update their parts the plan

52

Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Forum. Wednesday 3rd February 2016

Councillors: Geoff Gollop, Alastair Watson WoT Ward Reps: Alan Aburrow (Meeting Chairman) David Mayer, Sue Boyd, Graham Donald BCC Officers: Gary Brentnall Avon & Somerset Police: PC Joanne Robertson, PCSO Toby Rideout, PCSO Zaheer Bulbal Also present: Stephanie French (NP rep and tree Champion), Wendy Hull (NW rep) 31 members of the public Ward Boundary changes.

• Coming in April 2016. W-o-T and Henleaze wards will merge, with a little of the area around lake Road being ‘lost’ to Southmead ward. It will also affect the date and venue of the next forum.

• The next forum will be for resident rep elections to the NP • Some of the polling stations will also change. Check the BCC website for information • A decision will be made at the NP on 7th March 2016 regarding separate or combined ward

forums Filton development:

• A lack of information from BCC is making it difficult to report on this issue. Afternote: Reps and Councillors meeting with officers on this issue on 26th February 2016.

• Apparently up to £9m has so far been secured for mitigation but this is nowhere near enough

• advised that there is “Regional Spatial Strategy” and a “Regional Transport Strategy” consultation document available for comment by the community

Other issues discussed:

• Pavement parking in Westbury road. Yellow lines may be introduced to combat this • Better visibility of Timetables within Bus shelters. Bus Timetables in Westbury Village have

now been installed to the rear of Bus Shelters following complaints of poor access (blocked by seating) meaning that they are now available to be viewed from inside the shelter and from the rear

• Inaccurate Real Time Information (RTI) displays at Bus Shelters. Now resolved • Electricity Sub Station fence on PRoW from Cooper Rd to Back Stoke Lane. Western

Power have confirmed that the site is on their programme of works • Westbury Wildlife Park. No progress on this matter • Stoke Lane Notice Board. Gary confirmed that new Perspex sheets had been ordered and

will be installed asap

Police update:

• Dwelling burglaries. Decrease from 11 to 4 • Burglaries from Sheds / Non Dwellings (detached garages). An increase from 13 to 25.

Joanne reminded everyone with an expensive bicycle to be alert to anyone that may be

53

following them home to identify where the bicycle is stored • Distraction burglaries. None in the period • Anti Social Behaviour (ASB)Recorded in the report for the previous period as Zero, this was

not strictly true, and was due to some issues with obtaining statistics as ASB is usually recorded separately from crime

• Vehicle Crime (Theft from motor vehicle and attempted thefts). Decreased from 25 to 16 over this period

• Neighbourhood Watch report given by Wendy Hull New issues included:

• Additional Lighting on the Footpath Across the Doctor’s Nature Garden

Highways:

• Alan informed the meeting of the Traffic Choices website. None of those who had sent issues to the website was present to discuss their concern

Planning: All of the following planning applications are on the BCC website:

• The biggest issue is the application for works to be done at Coombe Dingle sports ground • Development opposite No 20 Canford Lane • Wesley College Site • High Street • Eastfield Road • 68 Westbury Hill – Dominos Pizza • Southmead Police Station - Application ref 15/06605. Planning Application is to create a

Dementia Care Home. Currently located within Westbury on Trym but will be transferring into Southmead Ward in May 2016.

Feedback from each of the NP’s working groups was then provided. Any Other Business: Bristol Mayor’s visit to NP3.

• The Mayor visited our Neighbourhood Partnership on 21 January • Visit started by being driven down Chock Lane to see the recently installed traffic-calming

measures (NP funded) • The rest of the visit to Westbury was conducted on foot • The Mayor was shown the Packhorse Garden and Hilary Long was invited to speak about

the Westbury-on-Trym Society. He then walked through the Church Yard while talking to Sue Boyd about Westbury in Bloom

• Talked to Richard Devereux about the issues concerning the Business Association and walked up the High Street and met Mike Rodway who talked about the Stoke Lane Traders

54

• Walked to Carlton Court with Jill Kempshall who talked about the issues concerning Sustainable Westbury. Alan Aburrow spoke about traffic and parking issues and the strategic problems raised by the CPNN development and the impact and mitigation problems facing the A4018

• The Mayor was particularly upset that the additional funds he made available to unlock the problems with lack of resources within the Highways dept had not been used because potential employees could not be identified

• The Event was good natured and discussions were wide ranging • Geoff confirmed that the Mayor found it very useful and it was very helpful that we

reinforced all the topics that he raises with the Mayor on a regular basis. Other issues:

• Westbury in Bloom. Sue now retiring from this. New blood needed • Parking problems outside Tesco (Westbury Hill) with unloading of Tesco vans • Damaged pillar box outside the Post Office • What can be done to repair/replace/remove the damaged pillar box outside the Post Office?

Hilary said that she would include it on the agenda for the next WOTSOC meeting scheduled for 8 February 2016

Date of next Forum: - Wednesday 11th May 2016 – Red Maids School Stoke Bishop Neighbourhood Forum

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Present: Councillors John Goulandris, Peter Abraham Officers:, Gary Brentnall, Police: PC Jeanette Cadden Ward Representatives: Alan Preece (Chairman), Gay Huggins, Peter Robottom, Peter Weeks, Wendy Hull. Also present: Stephanie French (Tree Champion), David Mayer (WOT Rep), Alan Aburrow (WOT Rep) Simon Bray (Director of Residential & Hospitality Services, UofB), Maggie Leggett (Director of Marketing, UoB) and Avril Baker (UofB) 40 members of the public Police Feedback: PC Jeanette Cadden reported:

• 80 Vehicles had been damaged on Stoke Road and Ladies Mile just before Christmas. The police were baffled and a camera may be installed on Stoke Road.

• Burglaries are down. However, the Nottingham Knockers are around so please advise the police if they have called on you. Do not purchase anything. They have been very abrasive and are known to return to burgle your property.

• Garages are targeted for bikes. • Complaints about parking on pavements in Sea Mills Lane have been investigated, and

letters, then tickets have been issued. • FunderWorld is back from the 24th March to 10th April on the Downs and no police patrols

have been allotted to it at the moment. • Parking on pavements was obstructing blind or partially sighted people and

pushchairs/wheelchairs. JC asked to have a word with colleagues as he saw police cars

55

parked on pavements, which was not good when trying to encourage people not to do this • ‘Violence against the Person’ figures, are mainly domestic violence

Neighbourhood Watch Network: Wendy Hull had submitted a report Parking around Hiatt Baker:

• Simon Bray (SB) attempted to answer the questions which had been put to him at the previous Open Forum. A question/answer briefing was left for people to collect at the end of the meeting.

• There was no legal way of banning students from bringing cars, but the car parks on campus were not being used to their full capacity, presumably because the University was charging £99 for an annual permit. It was suggested they provided them free, as this charge was forcing students to park on the streets.

• Further parking restrictions could be imposed in Shaplands, Rylestone Grove and Elmlea Avenue, but these would need a TRO which it was unlikely the University would pay for.

• PA had a meeting with residents of Stoke Park Road. The University had attended and had brought the contract with them which said they would tell students not to bring cars, but they had subsequently dropped this. Therefore there was a requirement for the University to do something about the parking.

• Planning application has been submitted for the playing fields on Coombe Lane. There was concern over the floodlighting. Although Abbey Road residents had been assured their concerns were unfounded as modern lighting will reduce the glare, there were still concerns over the proposals. Please see the Application reference no: 16/00537/F

• It was suggested the Chairman of the NP write to the Vice Chancellor on the matter of parking

Mayor’s Visit:

• AP reported on George Ferguson’s (GF) visit. AP had made an original invitation to hold a public forum which was replaced with an NP tour and opportunity to meet residents.

• Able to show him the problems of access to the new Avon Wildlife Trust site on the Portway, the parking problems around Hadrian Close and Sea Mills Lane due to the station and 902 bus stop, lack of parking for allotment users, destruction of banking and verges. PR had given him some ideas for parking on the archaeological site and/or by the Trym. Mayor was shown the new boundary area and discussed the implications of the different organisation and demographics, followed by Stoke Lodge where we had funded a playground, improved car park. A possible sensory garden was of particular interest. Time was then spent in the very well-used Adult Learning Centre where the Mayor was shown the huge range of subjects and importance of the Centre to the wider Bristol community.

Planning Group: 1) Shepperton Homes – of the 14 houses, 8 are sold or reserved and 4 more being released shortly. This means more children for the local schools to accommodate. 2) 69 Coombe Lane – Despite a lot of work by SF, planning went ahead for two additional houses being built on this site. 3) 17 Woodland Grove – A 4-bed detached house had been applied for in November but it had been refused, but another application was in at the moment and looks likely to go through.

56

Tree Issues: 69 Coombe Lane worried about the builders cabins, huge vehicles weighed down with earth on the drive, right against the pine trees (which have TPOs) and on top of their roots. They now plan to put a garage on top of the tree roots. There are regulations about building on top of tree roots of TPO trees. Other items raised were: 1. The replacement oak tree has been planted near the Druid Hill, Shirehampton Road, Parry’s Lane roundabout. It replaces the one that was new but died 18 months ago. We wish it better luck. 2. The other tree we are waiting for, the Cedar of Lebanon to replace a felled diseased Ash, has been promised by the end of March. It has a spot on Stoke Lodge near an oak that was lost a few years ago. 3. There is to be a new “tree obtaining process”. A lot of the work will devolve upon the Environment Group (EG) but that does not matter because at least then we will know where along the chain of progress each planting scheme has reached. Several members of the EG offered help in overseeing it. 4. We now have a scaffolding quote for carving the dismantled Cedar of Lebanon on Stoke Lodge that is within our budget (just). We are waiting for “sign off” from BCC Landscapes. TVG Update: We are now in our tenth cycle of exchanges over 5 years. Importantly, the Inspector had recommended TVG registration in 2013. However, the objectors have raised the issue of Statutory Purpose and Statutory incompatibility following the Newhaven Judgement. All parties have made written submissions regarding the relevance of Newhaven at Stoke Lodge Parkland. The Inspector has expressed doubt regarding the relevance at SL but has called for a Public Hearing to hear oral evidence. The pre-hearing meeting is on Friday 5th February 2016, to set the agenda. The public hearing date is 20 -24th June and 26-28th June set aside, venue TBA). Working group reports.

• Downs restrictions we now in force • The formal consultation on the zebra crossing on Shirehampton Road/mini roundabout top

Druid HIll due • Mayor been given written submissions regarding the parking problems around Hadrian’s

Close/Sea Mills Lane. • Road markings due shortly on Druid Hill to stop parking across the dropped kerb in front of

NISA, and a SLOW on Stoke Hill to try to slow down traffic for residents exiting their driveways on the steep part

• Traffic Choices “Tracker” scheme explained to the meeting Environment, Well Being, and Working Group for Older People reports to be published on the website soon. Any Other Business: 1) Parking in Sea Mills particularly concerning access to the allotments. PA had met with highways last week and there are officers looking into the situation and it is very much in hand. Probably put restricted parking limits in Hadrian’s Close, as well as on Sea Mills Lane. 2) Mariners Path wall. Two years ago it was again in poor state and he had cleared the ivy from the wall. It is an historic wall, going back hundreds of years, as has the footpath. There is a need to get someone to take on the responsibility for the path and wall for the future. It was suggested he liaise with GB and he could apply to the Environment Group or Well Being Grants for funding 3) 901 bus service. It is now being used a bit more as it stops on Sea Mills Square. 901 bus is due for review in August with the renewal of the contract in September, so it could be pulled. 4) Everyone asked to have a look at the Planning Application for the Coombe Dingle Sports Complex. Ref: 16/00537/F Date of Next Meeting: Tuesday 10th May 2016 – Stoke Bishop Primary School

57

Henleaze Neighbourhood Forum Thursday 4th February 2016

Councillors: Glenise Morgan, Resident Reps: Helen Furber, Val Bishop Officers: Gary Brentnall Also present: NP reps Stephanie French, Alan Aburrow, James Freeman (First Bus) Police: PCSOs Toby Rideout, Zaheer Bulbal, Ellie Jermi 40 Members of the public Apologies: Clare Campion-Smith, David Mayer, David Reynolds, PC Joanne Robertson, Roger Sturge Police update November to January crime stats: • 10 dwelling burglaries (previously 22) • 18 non dwelling burglaries [e.g. sheds, bicycles etc] (20) • 16 thefts from motor vehicles (37) • 15 anti-social behaviour crimes (35 corrected figure) Questions: - Following a comment about children not always being careful enough on pavements and roads, TR advised that he and his colleagues, when time permits, visit school to give safety talks. - TR was asked if the police have a view about the proposed zebra crossing towards the end of Henleaze Road (next to the Churchill Development). the Chief Police Officer has been consulted. TR was however unable to provide a view prior to the consultation closing on 4 February. Residents had disappointed about the lack of letters to local residents and a low number of notices on lamp posts. The reason for this was that the ‘main’ consultation took place when Churchill submitted the planning application for the site. Overall it was accepted that a number of individuals and organisations (e. g. The Henleaze Society) had expressed concerns over the last two years about the perceived dangerous location of the crossing. It is anticipated that the outcome of the consultation should be known by 29 February. Environment a) The Public Rights of Way Team have plans to resurface the well-used lanes in Henleaze that connect The Crescent, Dyrham Close and Lime Trees Road. The NP may agree to support the cost of these works b) The new notice board (with a flower trough) at the junction of Wellington Hill West and Southmead Road is being well used. Thanks are due to Henleaze Hair & Beauty for allowing the notice board to be sited on their private forecourt c) Trees remain high on the agenda. Henleaze residents living close to the proposed development on the site currently occupied by Southmead Police Station have objected to the proposed removal of a Wellingtonia tree with a tree preservation order (TPO) attached to it. A tree in Hill View was recently felled as judged to be in a dangerous state d) Street lighting has been renewed in Henleaze Avenue, Henleaze Gardens and Cavendish

58

Road. Work was due to start on 8 February to renew the lights in The Drive. e) Drainage issues should be reported to Bristol City Council. Work has been undertaken on the drains at the junction of Etloe Road and North View First Bus A Presentation was given by James Freeman outlining the service, the work of First Bus and information about key routes in the Henleaze area (full details of the presentation are on the NP website) Questions / Comments: 1. Concerns were raised about the frequency, lack of Real Time Information (RTI) displays and reliability regarding service 77. If uncertain as to whether the bus is coming, the passenger often takes Wessex service 505 from Kellaway Avenue and changes at Blackboy Hill. JF advised that there are two types of service provided - (i) commercial where they are the responsibility of the bus company and (ii) subsidised where a grant is provided by a local Council as the services are not commercially viable and are regarded as social amenities. Service 77 is subsidised by BCC and South Gloucestershire Councils. JF confirmed that RTIs are owned by the relevant Council with information being supplied from equipment on the buses 2. A suggestion was made to JF that all bus stops ought to have a sign advising potential passengers that they need to put a hand out to request a bus to stop 3. JF was asked if the Get on Board Safe Journey Card could be made more easily accessible locally and not just from bus depots. He offered to arrange for it to be made available at Henleaze Library and other local venues 4. Several people were keen to have service 2 going to Southmead Hospital rather than having to use the Doncaster Road stop. JF advised that the Hospital was finding it difficult with the number of buses entering the premises already and that there is, at present, no more room. 5. JF was asked if residents parking schemes had an effect on bus services. He replied that generally they do not with the exception of services 8 and 9. 6. In response to a question about using Contactless debit cards (as in London), JF referred to Transport for London having the advantage of public funding to introduce the technology. 7. European timed tickets were mentioned by a participant. JF said that the necessary cost recovery is lower in most European cities than Bristol. Revenue needs to be generated to operate a timed ticket system 8. When asked about the effect of the Wessex service 1 on First Bus, JF said that a drop in revenue on the First Bus service had been noticed but there was no action he could take as Wessex is running a commercial service. He then referred to revenue being generated on First Buses of £60m a year with almost no profit - £0.25m 9. Discussions are taking place with the West of England Partnership about bus services for the new Cribbs Caseway and Patchway Development. It is acknowledged that the buses need to be in place before people move into new homes 10. Service 72 no longer uses Cranbrook Road – why? This was a commercial decision. The route was diverted in order to maximise the number of passengers using the service

59

11. Confirmation was given that there are two Smartphone applications – one run by First Bus for its services and an inclusive one from Travelchecker 12. When asked about new routes - especially linking Henleaze Road with Westbury-on-Trym Village or Southmead Hospital (point previously raised), JF said that it is unlikely that new routes will be introduced in the short term due to the expenses. It can take three to four years to make new routes commercially viable 13. In responding to a comment about the perception that service 2 has become more unreliable in the last six months, JF said that the position should improve. Previously services 1 and 2 shared drivers and often changed numbers at Cribbs Causeway. Service 2 often suffered if service 1 was delayed. From 10 January, the buses run independently and do not change numbers 14. Confirmation was given that, until an experiment started recently on services 75 and 76, First Bus has not employed dispatchers 15. RTIs are almost always current when they indicate that a bus is coming. However delays can take place between stops so if a bus shown as ‘due’ disappears from an RTI, it is almost certainly still going to arrive 16. Following a suggestion that service 2 should not have to cross the centre of Bristol on every journey, JF advised that by stopping journeys at the centre this would increase congestion as more buses would be starting/finishing in the central area – hence it is better that they ‘keep going’ after reaching the centre 17. A comment was made that service 77 cannot be relied upon to get passengers to Bristol Parkway on time for their trains 18. In response to a comment that bells on the new buses do not have a loud enough ring and are particularly inappropriate for blind people, JF advised that he would follow up on the issue 19. Discussions are taking place about bus services to the new Bristol Arena 20. When asked if having flat fares would speed up the buses, JF advised that they would but the economic single fare would be £2.50 and those taking short journeys would not be prepared to pay the fare. JF then referred to day tickets and mTickets helping to speed up the buses Updates: - Numerous planning issues in the area (see website for full details) - The Neighbourhood Partnership’s Working Group for Older People organised a shopping/ lunch trip to Wyevale Garden Centre, Congresbury and Walton Park Hotel for older isolated people in December. Details of a summer outing in June will be announced shortly. - Grants. 2 local organisations are being recommended for grants at the next NP meeting (see website for details) - The Mayor came to Henleaze as part of a three hour tour of Stoke Bishop, Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze on 21 January. Amongst people he met were the Henleaze ward representatives, trustees of The Henleaze Society, committee members of the Westbury Park Community Association and local traders. Issues discussed included the changing character of Henleaze Road, the need for improved public transport, increasing parking in Henleaze Road from one to

60

two hours, social isolation amongst older residents and the use of the Eastfield Inn for a number of community activities. - Transport. Numerous issues in the area. Please see the website for full details - The new boundaries will be in place at the beginning of April. Henleaze is merging with W-o-T ward. The NP will be having rep elections soon after the full council elections in May Date of next Forum: 11th May 2016 – Red Maids School 2. Citywide Parks investment A meeting was held on Saturday 27th February 2016 (too late for this report) to discuss how NPs can better influence the Parks agenda, including planning of services and access to funds to make improvements. This is an important meeting, and NP reps will be in attendance. A verbal report will be given at the NP meeting.

3. Mayor’s visit to the NP

The visit of George Ferguson to the NP was a successful and positive event for all. The Mayor has indicated that he enjoyed the visit and was impressed with the work being performed by the NP. The itinerary seemed to work like clockwork, and the Mayor was able to add-on a visit to the ‘Singing for the Brain’ group (funded by this NP) at Henleaze URC at the end of the tour.

The Mayor’s team is still compiling the list of actions arising from the visit. When it is available, it will be distributed to the NP. When the action sheet arrives, rather than different working groups chasing up their individual actions, it is recommended that any responses or contacts with the Mayor’s team be via the Communications Working Group, which organised the visit.

61

4. Future meeting dates The NP is asked to note the meeting dates and agree or alter the new proposed dates (in grey) as required.

Cycle 3 2015/16

Cycle 4 2015/16

Cycle 1 2016/17

Cycle 2 2016/17

Cycle 3 2016/17

NP

Monday 7th March Venue tbc

7.00pm

Monday 13th June Venue tbc

7.00pm

Monday 26th September

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Monday 5th December

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Monday 6th March Venue tbc

7.00pm NP Pre meeting

Monday 29th February

Venue tbc 5.30pm

Monday 6th June

Venue tbc 5.30pm

Monday 19th September

Venue tbc 5.30pm

Monday 28th November

Venue tbc 5.30pm

Monday 24th February

Venue tbc 5.30pm

↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ Henleaze Forum

Thursday 4th February

Henleaze Library 7.00pm

Joint Forum (Rep elections)

Wednesday 11th May

Red Maids School 7.00pm

No forums in summer

Tuesday 1st November

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Thursday 2nd February Venue tbc

7.00pm

WoT Forum

Wednesday 3rd February Venue 35 7.00pm

No forums in summer

Wednesday 2nd November

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Wednesday 1st February Venue tbc

7.00pm SB Forum

Tuesday 2nd February Stoke Bishop

Primary 7.00pm

Tuesday 10th May

Stoke Bishop Primary 7.00pm

No forums in summer

Thursday 3rd November

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Tuesday 31st January Venue tbc

7.00pm

Well Being Working Group

Monday 18th January

Westbury Library 6.00pm

Monday 9th May

Westbury Library 6.00pm

Monday 25th July Westbury

Library 6.00pm

Monday 24th October

Westbury Library 6.00pm

Monday 16th January

Westbury Library 6.00pm

Well Being closing dates

Friday 8th January

Friday 29th April

Friday 15th July

Friday 14th October

Friday 6th January

Communications Working Group

Tuesday 12th January

Westbury Library 5.00pm

Tuesday 12th April Westbury

Library 5.00pm

Tuesday 12th July Westbury

Library 5.00pm

Tuesday 18th October

Westbury Library 5.00pm

Tuesday 10th January

Westbury Library 5.00pm

Transport Working Group

Tuesday 19th January

W-o-T Academy 7.00pm

Wednesday 20th April

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Thursday 21st July

Venue tbc 7.00pm

Monday 31st October Venue tbc

7.00pm

Tuesday 17th January Venue tbc

7.00pm Environment Working Group

Thursday 14th January Venue tbc

2.00pm

Thursday 28th April

Venue tbc 2.00pm

Thursday 28th July

Venue tbc 2.00pm

Thursday 27th October Venue tbc

2.00pm

Thursday 12th January Venue tbc

2.00pm Working Group for Older People

Wednesday 27th January Eastfield Inn

2.00pm

Wednesday 13th April

Eastfield Inn 2.00pm

tbc tbc tbc

62

5. Devolved Services Update Community Infrastructure Levy

HENLEAZE, STOKE BISHOP & WESTBURY NEIGHBOURHOOD

PARTNERSHIP CIL monies held - 31 December 2015

Monies to be spent on measures to support the development of the Neighbourhood Partnership's area, by funding:

a) the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or

b) anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area

Date Received Application Site Address Amount 12/08/13 13/00725 7 Church Avenue, Stoke Bishop £2,163.00 28/08/13 12/05184 Reynolds Garage, 43 Church Rd, Westbury-on-Trym £1,323.00 06/12/13 12/05218 2 Trymwood Parade, Stoke Bishop £5,184.00

23/04/14 13/04155 Old Sneed Park Cottage, Mariners Drive, Sneyd Park £2,443.35

23/01/15 13/01967 Winford Court, Downs Park West, Henleaze £52.50 22/04/15 14/01347 Henleaze Terrace / Eastfield Road, Henleaze (1) £5,219.18 08/06/15 14/00309 Land to rear of 21 to 31 Avon Way, Sneyd Park £322.17 09/06/15 13/05335 Redwood, Stoke Park Road South, Sneyd Park (1) £1,423.11 03/07/15 12/00803 Land to rear of 86 and 88 Henleaze Road, Henleaze £2,247.00 06/08/15 14/01347 Henleaze Terrace / Eastfield Road, Henleaze (2) £5,219.18

06/08/15 13/02002 Former Dairy Crest Depot, Parrys Lane, Stoke Bishop £1,055.39

02/09/15 13/01230 6 Russell Grove, Henleaze £903.00 16/10/15 13/05335 Redwood, Stoke Park Road South, Sneyd Park (2) £1,423.11

Total £28,978.00

63

S106 update

Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury on Trym Neighbourhood Partnership

Devolved Section 106 monies held as at 31st December 2015 Permission / Site / S106 Code/contact officer

Current Contribution Value

Actual Current funding available

Date to be Spent / Committed by

Purpose of Contribution

Parks 11/02870 / 3 Stoke Hill, Stoke Bishop / ZCD…A35 Richard Ennion (Horticultural Services Manager)

£2,324.96 Remaining: £124.96 £2,200 committed Sept 2014 (trees)

No Limit The provision of off-site tree planting within one mile of 3 Stoke Hill

09/04610 / Sanctuary Gardens, Stoke Bishop / ZCD…A42 Richard Fletcher (Parks Operations Manager)

£2,255.71 Remaining - £0 £2,255.71 committed December 2014 (silt removal OSPNR)

27 Jan 17 The provision of improvements to Parks and Open Spaces within one mile of Sanctuary Gardens

10/02834 / 13 to 21 North View, Henleaze / ZCD…A32 Richard Fletcher (Parks Operations Manager)

£4,709.79 Original amount: £6084.79

Remaining - £4,709.79 £1,375 committed December 2014 (Durdham Down Trees)

No Limit The provision of improvements to Parks and Open Spaces within one mile of North View

12/01954 / Hiatt Baker Hall, Parry’s Lane, Stoke Bishop / ZCD…A82 Richard Fletcher (Parks Operations Manager)

£37,884.77 (Original allocation: £117,040.67)

Remaining - £18,589.69 £36,336.90 committed March 2014 (SL car park) £13,741.05 committed March 2014 (Canford loos) £29,000

No Limit The provision of improvements and / or maintenance of informal green space, natural green space and active sports space (fixed or seasonal) within one mile of Hiatt Baker Hall (NOTE: - this contribution cannot be spent on a children's playground)

64

committed March 2014 (O. Quarry Park) £8,177.04 committed September 2014 (FOSPNR path project) £1,196 committed December 2014 (street Trees - £825) £10,000 committed at the September 2015 NP meeting (tree sculpture)

04/03385 / 25 Shipley Road, Westbury-on-Trym / ZCD…768 Gareth Vaughan-Williams (Highway Services Manager)

£5,164.13 Remaining - £5,164.13

No Limit The provision of improvements and maintenance of Public Right of Way 560

11/01178 / 99 Devonshire Road, Henleaze / …SB82 John Bos (Community Buildings Officer)

£7,623.03 Remaining: £7,623.03

No Limit The provision, improvement and/or maintenance of community facilities within one mile of 99 Devonshire Road, or within Henleaze Ward

Highways. Please see Transport Working Group report Well Being. Please see separate report

65

Non-devolved S106 as of 31st August 2015 These S106 contributions are generated within the NP, but are not necessarily to be spent in these wards.

Non Devolved S106 contributions held at 31st August 2015 Permission / Site / S106 Code

Ward Neighbourhood Partnership

Dept with spending responsibility

Contact Officer

Current Contribution Value

Date to be Spent / Committed by

Purpose of Contribution / Comments

07/01464 / 34 to 38 Fallodon Way, Henleaze / ZCD…A25

Henleaze Westbury-on-Trym / Henleaze / Stoke Bishop

Neighbourhoods Richard Fletcher (Parks Operations Manager)

£2,211.54 No Limit The provision and/or improvement of citywide sports pitches

09/05111 / Bristol Zoo Temporary Car Park, Ladies Mile, Clifton / ZCD…905

Stoke Bishop

Westbury-on-Trym / Henleaze / Stoke Bishop

Place Alistair Cox (Strategic Transport Service Manager)

£3,040.56 No Limit Towards the costs of monitoring the performance of the Travel Plans, all Surveys and the use of the Park and Ride Scheme

13/01140 / Bristol Zoo Temporary Car Park, Ladies Mile, Clifton / …SB54

Stoke Bishop

Westbury-on-Trym / Henleaze / Stoke Bishop

Place Alistair Cox (Strategic Transport Service Manager)

£1,003.51 No Limit Towards the costs of monitoring the performance of the Travel Plans, all Surveys and the use of the Park and Ride Scheme

06/04018 / 144 Falcondale Road, Westbury-on-Trym / ZCD... 492

Westbury-on-Trym

Westbury-on-Trym / Henleaze / Stoke Bishop

Place Alistair Cox (Strategic Transport Service Manager)

£2,081.42 No Limit Car Club Contribution

66

6. 2nd City Wide Neighbourhood Partnership Event 24th October 2015 (Report of Hayley Ash – Area Neighbourhood Manager)

Report and evaluation

This second event took place at the MSHED, and attracted 80+ people from across all NP areas. The event included a session on how to get your message across on the radio and live radio coverage on the day by Ujima and BCFM when delegates were able to talk about the event and their NP work which had potential reach of over 30,000 people. Podcast can be heard on the NP website https://www.bristol.gov.uk/neighbourhood-partnerships/neighbourhood-partnerships-toolkit. Between November and December 7 Neighbourhood Partnerships also went on air on the one love breakfast show.

Evaluation:

Event

Of those who attended 16 people completed the survey monkey evaluation that was sent to all participants. 80% said that the event was good. However, 66% said that they would favour future events to be morning events (only 33% favoured full day and 7% afternoon events)

85% of respondents suggested that the venue worked very well

Workshops

• 85% of respondents felt that the Street Scene and Environmental Activists workshop was informative or very informative

• 57% of respondents felt that the Community Planning workshop was useful or very useful. This is surprising as everyone that I spoke to really found this workshop helpful and several have approached the presenters to request more information/guidance on this subject.

• 25% of respondents felt that the communications workshop was informative. • 67% of respondents felt that the green capital workshop was very informative • 78% of respondents felt that the Neighbourhood Partnerships Resources workshop

was informative or very informative • 100% of respondents felt that the walking strategies workshop was informative or

very informative • 100% of respondents felt that the youth involvement workshop was very

informative.

Equalities At the point of booking people where asked equalities questions, 1.5% were 16-24, 18% were aged 25 – 49, 38.5% were aged 50 – 64, 29% were 65-75 and 13% said they were over 75.

67

If you would like a full version of the report including slides/papers and notes from the individual workshops please contact Hayley.ash@bristol.gov.uk

Recommendations

1. Both at the event and via the survey it has been strongly recommended that future Citywide NP events should take place in the mornings (9.30am – 1pm) if possible and that half term holidays should be avoided

2. The survey results recommended that the most useful parts of the event were those run by residents. Future events should ensure greater resident-led activities.

3. The small working group that planned the October event put in many hours to bring it together. This is not a sustainable approach as it places too great a burden on too few people. All NPs need to share the workload equally in the future. It is recommended that each NP should identify at least 2 reps who are willing to help plan and deliver elements of the next event

4. The first 2 Citywide NP Events were aimed at residents who are already involved in NP activity – The working group recommended that we should have a more outward approach next year to attract residents with little or no current involvement or knowledge of NPs.

5. The working group also recommended having some smaller events focusing on the Citywide NP Priorities

Future NP City Wide Events:

In view of the above recommendations, the NP is asked to discuss and provide responses to the following Key questions:

• What should our target audience be?

• What messages do we want to send?

• How and when should we do this?

• Most importantly, what role will this NP play in organising future events? Please think about what messages/ activities/ help both on the day and in the planning phase HSBWOT NP can contribute - this kind of event will only be successful if all NPs take an active role in helping to plan and deliver it.

Your NPC will lead a discussion and get ideas and offers of support at the meeting

68

7. NP Plan The HSBWOT NP Plan has been in existence for almost precisely one year. The NP will recall that the process of developing the plan was not simple. Each of the working groups put in a substantial amount of work developing the priorities relevant to its area of interest. The NP then met on a Saturday to bring the elements of the plan in to a single document. The NP then agreed, reluctantly, to follow the BCC plan template, in order to ensure its priorities received the same level of attention and analysis as those of other NPs. The good news is that the use of the same template across the city has begun to achieve what was intended. NP officers have been able to extrapolate those priorities and aspirations that are common across all (or most) NPs, and as a consequence, present these to the BCC leadership team, with a view to the council re-directing the work of certain teams and departments to help NPs achieve more of their NP Plan priorities. The outcome of this will become clearer over time, but some changes are already being made as a result of this analysis. For example, BCC Public Health Team is keen to work with NPs to develop projects to tackle isolation (the work of our WGOP is prominent in their thinking) and other health-related issues. It is developing a programme of engagement to link up the work of its team, clinical commissioning groups and Integrating Social Care officers to work with NPs. These officers are excited by the possibilities that NPs can offer as they have a clear link in to their local communities (something health teams often struggle with). Another (short) example is that the NPs will work with other government agencies to set up work zones to better link up employers and training with people. These work zones will also look at issues that impact on worklessness, such as health, housing, welfare etc. It is early days but it is the detail in the NP plans that have been the critical catalyst to enabling such discussions to develop and progress. A report on the main themes identified across the NPs will soon be ready. If it is ready in time for the NP meeting, it will be provided as an information report. As it is a year since the NP plans were produced, the NP is recommended to consider refreshing its plan. This doesn’t mean a radical overhaul is needed. The NP is asked to review its priorities and actions with a view to removing any it feels are now complete or obsolete, and adding in new ones. The NP may also wish to consider adding proposed actions in order to take advantage of upcoming opportunities. For example, the Parks meeting being held on 27th February (a verbal report will be given at the NP) will include a discussion about potential funding opportunities. NPs with project ideas in their plans will be better placed to react quickly when funds become available.

69

The recommendation is that each NP working Group, at its next meeting, go through its parts of the NP plan and update it as it deems appropriate. The NP Coordinator and Neighbourhood Officer will ensure each of the working groups have the relevant bits of the plan to consider at their next meetings. It is also recommended that each working group be responsible for producing an update for the NP at regular intervals (either quarterly or twice per year).

70