Agenda item

Rachel Wilson, Co-Chair, Chew Valley Flood Forum made a statement to the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book and a brief summary is set out below.

The Chew Valley Flood Forum would like to raise the following concerns regarding the “Enhanced” Property Level Protection (PLP) scheme for 70 properties, currently in progress in Chew Magna.

There is a danger that the mistakes of the previous B&NES/Environment Agency (EA) PLP scheme in 2010/2011 are being repeated.  Compromises are being made due to time and perhaps also cost pressures, and the new scheme may result in sub-optimal protection for householders. Expectations are fading that the scheme will be comprehensive and robust. The EA, who are project managing the scheme, is proposing legal agreements with householders that could be onerous and potentially confusing, and lack important details regarding contractor liabilities and product warranties.

The draft agreements state the EA “can not guarantee any aspect of the quality, condition or fitness for purpose of the PLP measures”.

The EA appears to be managing the project on a “re-active” and “catch up” basis. B&NES’s funding was available at the start of this financial year. The current estimate for first installations is November. We are not aware of project documentation such as scope, escalation process and timetable. There does not seem to be a clear process on Acceptance Criteria to enable sign-off of installed PLP products nor clarity about products not supplied by the chosen contractor e.g. who installs them, warranties, maintenance agreements.

We are not clear what B&NES’s involvement is in the project. However we feel that going forward it is essential to have a consultative/co-ordinating group, led by B&NES as the Lead Flood Authority, incorporating representatives from the EA, Bristol Water, relevant Parish Councils and CVFF, to consider all future matters relating to flooding and protective/preventative measures. This was proposed by B&NES many months ago, but, as yet, has not been implemented. If such a group was already in place, we feel sure the evident shortcomings with the project management of the current scheme would have been avoided.

John Wright, Co-Chair, Chew Valley Flood Forum addressed the Panel. He asked if the Forum could receive a cost breakdown of the £200,000 project budget from the Council and the Environment Agency.

The Chair proposed that the Panel assign a Lead Member and discuss the matter further with the Forum and the Environment Agency.

The Team Leader, Highway Maintenance commented that officers were willing to meet with the Forum and the Environment Agency to iron out any points.

The Chair asked if Councillor Liz Richardson would be the Lead Member for the Panel.

Councillor Richardson replied that she would.

Patrick Rotheram, Chairman, Vineyards Residents' Association made a statement to the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book and a brief summary is set out below.

Together with the Circus Area Residents' Association (CARA) we have been trying for a number of years now to get the Council to make improvements in the arrangements for residents parking in the northern part of the Central Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

As the attached map clearly demonstrates, the north Central Zone (coloured orange) is no closer to the commercial and civic city centre than most of the other Controlled Zones (the so-called 'Outer Zones'). 

Residents in this area are unfairly treated compared with residents in the Outer Zones.  Although it is the most densely residential area in the city, there is almost no 'permit-holder only' parking.  We do not get resident visitor permits.  In the Outer Zones there is a minimum of 50% permit-holder only places and residents can buy day permits for their visitors. Similar arrangements should apply in the residential north Central Zone.

This may sound familiar, as we told you about it at your meetings in October 2012 and September 2103, having raised it formally with the Council as far back as 2005. We are wondering where to go next.  The Council's recent parking survey underlined residents' dissatisfaction with the parking arrangements in the Central Zone.  We have the support of both our Ward Councillors.  Your Panel has asked for our case to be progressed.  And yet nothing happens.  Is this how the democratic process is meant to work?  We ask for your help to finally get something done.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Councillor Caroline Roberts replied that she had previously discussed the matter with Mr Rotheram and that two new residents parking zones were being planned for Newbridge & Weston. She added that the Central Zone would be analysed very soon.

Councillor Les Kew asked how Mr Rotheram would like to see the matter resolved.

Mr Rotheram replied that he would like a proportion of spaces to be made available for residents only and that some visitor permits would be welcome. He added that one space per household would probably suffice.

Councillor Lisa Brett commented that there was an evidence of need and the will for political change and encouraged a decision to be taken as soon as possible.

Councillor Gerry Curran commented that the impass on a decision may well be because the spaces have a value to the Council through revenue.

The Chair commented that the Bath Transport Strategy that encompasses the Parking Strategy would be discussed by the Panel in November and that answers to the points raised by Mr Rotheram would be sought in the interim.

David Redgewell, South West Transport Network made a statement to the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book and a brief summary is set out below.

He urged the Panel to do all they could to protect local bus networks.

He called for the Radstock to Frome bus route to be protected.

He stated that the Riverside Regeneration in Bath required strong bus links to Oldfield Park, the centre of Bath and Bristol.

He said that he was dissapointed with the Enterprise Area Masterplan and that high quality buses were required to make them more attractive for the public to use. He suggested that bus priority lanes should also be in place.

He informed the Panel that the management arrangements at Bath Bus Station were not acceptable and that problems surrounding the café, toilets and general cleaning were not being dealt with appropriately.

He asked for bus shelters to be cleaned and maintained more regularly as one situated in Timsbury was in the process of falling down and a number in the area were suffering from graffiti.

Councillor Gerry Curran commented that the cleaning of the bus station must be sorted out by First or Multi as soon as possible. He added that toilet facilities were available within Southgate.

Mr Redgewell replied that those facilities closed early in the evening, the toilets at the bus station can only be accessed when the ticket office is open and a ticket was required to enter the train station to use their toilets.

Councillor Les Kew said that ownership of the bus station must be identified and aligned so that these issues can be rectified.

Councillor Ben Stevens, Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development suggested that First be approached to sign up to the BID (Business Improvement District).

Councillor Eleanor Jackson addressed the Panel on behalf of a number of residents of Frome Road, Radstock. She informed them that the garden of 120 Frome Road was in a dangerous condition and that action was required to clear it and make it safe.

Councillor Jackson then read aloud from a letter and email from residents.

She said that the garden had been increasingly deteriorating over a number of years. The pile of rubbish was between 4 feet and 8 feet high in some places and towered over neighbouring properties. It resembles a landfill site and comprises of buried vehicle parts & bodywork, tyres, platic, oil drums, gas cylinder, wood, glass, roofing materials and ton upon ton of building rubble.

The increased weight caused by the landfill has led to severe problems for the immediate neighbouring properties. A 6ft high boundary fence is being continually forced over and into the adjoining property one side (no.122), whilst on the other, a dividing concrete boundary wall has cracked and is leaning into the adjoining property at a precarious angle (no. 118).

We have the safety of our children, families and property at the forefront of our minds, but can add to that the eyesore we have to live with everyday and the negative effect on our own property values.

The young children of our terrace are unduly penalised by not being able to use the full perimeter of their own properties by having “no go” areas due to the unstable nature of the adjoining site and growing increase of rodent infestation.

Through the summer we have had to keep our doors closed as the rats are so comfortable in their surroundings that they venture close to our homes and are not deterred even when the children are out and running about.

A Section 215 notice was served upon the property in August 2013, but as yet no work regarding the clearance of the garden has commenced. A number of start dates have been given, but they have all come and gone.

In May 2014 asbestos was found on the site.

Ultimately, what we require is a gaurantee and timetable for the works to be completed, one that can be relied upon without further excuse. We feel that we have been patient enough and now ask the Council to grab the bull by the horns and appoint some strong leadership to the project.

Councillor Gerry Curran has a contractor been found that is willing to undertake the clearance works including asbestos.

Councillor Jackson replied that there was and that they should have commenced with the work on 12^th September, but had not.

Councillor Curran said that he would work with Councillor Tim Ball, Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning identify a start date and would notify Councillor Jackson. He added that it was a huge environmental health problem that needed to be resolved quickly.

Councillor Ball asked Councillor Jackson to email him the full details so that he could make enquiries.

The Chair asked that the Panel be also notified of any progress made.