(agenda item 5), 3 March 2015

Transcription

CABINET
DATE : Tuesday, 3 March 2015
TIME : 6.00 p.m.
VENUE : @Bristol Science Centre, Anchor Road, Bristol BS1 5DB
Distribution:
Mayor: George Ferguson
Deputy & Assistant Mayors: Cllr Geoff Gollop, Cllr Mark Bradshaw,
Cllr Simon Cook, Cllr Brenda Massey & Cllr Daniella Radice
Note:
This agenda sets out details of the decisions which will be
recommended for approval on 3 March 2015.
Copies to: Strategic Leadership Team
Note: this meeting will be webcast via the Council’s webcasting pages.
The whole of the meeting will be filmed except where there are confidential or exempt items
and the footage will be on our website for 2 years.
Whilst the public seating areas are not directly filmed, certain camera shots around the
meeting room may capture persons seated in the public areas. If you ask a question or make
a representation, then you will be deemed to have consented to being filmed. By entering the
meeting room and using the public seating areas, you are consenting to being filmed and to
the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training
purposes. The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 now also mean that
persons attending meetings may take photographs, film and audio record the proceedings
and report on the meeting (oral commentary is not permitted during the meeting as it would
be disruptive). Members of the public should therefore be aware that they may be filmed by
others attending and that is not within the Council’s control.
Issued by :
Ian Hird, Democratic Services
Floor 4, Brunel House (Clifton Wing), Bristol BS1 5UY
Tel:
0117 92 22384
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.bristol.gov.uk
Date: 23 February 2015
1
AGENDA
PART A - STANDARD ITEMS OF BUSINESS:
1.
Public forum (up to one hour is allowed for this item)
PLEASE NOTE: Public forum business at Cabinet meetings must be
about matters on the agenda.
The order of business for public forum will be:
a. Petitions and statements from Bristol residents (petitions to be heard
before statements).
b. Questions from Bristol residents.
c. Petitions and statements notified by councillors (petitions to be heard
before statements).
d. Questions from councillors.
PLEASE ALSO NOTE:
Petitions and statements (must be about matters on the agenda):
- Members of the public and members of the Council, provided they give
notice in writing or by e-mail (and include their name, address, and
details of the wording of the petition, and, in the case of a statement, a
copy of the submission) by no later than 12.00 noon on the working day
before the meeting, may present a petition or submit a statement to the
Cabinet.
- One statement per member of the public and one statement per member
of Council shall be admissible.
- A maximum of one minute shall be allowed to present each petition and
statement.
- The deadline for receipt of petitions and statements for the 3 March
Cabinet is 12.00 noon on Monday 2 March. These should be sent, in
writing or by e-mail to:
Democratic Services, Floor 4, Brunel House (Clifton wing), Bristol BS1
5UY, e-mail: [email protected]
2
Questions (must be about matters on the agenda):
- A question may be asked by a member of the public or a member of
Council, provided they give notice in writing or by e-mail (and include
their name and address) no later than 3 clear working days before the
day of the meeting.
- Questions must identify the member of the executive to whom they are
put.
- A maximum of 2 written questions per person can be asked. At the
meeting, a maximum of 2 supplementary questions may be asked. A
supplementary question must arise directly out of the original question or
reply.
- Replies to questions will be given verbally at the meeting. If a reply
cannot be given at the meeting (including due to lack of time) or if written
confirmation of the verbal reply is requested by the questioner, a written
reply will be provided within 10 working days of the meeting.
- The deadline for receipt of questions for the 3 March Cabinet is
5.00 pm on Wednesday 25 February. These should be sent, in writing
or by e-mail to: Floor 4, Brunel House (Clifton wing), Bristol BS1 5UY
Democratic Services e-mail: [email protected]
2.
Declarations of interest
To note any interests of the Mayor / executive relevant to the
consideration of items on this agenda.
3.
Matters referred to the Mayor for reconsideration by a scrutiny
commission or by the Full Council (subject to a maximum of 3 items):
None.
4.
Reports from scrutiny commissions:
 A referral form from the Place Scrutiny Commission is attached, relating
to agenda item 6 – Avonmouth and Portbury docks freehold.
3
PART B: KEY DECISION REPORTS:
5.
Libraries for the future – proposals for consultation
Ward: Citywide
6.
Avonmouth and Portbury docks freehold
Ward: Avonmouth
7.
Neighbourhood partnerships devolved budgets for highways
maintenance
Ward: Citywide
8.
Funding for Green Capital hybrid bus trial
Ward: Citywide
9.
Quarter 3 finance report
Ward: Citywide
PART B: NON-KEY DECISION REPORTS:
10.
Proposed extension to The Mall, Cribbs Causeway – Bristol City
Council’s response
Ward: Citywide
11.
Change Programme monitoring report
Ward: Citywide
4
AGENDA ITEM 4
Scrutiny Commission Referral Form
Referral from:
Place Scrutiny Commission
To: Mayor and Cabinet - 3 March 2015
Date: Place Scrutiny Commission held on 5 February 2015
Contact Officer: Johanna Holmes, Policy Adviser (Scrutiny)
Subject:
Comments on Cabinet report – Avonmouth and Portbury docks freehold
Detail of referral:
1. At their meeting held on 5 February 2015, the Place Scrutiny
Commission considered the Cabinet report entitled “Avonmouth and
Portbury docks freehold.”
2. The members who participated in the discussion were:
Cllr Pearce (in the chair for this item)
Cllr Bolton
Cllr Jackson
Cllr Khan
Cllr Milestone (substitute for Cllr Threlfall)
Cllr Negus
Cllr Windows
The Chair of the commission (Cllr Martin) was not present for this item.
The Vice-Chair of the commission (Cllr Hiscott) was present but,
having declared an interest, did not take any part in the discussion of
the item.
Cllr Bradshaw, Assistant Mayor for Place was also present for the
discussion.
3. The draft minute of the commission’s discussion is set out below,
and the Mayor and Cabinet are asked to take account of the
comments of the commission before the Mayor takes a decision
on this matter on 3 March (note: the commission’s discussion took
place in exempt session; however, the below draft minute of the
discussion has been prepared as a “public” document, avoiding
detailed reference to commercial considerations).
4. The full text of the minute is as follows:
1
90. Avonmouth and Portbury docks freehold – Cabinet report
The commission considered a report seeking comments on a Cabinet
report (scheduled for the 3 March Cabinet).
Cllr Bradshaw (Assistant Mayor – Place) attended the commission for
this item of business.
It was noted that the report contained a reference to an exempt
appendix containing external valuation advice from Jones Land LaSalle
(JLL). Members agreed that they wished to receive a detailed briefing
from the Service Director – Property in relation to the issues covered in
the exempt appendix, and accordingly, it was:
RESOLVED –
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the
public be excluded from the meeting for the consideration of this
item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely
disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule
12A to the Act (as amended).
The Service Director – Property then gave a detailed briefing. Points
highlighted included:
a. The principle of this freehold disposal had been agreed by the
Mayor at the Cabinet meeting held on 1 April 2014.
b. Since the “in-principle” decision taken on 1 April 2014, officers had
been engaged in concluding legal due diligence, including the issue
of confirming that the Council’s position as minority shareholder in
the port business would not be materially changed by the freehold
transfer.
c. The external valuation advice from JLL was commercially sensitive
as publication of this advice at this stage would be inappropriate
prior to the legal completion of the freehold purchase.
d. The background in relation to the assessment of the purchase price
was explained in detail, including the issues around:
 the price that the Council would reasonably expect to receive
currently if the land was sold to another investor.
 property “marriage value” considerations.
e. In relation to the proposed freehold purchase price, JLL were of the
opinion that the proposed purchase price of £10m for the freehold
represented the best price reasonably obtainable to the Council for
the sale of the site.
f. The sale of the freehold would not affect the annual dividend the
Council received by virtue of its current shareholding.
2
g. The sale of the freehold would, however, result in the Council
forgoing current entitlement to a share in any future uplifts from the
development potential if these arise in the future. Scenarios tested
by JLL demonstrated that the £10m price now was advantageous
compared with the hope of future returns from this uplift.
h. From the perspective of the Service Director, the proposed sale
price represented the best price that the Council would be able to
achieve for many decades.
Set out below is a summary of the main points raised / noted by the
commission members in discussion:
a. Cllr Negus raised a number of issues / concerns:
(i)
The current proposal was, in his opinion, based on a
short term view / realisation of £10m for this asset rather
than being based on a long term, corporate view of this
asset. Previous administrations had resisted previous
approaches regarding the freehold disposal of this land.
(ii)
The land had been valued as an asset for sale now /
immediately. In his view, this proposal, if approved,
would be a bad decision. Proper consideration was not
being given, in his view, to the longer term, potential
value of the land, i.e. extending over a considerable
period of time. The longer term interests of the city might
be better served by a participatory arrangement for future
benefit, both financially and strategically.
(iii)
It should borne in mind that in the longer term, the current
controls on this land might change during the remaining
127 years of the lease due to future planning / financial /
devolution changes.
(iv)
The port was a profitable business. This deal would not
permit an option for an increased share of profits. The
acquisition of the freehold would make any onward sale
of the freehold more attractive to prospective purchasers.
(v)
It was important to recognise the opportunities that a wellplaced deep water port would have into the future,
including the opportunity to engage with the increase in
marine energy activity in the Severn estuary and Cardiff
Bay areas, resulting in greater port and supporting
activities.
b. Cllr Jackson commented that he accepted the JLL view about the
proposed £10m purchase price representing a favourable deal for
the Council at the present time. He was not convinced, however,
that there was any overriding need for the Council to progress the
deal at this stage.
c. Cllr Bradshaw commented that officers had concluded the required
due diligence, following on from the “in principle” decision taken on
1 April 2014. The issues relating to progressing the disposal
(including the longer term considerations raised at this meeting) had
been discussed in great detail by the Mayor and Cabinet members.
3
The Cabinet had been very keen to share as much information as
possible with scrutiny members. In his view, the £10m sum that
would be realised from the disposal (if approved by the Mayor at the
3 March Cabinet) would provide an opportunity / the ability for the
Council for make investments that would bring real benefits to the
city, on an ongoing basis. In his personal view, such investment
should be focused on tackling disadvantage. It was also important
to bear in mind the importance of the port generally to Bristol’s
economy.
d. In response to a question from Cllr Khan, the Service Director –
Property confirmed that the port company was not prepared to
negotiate on the issue of the Council receiving an increased
shareholding / share of profits.
At the conclusion of the discussion, at the suggestion of the Chair, it
was
RESOLVED:
That (in the context of the decision due to be taken at the 3 March
Cabinet), the Mayor and Cabinet be advised of the comments of
this commission as detailed above and that in considering the
report, the Mayor and Cabinet should in particular take into
consideration and have regard to the following:
1. The commission was concerned that a short term political /
economic gain would be made at a potentially greater long
term opportunity cost, while there was no clear or immediate
need or plan to use the money to be realised from the sale.
2. In light of the exempt appendix (JLL valuation report) and the
information provided at the meeting by the Service Director –
Property, the commission was aware that the current proposal
to sell the freehold for £10m represented good value / a
favourable deal for the Council at the present time.
3. The commission was, however, resistant to the idea of
executing the sale without an urgent need to realise the £10m
sum or a firm proposal for its use. Members coupled this
concern with the likelihood of a considerable uplift in the value
of the asset to the Council as the remaining lease term became
significantly diminished (e.g. in approx. 70 years’ time).
4. The commission sought reassurance that the Mayor was
satisfied (as the commission was not) that the Council would
not potentially suffer a significant opportunity loss by
disposing of a significant economic asset that potentially (and
this had not been disproved to the satisfaction of the
commission) had a considerable competitive advantage over
other UK and European port facilities, and could therefore
have a greater value than anticipated in the medium / long
term.
4
CABINET – 3rd March 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM 5
Report title: Libraries for the Future – Proposals for Consultation
Wards affected: All
Strategic Director: Alison Comley
Report Author: Kate Murray, Head of Libraries
RECOMMENDATION for the Mayor’s approval:
1. To agree the updated service design principles and proposed model of
service delivery based on a new core and local offer for the future library
provision in the city.
2. To agree the proposed timescale for decision making and implementation of
the future shape of the service.
3. To approve 3-month public consultation from March to May 2015 on the
proposals relating to specific libraries across the city
Key background / detail:
a. Purpose of report:
This report outlines the proposed future model for the Library service, based on an
extensive consultation, national research and an assessment of the needs of the city. The
report sets out our strategic approach to developing the service offer at both the citywide
and local level, and proposes how we will deliver our overall vision of a vibrant and
sustainable network of libraries which respond to the needs of our citizens in the future.
It also seeks Cabinet approval for a full public consultation on the specific proposals for all
the libraries across the city.
b. Key details:
1. The report sets out a vision and set of design principles for Bristol’s libraries. We
are proposing a core content offer for the Library Service, which clearly states what
will be available across the city in every library. This is the fundamental provision of
books, materials and access to information and information technology. This will be
complemented by a local offer in each branch library, which is the opportunity to
shape the level and type of provision at the neighbourhood level to meet specific
community needs.
2. We have proposed how we will deliver the future library provision based on a very
successful public consultation, knowledge of neighbourhood needs, understanding
of library usage and the proposed Medium Term Financial Plan expectations from
April 2016. The proposals group our current libraries to show how we will target our
investment to deliver the new service as follows:
a. Libraries already delivering to the level of quality which meets our new offer
1
b. Libraries needing development
There are some libraries which do not fit within these 2 groups, in terms of their
potential to deliver the full core and local offer. The paper outlines a way forward for
discussions about the future for these libraries within the consultation.
The rationale for the allocation of existing libraries to these groups is included in the
report.
3. Some specific areas of provision have been identified which will need to change
and develop to fulfil the potential of the new service:







Opening hours
Frontline staffing roles
Developing a volunteering programme
Developing quality library space with core and local offers
Improved self-service and access to library buildings
Improved ICT access via upgraded broadband
Marketing and promotions
c. Next steps:
If agreed, the proposals will all be subject to a second phase of consultation from 4 th
March to 27th May 2015. Following the consultation, a further report will be provided to
Cabinet with a final proposal for a future model for the Library Service in July 2015, for
implementation in 2015 and beyond.
2
AGENDA ITEM 5
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
CABINET
3rd March 2015
REPORT TITLE:
Libraries for the Future – Proposals for Consultation
Ward(s) affected by this report: ALL
Strategic Director:
Alison Comley, Neighbourhoods
Report author:
Kate Murray, Head of Libraries
Contact telephone no.
& e-mail address:
01173521264
[email protected]
Purpose of the report:
This report outlines the proposed future model for the Library Service, based on a wide
ranging citywide consultation, national research and an assessment of the needs of the
city. The report sets out our strategic approach to developing the service offer at both the
citywide and local level, and proposes how we will deliver our overall vision of a vibrant
and sustainable network of libraries which respond to the needs of our citizens in the
future.
It also seeks Cabinet approval for a full public consultation on the specific proposals for all
the libraries across the city.
Following the consultation, a further report will be provided to Cabinet with a final proposal
for a future model for the Library Service in July 2015.
1. To agree the updated service design principles and proposed model of
service delivery based on a new core and local offer for the future library
provision in the city.
2. To agree the proposed timescale for decision making and implementation of
the future shape of the service.
3. To approve 3-month public consultation from March to May 2015 on the
proposals relating to specific libraries across the city
1. The context for change:
1.1
The Cabinet paper in November 2014 outlined the nature and scale of the UK and
worldwide debate about the way libraries could or should develop in the future. The
3
paper explained why we want to re-shape the library service and what the reasons
for change are in Bristol:







Low levels of use – 6% regular use of the lending service in a three month
period
Levels of use – 14% use by active members (library card used once a year)
Model which has not kept up with the changing needs of our communities, or the
changing way in which people now choose to access information and knowledge
in their lives
Demographic of users
Poor condition of some of the existing buildings
High number of libraries, some in close proximity to each other
Ongoing financial challenges for local authorities
1.2
We have since looked at the national and international research and evidence about
the future of libraries and have undertaken our own local 3 month consultation. The
result is that we want to change the way we deliver libraries in the city, to deliver
consistent quality across the library network and to open up the potential for
innovation and local delivery in a way we have not been able to do previously.
1.3
Bristol’s 21st century library service needs to be relevant to the city’s goals and
ambitions – the service does not and should not exist in isolation of everything else
that is happening in the city. We want to celebrate what’s great about our existing
service and be honest enough to acknowledge what has to change. We want to
develop a vibrant and sustainable service, which better meets and responds to the
way more of our citizens live their lives and can provide additional benefits to
communities, particularly those in our city who experience more challenges and
have less access to opportunities.
1.4
The approach in this paper reflects what people in the city have told us through our
consultation and the aspiration for a quality service for the future. However it is set
squarely in the context of being sustainable, both in financial terms and in the level
of relevance to our citizens. It is important to understand at this stage that the
status quo is not an option and that the provision across the city needs to change;
this will affect all libraries. A traditional building-based service, like our current
delivery model, is not sustainable in the face of the financial challenge experienced
by all local authorities. This model will also not serve the 85% of Bristol citizens
who do not currently use the service.
1.5
The debate we have had in the city has been direct and honest and we are
maintaining that spirit within this report. We have taken on board professional
advice, public consultation feedback and expert analysis – what we are now
proposing is a way to deliver the best service for the future, without compromising
the quality of the service or avoiding some of the difficult choices we have to make.
1.6
This report demonstrates how and why we propose to take the service forward in a
way which is respectful of the history and current value invested in it by library users
and supporters, but also challenges the current provision where we need to develop
and grow beyond our traditional boundaries, to ensure that our network of libraries
in the future is of the quality that the city and our citizens deserve.
4
2. Where are we now?
2.1
The local authority has a statutory obligation under the Public Libraries and
Museums Act of 1964 to deliver free books, access to information and trained staff
to facilitate the public. In Bristol we have 28 libraries with a mixed level of provision
across the city. There are some excellent services and some where more could be
provided to attract more use.
3. What have we learned?
3.1
National:
We have been fortunate to be formulating our consultation and proposals at a time
when there is considerable recent research on libraries:
 The Carnegie Trust, a charity continuing the work of Andrew Carnegie (a
library philanthropist), has produced a number of initiatives and pieces of
research since 2013.
 Arts Council England took over responsibility for supporting and developing
libraries as part of the functions they inherited from the Museums, Libraries
and Archives Council (MLA) on 1 October 2011.They published the
Envisioning the Library of the Future report in 2013.
 The Independent Library Report chaired by William Sieghart was published in
December 2014.
 The Society of Chief Librarians nationally endorsed four main offers that all
libraries approved – Health, Reading, Information and Digital offers.
The main themes that emerged from the national research are listed below and a
more complete summary is provided in Appendix 1:
 Libraries need to develop to build and/or retain their place as the hub of their
local communities by developing a broader remit and appeal and creating a
more social and welcoming ambience
 Libraries have a role in delivering against the social, economic, educational
and cultural agendas, and that these need to be more explicit, more multi
agency/ community informed and relevant to the neighbourhoods/areas of the
city they serve
 Communities should be encouraged to take a more active role in shaping and
delivering their local libraries
 Libraries need to make the most of digital technology and creative media,
including delivering against the digital inclusion agenda for their cities
 Libraries need to be resilient and sustainable and we need to develop the right
skills for staff to deliver this future
 A library offer should in part be focussed around the broad headings of
Reading, Health, Information, Digital
These themes have been echoed in our own consultation findings.
Local:
3.2
The consultation began in Bristol on November 11th 2014. It was a three-month
5
period of consultation about what citizens know and like about the service, what
could be improved and how the service may be more relevant to Bristol citizens in
the future. The consultation was designed to be an extensive, open and honest
dialogue about the service in advance of any specific proposals being developed.
3.3
We used a variety of different communication channels to ensure that the
consultation was as accessible as possible. We know that many citizens in Bristol
do not use the library service at all and we needed to find a way of reaching those
citizens. To achieve this we worked closely with our colleagues in the
Neighbourhood Partnership and Community Development Teams to organise the
public meetings. We have also worked with the Citizens’ Panel, which is a specially
created panel of 2000 people for consultation that is designed to represent the
diversity of Bristol (and is therefore a mix of library users and non-users).
3.4
8000 people took part in this consultation, which is a record level of involvement
with a Bristol City Council consultation. It is important to note that the demographic
make-up of the people who have responded to the consultation is not necessarily
representative of the diversity of the city. For example, we know that over 90% of
people who completed the main survey are library users with a very similar
demographic profile. It is therefore very important that we give appropriate
consideration to responses from the Citizens’ Panel and the meetings carried out
with Neighbourhood Partnerships and equalities/ community groups to ensure that
feedback is as representative as possible of the city as a whole. Further detail of the
approach taken can be found in Appendix 2.
Consultation Findings:
3.5
Analysis of the consultation was carried out by an external research consultancy,
CX Partners, and their detailed analysis report is included as Appendix 3.
3.6
We now have substantial current information about the views of the service, many
ideas that could be put into action over the short and longer term and a wider
understanding of the role of libraries in people’s lives. We have reflected the
extensive findings in our proposals, whilst recognising that we could not respond to
every idea, within the timescales, budget or resources available. We have been
very clear where the consultation has helped us formulate proposals for the future.
Some of the headline themes from the consultation are set out below:

Gap between Beliefs and Behaviours – there is a gap between citizens’
beliefs and views of libraries and the role they play in society, and the reality of
library usage. There is a clear gap between the passionate views expressed
about the service and the number of people visiting libraries.

Ease of Access – Ease of access is a repeated theme; respondents want
more consistent, clear and convenient opening hours, locations that can be
easily accessed and improved facilities in libraries (for example, toilets and
baby changing facilities).

A library as a Community Space – There is demand for libraries to provide
flexible spaces for community groups to access, as well as for local news and
6
community information to be shared through libraries.

Network of services - Whilst the Central Library is the most visited in the city,
there was consistent feedback about the value of the local branch libraries and
their role in communities.

Books and other activities – The consultation survey proved that borrowing,
browsing and reading books are still the most popular activities within libraries.
However, there is evidence that a wide range of other services are accessed
in libraries.

Cultural and Social Activities –Respondents want libraries to play a greater
role in hosting, supporting and promoting community and cultural activities.

Awareness of Current Services –There is a lack of awareness of the
services currently offered by the library service.

Young People – There is demand for more dedicated activities to engage
children and young people. The general perception of libraries amongst young
people is positive and they primarily use libraries to read, do homework and
borrow books, rather than to use computers or socialise.

Specific feedback from equalities groups - There is a demand for more
diverse stock in different languages as well as an increased emphasis on
supporting learning for children. There are also key points to consider in
relation to accessibility of libraries for people with a disability (equipment,
signage etc.).
4. Our Design Principles:
4.1
The previous Cabinet paper in November 2014 agreed a clear set of design
principles which we have used and enhanced to support our developing approach:
 A defined core service ensuring access to information, books and information
technology for all of Bristol’s citizens, available through all Bristol’s libraries
 A sustainable network of high quality libraries with local community focused
branch libraries complemented by a Central Library offering more specialist
resources
 24/7/365 access to online library services and resources. This includes specialist
material from Bristol Libraries and access to catalogues and stock of other library
services through the Libraries West consortium website
 Good geographical access across the city with all residents being within 1.5 miles*
of a library and libraries located, where possible, near the locus of community
activity in that area and on public transport routes.
 Delivery tailored to local community need with special focus on those who are
disadvantaged, vulnerable and socially isolated.
 Opening hours which are designed to match the local demand and usage
7
 Digital inclusion access for the city through the free library computers,
complemented by trained staff offering mediated access to online information and
services during opening hours.
 Creative and innovative ideas to enhance the delivery and content of library
services, including shared services with other partners.
*2 mile access was the recommended minimum distance advised by the Secretary of State
response to Bolton MBC following a local inquiry – CMS 231060/DC 31 May 2013
4.2
Our vision for the future service is:
“To provide a vibrant and sustainable library service designed with the citizens of
Bristol, for all our diverse communities, that supports reading & learning, health &
wellbeing, employment and free access to information.”
5. How have we designed the new service?
5.1
We have used the various sources of research and intelligence outlined above to
help us to shape our approach, in the context of the financial/savings proposals
which have been agreed as part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan for
2016/17. We have also taken into consideration Department of Culture, Media and
Sport recommendations of how a library service should be designed (details on
recommendations available in Appendix 4).
6. The Service – a Core and Local Offer
6.1
We will have a core content offer for the library service, which clearly states what
will be available across the city, of a consistent quality, in every Bristol City Council
8
library. This is the fundamental provision of books, materials and access to
information and information technology.
6.2
We have based this offer around the nationally researched model developed by the
Carnegie Trust in their 2014 publication, “Speaking Volumes”, which highlights the
role for libraries in contributing to the health and wellbeing of their communities;
becoming an effective social and learning hub, an economic enabler and a cultural
centre. Delivering this offer will combine the content as laid out in the table below,
with an appropriate space and appropriate levels of staffing. This offer will enable us
to improve what we already deliver and to develop more targeted services to meet
wider community needs.
Below is an overview of the proposed core content offer, outlining priorities aligned
to 4 outcome areas: Education, Social, Cultural and Economic.
6.3
This core offer reflects other key Council initiatives across the city. For example, all
libraries will be members of the Learning City partnership and contribute to
identified priorities and challenge groups to increase learning, social inclusion and
employment outcomes for all
6.4
The local offer is the opportunity to shape the level and type of provision at the
neighbourhood level. The balance of the core offer will need to change depending
on the communities the library serves, to enable a more tailored approach.
Communities vary, as do the needs of the area. Designing a more localised offer is
9
an opportunity for local communities to shape and to influence their library service,
and encourage the provision of other partners in the space.
7. What are the main elements of the new service?
There are key elements of our provision which will need to change and develop to fulfil the
potential of the new service:







Opening hours
Frontline staffing roles
Developing a volunteering programme
Developing quality library space with core and local offers
Improved self- service and access to library buildings
Improved ICT access via upgraded broadband
Marketing and promotions
Opening hours:
7.1
The consultation told us that the current opening hours are unclear and confusing
for our library users, and often a barrier to access for potential new users. For
example, libraries are often closed at lunchtime and at weekends, when many
people have expressed that they would want or prefer to use them, particularly in
the context of their other local activities, such as shopping. We propose to make
some reductions to opening hours to match local usage, but ensuring that no library
closes at lunchtime.
7.2
We are proposing a specific change to the Central Library:
Central Library opening hours will be revised to close on a Monday, but open
consistently Tuesday to Friday 9.30 – 7.00 and open on both Saturday and Sunday
(hours unchanged). This reflects how other central libraries operate and will provide
an enhanced offer both to local library users, citywide user and visitors to the city.
We are also proposing indicative hours in each library which will be included in
consultation documentation.
Front line staffing roles:
7.3
The consultation was clear that library staff and their role in supporting access to
the service are highly valued. We have also heard from people both locally and
nationally about how they would see the staff roles developing and changing to
meet the needs of a future service.
7.4
The core and local offer proposed creates a different requirement from our staff. In
the future we need all staff to develop an outward-facing, community focus to
support the development of the local offer. We will also need some new roles within
the service, which will bring in specific skills around community development,
partnership working, supporting and developing volunteering. This will support the
development of relevant and quality local offers which reflect the need of the wider
neighbourhood and communities of interest. This is an essential part of the
development of the service for the future; it will provide local communities the
opportunity to engage with and shape their local provision, and maximise the
10
benefit that the service offers the neighbourhood. We will be seeking a balance of
existing and new skills and will offer the opportunity to all staff to move into new
roles.
7.5
We will also need to address some of the working patterns and practices in some of
our service to modernise terms and conditions and ensure that the new service can
be delivered flexibly and effectively. Staff will be fully consulted on any proposed
changes to terms and conditions or working arrangements through the Council
Managing Change policies and procedures.
Developing a volunteering programme within the service:
7.6
The library service is regularly asked if we can provide volunteering opportunities to
local people, however we have never had the right structure or support to develop a
quality programme across the service. We do have library users who have formed
“friends of library” groups who run activities such as book groups, or special events
with library staff which are highly valued. However, there is a wide array of possible
opportunities for volunteering which would relate to the local offers. We are
committed to offering these opportunities, recognising that volunteering roles will
vary, depending on the local interest and activity. We will not expect volunteers to
fulfil specific roles which have previously been filled by paid staff.
7.7
To support all our volunteering approaches, we will seek to employ a volunteer
coordinator for the service and would include supporting and developing
volunteering locally in the new roles within the frontline service.
Developing quality library space
7.8
We recognise that our current buildings and library spaces vary considerably and
some are much more flexible and attractive than others. We want to develop a
welcoming and flexible space with layout and shelving changes to make the
customer experience far more similar to a bookshop experience. The current
traditional way of organising the books will change to be based on subjects and
headings that people are more familiar with e.g. hobbies rather than a Dewey
Decimal number (with the exception of Central Library). This will enable easier selfservice. The welcoming atmosphere will be achieved with furniture, layout and
changes where possible to toilet provision. We will aim for a quality space that is
attractive to current and new customers.
Improved self-service and access to library services
7.9
Self-service has been very successful for the service and we will install self-service
machines in all supported libraries to enable borrowing and return of library items.
7.10 We will also explore technology to assist access to our library buildings. This would
enable customers to use the library for longer periods, outside the staffed opening
hours. A swipe card access for library card holders is possible and being trialled in
a number of authorities, with accompanying security measures.
7.11 We will also improve the broadband provision in some of the branch libraries, to
ensure that a consistent standard is available.
Marketing and promotion of the library service
11
7.12 The consultation told us that awareness of the service across the city is poor,
demonstrated by the fact that some of the ideas that came into the Ideas Bank
relate to things already offered in some libraries. Whilst recognising that there is a
cost attached to advertising and promotion which may restrict the options available,
we are committed to developing the following channels:




Improved website - outlining the full offer and events diary
Social media – building on the momentum developed during the
consultation on Facebook and Twitter
Email bulletin – promoting events and activities across all branches
Press & PR strategy – publicising bigger events throughout the service
8. What will the new network of libraries look like?
8.1
There is not one single model which will deliver a library service that can be applied
to Bristol. We have developed an approach which will protect and enhance those
things most highly valued by our current users, and acknowledge where we need to
focus our service and reducing resources to deliver the best possible service to the
widest group of people.
8.2
We have considered the geographical spread of our services throughout the city. As
the network of 28 libraries has developed over the last 100 years, as the city has
grown, there has been an organic spread of development, not planned or strategic.
We know that many of Bristol’s citizens currently live within one mile of a library and
there is considerable over provision in some parts of the city. However, we are
committed to ensuring that everyone will have access to a library within a 1.5 mile
radius from where they live. This is an excellent standard, well above that set by
many other local authorities.
8.3
Bristol Central Library plays an important role in the geography of the city and the
region. It is a community library for the city centre, but also a valuable resource for
specialist information, material and local studies. It sits at the centre of a transport
hub and is accessible for many citizens. It offers facilities that other buildings do not
– in the size of the children’s library, café, public toilets and exhibition space.
Therefore the Central Library will support the network of branch libraries by having a
simple and easy to remember pattern of opening hours.
8.4
We have identified 2 groups of provision to show how we will target our investment
to deliver the new Council library service. In addition, there is a further group of
libraries which do not currently fit in to Groups 1 and 2 (see page 18 for details).

Group 1: Libraries already delivering to the level of quality which meets our new
offer
o These libraries can immediately fulfil the core offer and rapidly develop
their local offer. They are located in the right place to serve their
communities and are based in a good quality space.

Group 2: Libraries needing development
o These libraries have potential to deliver to the core and local offer, but
may not be doing so currently. They are located in the right
12
geographic areas, though not necessarily in exactly the right location
or in the best quality building or space. These may need capital
investment or there is the potential to move in the future to meet the
right standard of space.
8.5
The rationale for assessing how our existing libraries fitted within these groups was
based on the following:










Ability to deliver a quality library service; a place that inspires, motivates, informs
and enriches an individual’s quality of life and community life; in the right place
to serve the community
Whether it does or can deliver the core library service
Contribution to wider community needs that can delivered by the council through
the library service (particularly in areas of greater need)
How its location works locally, for example if it is near to the local retail offer
Current services, usage and trends
Geography and location – proximity to other libraries*
In a building that can or could offer a welcoming atmosphere and flexible
community space which attracts new people to the service
Whether it is a Bristol City Council owned or leased site in a good physical
condition, and the potential for shared services or space
Location of other community buildings or demand from communities for
community run/owned space
Future development opportunities in some areas
*A map showing the details of the spread of libraries across the city, and how the
proposals meet the design principle of all residents being within 1.5 miles of a
library, is shown as Appendix 5.
Tables showing the detail of how our existing libraries are proposed to fit in to these
2 groups can be found below.
13
Group 1: Libraries already delivering to the level of quality which meets our new offer
Typical
Features for
Group of
Libraries




Why are these
libraries in this
group?
This group applies to libraries which currently support the core offer and can be
enhanced by a local offer. They currently serve the geographic and community
need in each area. It includes the main ‘hub’ in each area of the city.
Fully staffed service, supported by technology
Full core service offer available
Changed opening hours to deliver consistency and reduced costs
Accessible building and location
Which libraries fit in this group?
Library
Bedminster
Bishopston /
Cheltenham
Road
Central
Explanation
 Full core service available – widest offer to south of city.
 Good location, next to retail, easily accessed
 Changes to opening hours which reflect usage patterns; closing Sundays




Full core service available – meets geographic and community need
Right location and facilities, easily accessed
Changes to opening hours
New library, due to open in 2015.
 The city’s largest library with widest range of resources and full core service offer
 Central location so easily accessed.
 Changes to opening hours; open more evenings but closed Mondays.
 Full core service available
Fishponds
Henleaze
Junction 3
 Appropriate location, easily accessed.
 Staffing levels reduced during quieter morning session.
 Shared council service with Citizen Service Point offers efficient delivery and good
access to council information
 Full core service available – widest offer to north of city.
 Good location, next to retail, easily accessed
 Changes to opening hours; open on Sundays but closed Wednesdays.
 Potential for expansion
 Full core service available and good opportunities to develop local offer– widest
offer to east of city.
 Right location and facilities, easily accessed
 Changes to opening hours to make them more consistent based on usage.
 New library, recent investment.
14
Typical Features
of Libraries in this
Group
Why are these
libraries in this
group?
 The library service may be standalone, but will typically look to work in conjunction
with other services or a community organisation, either now or in the future. There
may be potential opportunities to share locations.
 Supported service (either by Council or partner); this could be Council staff, partner
staff or volunteers. Staffed hours and staff roles will vary from regular daily staffed
hours to occasional management and infrastructure support (e.g. training, supporting
events, stock management).
 Changed opening hours to deliver consistency and reduced costs; where there is a
reduced staffed service of five hours a day e.g. 11 – 4 or 12 – 5 (this will be subject to
consultation).
 Option to use technology where appropriate to increase access to the services and
building outside of staffed hours. Commitment to upgrade all relevant libraries to
100MB
This group of libraries form part of the supported libraries network, but need
development to deliver a quality local offer. They are currently in the right geographic
area, but many of them are not in the ideal location / building; there is potential for
future investment to deliver a better service, which may be delivered more efficiently or
effectively by sharing a building with another service or community organisation. This
group ensures a continued library provision, but also offers potential for the buildings to
be available for wider community use. The library service helps ensure sustainable use
of a building where community services may still be in development. It also balances
the need for library provision with a more cost-effective model.
Which libraries fit in to this group?
Library
Explanation
Avonmouth
 Geographic need for a library provision but a tailored local offer would better serve the
community.
 Most appropriate location in area with potential to unlock use of current building with
some investment.
 Known opportunity to work with community centre to build an integrated service with
increased accessibility, opening hours and a more welcoming, open environment.
 Small change to staffed hours to make them more consistent
Bishopsworth
 Geographic need for a library provision but a tailored local offer would better serve the
community.
 Staffed library, although reduction in staffed hours
Filwood
 Clear need for provision in this geographic area – although opportunities for relocation,
development and investment will be pursued to improve offer to local community.
 Changes to staffed hours to make them more consistent and reflect usage patterns.
One more closed day per week.
Hartcliffe
Henbury
 Geographic need for library provision in this area, but current offer not meeting local
needs. Alternative locations / buildings to be considered to improve offer.
 Shared building, but no joint delivery of services currently
 Changes to staffed hours, reflecting usage patterns. One more closed day per week.
 Geographic need for a library, but current provision needs improvement
 Appropriate location, but opportunity to introduce a different community offer more
tailored to local need. Opportunity for investment.
15
Hillfields
Horfield
Knowle
 Geographic need for a library, but current provision is not suitable or sustainable.
 Current site not fit for future or suitable for investment so opportunity to consider use of
other buildings
 Opportunities exist to work with community organisations to enhance the offer for the
local area.
 Geographic need for library provision in the wider local area, but opportunity to consider
more suitable location in the longer term (which may be developed in partnership with
community).
 Current provision is not suitable, actively looking for alternative locations / local offer.
 Good geographic location although could be made easier to access
 Staffed library, although reduction in staffed hours to reflect usage patterns
 Current lease in Broadwalk retail centre limits short term opportunities
 Geographic need for library provision - although opportunities for relocation,
Lawrence
Weston
Shirehampton
Southmead
St Pauls
St George
Stockwood
Whitchurch
 Current offer will be continued in short term - unstaffed and in the customer service
point
 Geographic need for a library but a tailored local offer would better serve the
community.
 Most appropriate location in area with potential to unlock use of current building with
some investment.
 Different model of staffing; council staff support to be agreed rather than regular staffed
hours.
 Known opportunity to work with community centre to build an integrated service with
increased accessibility and opening hours and a more welcoming, open environment.
 Clear need for provision in this geographic area – although opportunities for relocation,
 Staffed library, although reduction in staffed hours to reflect usage patterns. One more
closed day per week.
 Good location – multi-use of space in centre, but library access / space could be
improved
 Meets geographic and community need – but opportunity to develop more tailored
service for local community
 Staffed service, although small reduction in staffed hours linked to patterns of usage
 Co-located services with Ethical Property Company
 Geographic need for library provision, but opportunity to develop more tailored local
offer.
 Appropriate location with space and potential for investment
 Local demand for increased access to community space, although community interest
not yet established.
 Also known need to develop early years’ provision in this area.
 Geographic need for library provision, but opportunity to develop more tailored local
offer.
 Appropriate location with space and potential for wider use.
 Local demand for increased access to community space, although community interest
not yet established.
 Also known need to develop early years’ provision in this area.
 New library in right geographic location.
 Current provision needs to be more tailored to the local community.
16
Libraries outside Groups 1 and 2
8.7
There are some libraries which do not fit within our 2 groups, in terms of their
potential to deliver the full core and local offer. The reasons for this are a
combination of factors including:






8.8
The libraries in this group are as follows:







8.9
Whether the building is in the right place to serve the community
Whether the building offers a welcoming atmosphere and flexible community
space to a variety of current and potential customers
The proximity of other libraries within a reasonable distance in each area
(geographical spread of our provision)
Whether there is known community demand for using a current building in a
different way, for example, more as a community centre than a library
Whether there is a potential contribution to wider community needs that can be
delivered by the council through the library service (particularly in areas of
greater need)
Whether the condition of the building is poor and subject to high maintenance
costs (NB: this aligns with the approach of the Council’s Corporate Land Policy,
which seeks to recognise the limitations of our budgets to support buildings
which require high levels of maintenance and are not fit for purpose).
Clifton
Eastville
Marksbury Road
Redland
Sea Mills
Westbury
Wick Road
A specific focus for the next 12 week phase of consultation will be to work with local
communities in these areas to explore if there are viable potential alternative
opportunities for these libraries in the future. There are already ideas that have
come up through meetings in localities as part of our Phase 1 consultation,
including:


The potential for the library setting to be developed by other council or partner
services relevant to the local community. This could include services focused on
children and families, older people etc. where that is the local need.
The potential to develop wider community-led facilities to meet local need, such
as developing a community centre, rather than a library. This could be facilitated
through a Community Asset Transfer, subject to an appropriate business plan.
The Council commits to support these conversations in localities and will provide a
clear route into these discussions as part of the consultation process.
17
9. Phase 2 Consultation
9.1
The information in Section 8 outlines the Council’s proposals for delivering the
future service, which will all be subject to consultation. Pending Cabinet approval to
the recommendations in this report, the next phase of consultation will run from 4 th
March to 27th May 2015. This will be a 12 week period that will enable the public,
as well as interested community groups and partners, to respond to the proposals
contained within this report.
9.2
We will use a range of communication channels to make the consultation as
accessible as possible to Bristol citizens. There will be particular focus on areas of
most change.
9.3
The consultation will focus on the following main themes:



Whether each library is in the right grouping
Opening hours
Access through technology
It will also focus discussions on libraries outside of groups 1 and 2.
Further detail on the plans for the next phase of consultation can be found in
Appendix 6.
10. Finance
10.1 The proposals in this report are designed within the parameters of the proposed
revenue budget for the service from April 2016, including the Medium Term
Financial Plan proposal of a reduction of £1.1m.
10.2 As part of the budget setting process for 2015/16, a capital budget provision of
£1.2m was agreed to support the cost of change required to ensure the success of
the new service. Priorities for this funding will be established once the new service
is agreed.
11. Next steps and timelines:
11.1
Subject to a cabinet decision on March 3rd, the next steps will be:
Consultation
March 4th – May 27th
Cabinet – 7th July 2015:
Final decision re new library provision and service for
the future
Implementation of change:
From July 2015, subject to Cabinet approvals
(See Appendix 7 for a summary of decision-making timeline and public
consultation timelines)
12. Consultation and scrutiny input:
18
a. Internal consultation:
Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission and Inquiry Day (January 22nd)
Lucy Murray-Brown – Service Director, Integrated Customer Services
Rachel Williams - Commissioning Manager Early Years
Jane Taylor – Service Manager, Communities and Adult Skills
John Bos – Community Assets Manager, Corporate Property
Ian Gale – Service Manager, Service Delivery and Integration
Lois Woodcock and Steve Matthews – Corporate Property
Robin Poole – Finance Business Partner
b. External consultation:
Scrutiny Inquiry Day - Report included as Appendix 8
Report on Phase 1 of Consultation (November 2014 – February 2015) included as
Appendix 3
13. Other options considered:
a) Do nothing: Rejected. The current service cannot be provided within the agreed
Medium Term Financial Plan requirements.
b) Alternative models of delivery e.g. Mutual, IPS and Trusts. None of the models
could be introduced in the current timescales. Alternative models could be explored
post 2016.
14. Risk management / assessment:
FIGURE 1
The risks associated with the decision on the core service and consultation on proposals for
“Libraries for the Future” are:
No.
RISK
Threat to achievement of the key
objectives of the report
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
1
The proposals will mean some
degree of change for ALL
libraries, including both reduced
and modernised provision. It is
therefore very likely that there will
be objections from library users
comfortable with a more
traditional, fully staffed service.
M
M
2
If local communities become
engaged in running and
managing some of the Council’s
library buildings, this will mean
that BCC could still maintain the
assets, so there will still be
ongoing associated costs. In
M
H
RISK CONTROL MEASURES
Mitigation (i.e. controls) and
Evaluation (i.e. effectiveness of
mitigation).
The second phase of consultation, in
particular the public meetings, will be
used to engage the public and
highlight why the changes are
required. The reduction in staffing
levels can be mitigated by the
introduction of volunteers – a
programme should be implemented at
the earliest opportunity. Whilst it is still
likely that there will be objection to the
proposals, this should be reduced by
the time proposals are implemented.
A rigorous process is in place for
approving a business case put forward
by the community to run one of the
Council’s buildings, to ensure that any
plans are feasible, so buildings will
only be retained where there is a good
evidence base for doing so. Property
19
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
M
M
Kate Murray
M
M
Robert Orrett
some cases the buildings are old
and inflexible – so this may
conflict with the Council’s asset
strategy.
savings are not included in the
planned service budget savings for all
sites, so this would not influence any
decision making. Ongoing
discussions with Property are required
throughout the consultation period.
FIGURE 2
The risks associated with not agreeing the decision on the core service and consultation on
proposals for “Libraries for the Future” are:
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
Mitigation (i.e. controls) and Evaluation
(i.e. effectiveness of mitigation).
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
1
Risk of challenge if there is a lack
of due consultation and a lack of
informed debate about the future
service with users and non-users
of the service
H
H
Ensure the maximum period of
consultation - recommended 12
weeks, working with the consultation
team, communications and
Neighbourhoods to reach all
communities, groups, Members and
residents who want to comment
M
M
2
If the proposals are not subject to
full consultation and a way
forward is not agreed within the
defined timescales, then it will not
be possible to realise the
required budget savings by April
2016.
H
M
Clear evidence and rationale for
proposals to be provided to engage
the public in meaningful consultation.
Alternative plans to be considered as
part of consultation period.
Contingency planning to understand
impact on budget if delays occur.
M
L
3
If the principles and the approach
for the core and local service
offer are not agreed there is a
risk that there is no service
improvement and citizens will not
benefit from a new offer tailored
to their community.
M
M
Detail the benefits offered by
implementing a new core service,
tailored locally. Agreeing overarching
principles provides the platform for
developing the detail of the local offer
with communities in each area.
M
L
Kate Murray
Kate Murray
15. Public sector equality duties:
Before making a decision, section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires that each
decision-maker considers the need to promote equality for persons with the
following “protected characteristics”: age, disability, gender reassignment,
pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. Each
decision-maker must, therefore, have due regard to the need to:
i) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct
prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.
ii) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and those do not share it. This involves having due regard, in
particular, to the need to:
- remove or minimise disadvantage suffered by persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic.
- take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic that are different from the needs of people who do not share it (in
relation to disabled people, this includes, in particular, steps to take account of
disabled persons' disabilities);
- encourage persons who share a protected characteristic to participate in public
life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is
disproportionately low.
iii) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and those who do not share it. This involves having due regard, in
20
particular, to the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding.
A full and comprehensive EqIA has been produced, which includes an overall picture of
what the service knows about the current customers’ equalities profiles, and also includes
wider information about citizens who are potential users of the service from the
Neighbourhood Profiles, broken down into areas and individual libraries. This is available
as Appendix 9. The EqIA also describes the community needs identified through
consultation with 64 different groups representing equalities communities that took place
throughout the first period of consultation.
This EqIA has helped to inform the consultation approach, the content of the core offer,
and the design of the proposal that this report seeks to consult on. The EqIA is a living
document which will be revised as each proposal is considered, and will help to inform the
tailored neighbourhood offer in each area as these develop.
This EqIA will be reviewed in full during and at the end of the second period of consultation
and will inform the final proposal to the July Cabinet meeting. A cumulative impact
statement will also be produced on the service as a whole for the final report in July 2015.
16. Eco impact assessment – see Appendix 10 for full details
The significant impacts of this proposal are:
Positive:
 Reduction in energy consumption due to reduction in number of staffed branches
 Reduction in waste production due to reduction in number of staffed branches
 Enhanced digital provision may reduce travel, for example through increased
downloads
Negative:
 Potentially, increased travel by service users due to reduction in number of staffed
branches
 Increased energy consumption in libraries due to increased community access at
evenings / weekends
 Potentially, buildings where no alternative use is identified falling into disrepair
The proposals include the following measures to mitigate the impacts:




Libraries should reduce travel impacts by providing appropriate information and
facilities for customers, such as bike racks and bus timetables
Building Managers need to continue to use on-line energy management tools and
facilitate comprehensive recycling facilities at all library branches.
Proposed community involvement with libraries should include consideration of
biodiversity opportunities in library grounds.
The service should work closely with Corporate Property to carefully manage the
condition of any building that becomes surplus to service requirements
The net effects of the proposals are:
The mix of positive and negative impacts are anticipated to largely cancel each other out,
21
so there is unlikely to be a significant change overall.
17. Resource and legal implications:
a. Financial (revenue) implications:
If approved the consultation would be carried out on proposals, relating to specific libraries
across the City, that have been designed by Library Services to achieve the proposed
revenue reduction of £1.1m in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for
2016/17.
At this stage these proposals are based on estimates of reductions from staff and
premises budgets. If these proposals were implemented then, based on these estimates,
the £1.1m budget reduction should be achieved by the Council.
The achievement of the MTFP revenue reduction in 2016/17 will require implementation of
changed services following a further key decision for library provision and the future of the
service, scheduled for July 2015.
Advice given by Robin Poole, Neighbourhoods Finance Business Partner
Date 13th February 2015
b. Financial (capital) implications:
As part of the budget setting process for 2015/16, as agreed on 17 February 2015,
provision has been made in the Capital Programme of £1.2m to support the outcomes of
the consultation and to facilitate investment in libraries as part of the Libraries for the
Future Project.
Advice given by Janet Ditte, Service Manager – Finance Business Support
Date: 18th February 2015
Comments from the Corporate Capital Programme Board:
N/a
c. Legal implications:
The Council is seeking to develop a model for libraries for the future in the city. In doing
so the Council needs to ensure compliance with the following:
1.
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (“PMLA 1964) - general duty of library
authorities. Section 7 of the PMLA 1964 imposes a statutory duty on library authorities to
“Provide a comprehensive and efficient library service to everyone who lives, works or
attends full time education in the library area”.
“When fulfilling its duty under section 7 the Council must have regard to the desirability:
•
Of securing that facilities are available for the borrowing of or reference to books
and other printed matter, pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials
•
That these facilities are sufficient in number, range and quality to meet the general
22
and special requirements of adults and children
•
Of encouraging children and adults to make full use of the library service”.
2.
Consultation
The Council is also under a general Duty of Best Value to “make arrangements to secure
continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a
combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness (Section 3 of the Local Government
Act 1999 “LGA”). To achieve the right balance and before deciding how to fulfil our Best
Value Duty – authorities are under a Duty to Consult (Section 3(2) LGA) with relevant
representative bodies etc. The Council should also follow Guidance published by the
Department of DCLG when undertaking its review.
There is no statutory requirement as to the form the consultation should take but general
principles require that consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a
formative stage; the Council must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to enable
intelligent consideration and response; adequate time must be given for consideration and
response; the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in
finalising any proposals; it must consider carefully who should be consulted and how
(linked to those who are potentially affected by the decision and should include those who
are likely to support the proposals as well as those who are likely to object).
The Council should also follow the BCC best practice guidelines on Consultation.
From the details set out in the report it appears clear that due regard has been had to the
Councils general duties regarding the delivery of library services, Furthermore, the report
details the nature and extent of the consultation exercise carried out to date, which
arrangements, in their timing, the identity of the consultees and the due consideration of
the results, appear to comply with the obligations on the Council in respect of an
acceptable consultation process. Going forward the Council should again be mindful of
these expectations in connection with any further consultation
Advice given by Eric Andrews, Team Leader, Legal Services
d. Land / property implications:
The majority of the Council’s Libraries are owned freehold with just 4 out of the 28
properties being leasehold. The Council is subject to a statutory fiduciary duty to obtain the
best price reasonably obtainable upon disposal of any surplus property assets. Exceptions
are permitted by virtue of the General Disposal Consents which includes the ability to
dispose at under value for the purposes of health and wellbeing.
Disposal of surplus freeholds will ensure that the Council does not carry the risk of future
liabilities. Disposal subject to lease should ensure that all repair and maintenance
responsibilities are devolved to the tenant in order to minimise the risk of future liabilities.
Any such proposals should have regard to the condition of the buildings and to the ability
of any prospective tenant to undertake the necessary repairs, future maintenance liabilities
and to meet the cost of all other outgoings.
The inclusion of a Service Agreement within any leasehold transfer proposal is considered
advisable.
23
Advice given by Steve Matthews Project Leader - Property
e. Human resources implications:
These proposals will have an impact on staff and staff costs are over 80% of the overall
budget. The service is currently comprised of 130 FTE (of which 104 are permanent, 26
fixed term contract posts). The roles that library staff carry out are also likely to be very
different and there is likely to be a reduction in the overall numbers as a result of these
proposals.
The current number of Fixed Term Contracts will enable the impact on permanent staff to
be reduced. In addition, we would aim to redeploy staff into suitable vacancies across the
council, wherever possible. However, a number of redundancies are still likely. An early
voluntary severance offer would enable the service to manage the change in resource
requirements more effectively, as well as support the service in its aim to meet the
personal preferences of the permanent staff, wherever possible. It would also enable the
service to meet their savings targets by April 2016.
Advice given by Sandra Farquharson People Business Partner, Neighbourhoods
Date February 3rd 2015
24
Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Libraries – The National Context
Appendix 2 – Consultation Methodology
Appendix 3 - CX Partners Consultation Report
Appendix 4 – Strategic Priorities
Appendix 5 - 1.5 Mile Radius Map on the new service
Appendix 6 – Draft consultation plan for March to May
Appendix 7 – Timeline
Appendix 8 – Scrutiny Inquiry Day Report
Appendix 9 – EQIA
Appendix 11 – RIO report
Appendix 12 – Map of Bus Routes with Proposed Library Locations
25
Appendix 1: Libraries - The National Context
Arts Council England - Envisioning the Future, research 2012/13
Main recommendations:




Place the library as the hub of the community
Make the most of digital technology and creative media
Ensure that libraries are resilient and sustainable
Deliver the right skills for those who work in libraries
Society of Chief Librarians - Four Universal Library Offers




Reading offer - focuses on promoting reading and literacy
Health offer - emphases the contribution libraries can make to health and wellbeing in communities
Digital offer - free internet access for customers, plus access to services online.
Information offer - help users to get online and direct them to relevant resources
on job seeking, health, and finance
Independent Library Report – William Sieghart (Dec 2014)
Main recommendations:





National task force to help develop library services to make them fit for the 21st
century.
Increased digital resources
Reinvention of libraries as social community hubs, with refreshments and facilities
adding to a more social ambience
Encourage more community involvement in the management of libraries
Increase of e-lending
Carnegie Trust UK
Public libraries have enormous potential to improve wellbeing in four broad areas of public
policy:

At the heart of strong communities

Promoting economic wellbeing

As cultural centres

By supporting learning
26
Appendix 2: Consultation Methodology
The Bristol Future Libraries consultation began in Bristol on November 11th 2014. It was a
three month period of consultation about what citizens know and like about the service,
what could be improved and how the service may be more relevant to Bristol citizens in
the future. The consultation was designed to be an extensive, open and honest dialogue
about the service in advance of any specific proposals being developed.
We used a variety of different communication channels to ensure that the consultation was
accessible to all. We know that many citizens in Bristol do not use the library service at all
and we needed to find a way of reaching those citizens. To achieve this we worked closely
with our colleagues in the Neighbourhood Partnership and Community Development
Teams to organise the public meetings.
A consultation programme was designed including:
•
Face to face - Meetings at libraries, discussions through Neighbourhood
Partnerships and forums, attendance at equality forums, meetings with
community groups, and research visits to other libraries.
•
Digital - In addition a strong digital offer was designed, including dedicated web
pages, online surveys, an interactive Ideas Bank where individuals could
submit, comment on and rate ideas, and a social media presence.
•
Printed – Hard copy versions of the different surveys, postcards to submit
ideas, posters to raise awareness.
•
Citizens’ Panel - the consultation survey was issued to the Council’s Citizens’
Panel, as this is an established research group designed to be representative of
the diversity of the city.
The response rate to the consultation, via the different channels, was
:
Method
Number of responses/attendees
Survey – hard copy, online and Easy
4760
Read
Postcard comments
820
Young People survey
482
Ideas Bank
138
Neighbourhood Forums attended
17
Neighbourhood Partnerships attended
5
Library Meetings
28
Equalities/communities of interest
60 (involving 847 individuals)
meetings
School / Young People workshops
4
Research visits
3 (Exeter, Weston and Bristol)
Citizens’ Panel survey responses
910
27
Appendix 3: Consultation Analysis Report
28
Bristol Libraries
What citizens want
February 2015
Introduction
Bristol City Council is redesigning its library services for the future, in line with the
changing needs of citizens. At the same time, the council needs to make significant
savings to many services, including libraries.
At present, only 14% of Bristol’s citizens
use libraries. In order to continue to
provide a service which continues to
serve these citizens, but also addresses
the needs of current non-users, a
thorough understanding of citizens’
needs and preferences is required.
This report communicates the findings
of a research and consultation exercise
conducted from November 2014 to
February 2015. The report is intended as
an input to the ongoing conversation
about the future of Bristol’s libraries,
providing evidence for all parties to
refer to.
2
Objectives
The consultation set out to answer two questions:
“what do Bristol’s citizens need from their libraries?” and “what ideas do they have for
improving the service?”
This report presents an analysis of the responses to these questions received during the consultation.
It also highlights differences between groups of special interest within the Bristol population,
including those specified in the Equality Act (2010):
• Users and non-users of libraries
• Different age groups
• Different genders
• Lesbian, gay and bisexual people
• Transgender people
• Parents
• Members of black and minority
ethnic (BME) groups
• Disabled people
• People who live in households
with a low income (less than
£25,000 per annum)
• People with religious beliefs
3
Methodology
The report references findings from a range of activities, which drew on
various data-gathering methodologies. More detail on the methodology
can be found in Appendix 3.
What
Where and how
Who
Consultation meetings
Meetings in libraries, with Neighbourhood
Partnerships and with special interest groups
Interested citizens and members of community groups
Idea postcards
Libraries, Neighbourhood Partnerships and Forums
820 ideas were posted in this way
Ideas Bank website
Online, with notices posted in libraries
and on social media
Any interested citizen.
140 ideas were posted in this way
Citizens' Panel survey
Online, paper
Members of the Bristol Citizens' Panel.
This sample consisted of 919 people
Open consultation survey
Online, paper
(including Easy Read and young people’s formats)
Any citizen.
4,692 people contributed their views in this way
4
The information in this report
Given the range of data sources, we have needed to take decisions about how to prioritise the
report and organise the presentation of findings.
• The report is divided into several
sections:
• An overview of demographic
differences within the survey data
• Key findings around library usage,
perceptions of libraries and access to
libraries, based around the areas
covered in the survey
• An overview of ideas, suggestions and
comments made by citizens
• Conclusions, summarising the main
themes, the needs of particular
groups, and parallels with Carnegie
UK’s Speaking Volumes report, which
looks at similar questions around the
future of libraries
• On each page, we have addressed a
particular question from a range of
angles. In doing so, we also highlight the
contrasts that sometimes arise between
the views and experiences of different
groups
•
•
Figures shown in the main body of the
report reflect the results from the
Citizens' Panel survey rather than the
open consultation survey. This is
because the Citizens' Panel has been
recruited to reflect the full demographic
range of the citizens of Bristol (see
figure on right), and therefore allows us
to treat the sample as representative of
the city’s adult population as a whole. In
contrast, while the open consultation
survey reflects the views of those who
chose to participate, it cannot be used
to extrapolate to the rest of the
population with the same degree of
confidence
Citizens' Panel survey (919 responses)
Open consultation
survey (4,692 responses)
… is designed to be
representative of
Bristol adult
population
(355,700)
We believe it is useful to be able to see
the results from the Citizens' Panel
survey and open consultation survey
side-by-side: these are shown in
Appendix 2
5
Who took part?
As can be seen below, the open consultation survey results are much more heavily
weighted towards frequent library users, compared to the Citizens’ Panel survey
Frequent users (at least once per month)
Occasional users (at least once per year)
Non-users
28%
38%
15%
3%
Users
VS
Non users
34%
82%
A relatively even mix of frequent, occasional
and non-users of libraries
The great majority of respondents are frequent library users
Base: Citizens’ Panel 919; Consultation 4,692 (all who answered)
6
Who took part?
The range of respondents from the Citizens' Panel survey and participants in the
consultation are different in a number of other respects.
Female
54%
66%
BME
13%
Disabled people
17%
34%
56%
44%
Heterosexual
Citizens' Panel survey 4%
96%
87%
Open consultation survey 4%
96%
Under 24
25-64
Open consultation survey*
70%
58%
65+
70%
15%
60%
Low income
Non-parents
42%
46%
89%
90%
30%
Non-religious
54%
LGB
83%
Parents
Non-disabled people
Open consultation survey 10%
46%
White British
Religious beliefs
Male
Med income
46%
43%
27%
26%
High income
47% 7%
47% 10%
Base: Citizens’ Panel 916; Consultation 3,798+ (all who answered)
* Under 24s representation shown for the open consultation survey includes respondents in the separate youth survey
7
Who took part?
The spread of participants across Bristol is broadly in
line with the distribution of the city’s population.
Bristol Neighbourhood Partnerships
Legend
Neighbourhood Partnership Areas
Ward boundary
Citizens'
Panel
survey
Open
consultation
survey
Bristol
population*
Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill
101
370
39,318
Avonmouth and Kingsweston
55
187
18,156
Bishopston, Cotham and Redland
92
421
32,935
Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East
55
322
36,691
Dundry View Partnership
64
119
4%
Avonmouth
and Kingsweston
6%
5%
5% 5%
Horfield and
Lockleaze
Henleaze,
Stoke Bishop and
Westbury-on-Trym
26,631
Filwood, Knowle and Windmill Hill
74
269
29,133
Greater Bedminster Community Partnership
64
252
22,103
Greater Brislington N’hood Partnership
46
179
18,655
Greater Fishponds
92
244
30,601
Henbury and Southmead
46
185
17,802
Hengrove and Stockwood
55
115
18,533
Citizens’ Panel
Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym
83
540
24,917
Open consultation
Horfield and Lockleaze
46
184
20,603
Bristol population
St George
46
123
19,619
919
3,510
355,697
Total
5%
Henbury and Southmead
5%
5%
5%
Greater
Fishponds
Bishopston,
Cotham and
Redland
9% 15% 5%
10% 7%
10% 12% 5%
Cabot, Clifton
and Clifton East
6%
9%
5%
Ashley,
Easton and
Lawrence Hill
7%
7%
St George
11% 10% 5%
Greater
Bedminster
5%
5%
4%
5%
Greater
Brislington
5%
Filwood, Knowle
and Windmill Hill
8%
8%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Stockwood, Hengrove
and Whitchurch
Dundry View
7%
3%
5%
6%
3%
5%
Base: Citizens’ Panel 918; Consultation 3,510 (all who answered)
* Population over 16 years old, based on 2011 census
© Crown Copyright and database rights 2015.
Ordnance Survey 100023406.
8
Using libraries
What users do in libraries
The importance of individual services
Accessing books
Using libraries for work and study
Increasing use of libraries
What do users do in libraries?
Books are still the main reason to visit libraries, but a range of other activities are taking
place too.
Commentary
Frequent users engage with an average of 5
non-book services (from the list on the right),
while occasional users make use of 3 services.
The range of services used is mirrored in the
range of services which citizens think libraries
should offer (see page 11). Only 62% browse,
borrow or read books on every visit. Only 3% of
people (mostly men) never do anything with
books when they go to the library, while 6% use
book-related services alone. Also noteworthy is
the contrast between the importance of
libraries in signposting local news and events,
and participation in events at libraries, which is
much lower. This implies that libraries could be
doing more to deliver events, as well as making
citizens aware of them. Visitors are most
regularly engaging in cultural activities (56% on
every visit, with a further 24% on some visits),
followed by social activities (20% & 43%
respectively), and work /study (15% & 36%).
What users do when they visit libraries
Browse the books
Borrow books
Read books
Find out about local news and whats going on
Read newspapers or magazines
Somewhere to go and relax
Take the children to read/borrow books
Borrow a DVD
Use the library computers
Print
Study
Use the free library Wi-Fi
Do some work
Childrens storytime or activity
Other
Borrow a CD
Meet friends
Buy refreshments
Attend a local group (eg book or history club)
Job search on the internet
Borrow a computer game
Meet business colleagues
90%
84%
63%
51%
48%
47%
44%
40%
39%
37%
37%
34%
32%
28%
28%
26%
24%
22%
15%
11%
5%
Every visit
Some visits
5%
Question: Thinking about your visits to Bristol libraries in 2014, how often have you done the following?
Base: all who answered (909, Citizens' Panel)
10
Many Bristol residents see an opportunity for libraries to do more. In particular, they could be
combining with, or taking ideas, from other services and organisations.
Differences between groups
•
BME users, teenagers, parents, those from
lower-income households and social users of
libraries use more services overall
•
Parents, older people, women and frequent
users are the most likely to use book-related
services
•
BME, LGB and people from lower income
households are most likely to make use of ICT
services
Example comments & suggestions
“[Libraries need to offer] space
that can be used flexibly by a
range of people. For example:
yoga, book club”
“I personally use the library
after hours to rehearse with my
band (although not within
Bristol Council)”
“Lend the place to third
parties to organise cultural
events/exhibitions/lectures
about local history etc. Make
the place [a] cultural centre”
“Have more ideas meetings in
the Library… They sometimes
happen at St George's or
University buildings, why not
the library?”
Comments & suggestions
Suggestions for change around library usage
focus on several themes: enhanced book
services, increased promotion of the services
already on offer, and new directions based new
kinds of lending, ICT services or events.
11
How important are individual services?
Apart from book-related services, there is a consensus that libraries have an important role to
play within communities and as an ICT resource. Other services are more niche.
Commentary
Only a small proportion (5%) of respondents
regarded all of the services mentioned as
important; in contrast, 16% regarded none of
them as important. The average number of
services rated as important was 12, of which 3
were book-related services and 9 non bookrelated.
People who are active in their neighbourhoods
(e.g. attending classes or community events)
place particular emphasis on the importance of
news and notices. Even those who are less
engaged feel that this is important - however it
raises the question of why they are not used
more often. Young people, while positive about
the importance of book-related services, also
want more ICT facilities.
There is, unsurprisingly, less importance placed
on services which individuals don’t themselves
use. However, each service has its advocates
with, for example, English courses being
relatively popular among BME people and those
on low incomes. This suggests that the services
lower down the list are more niche, but still
appreciated by a smaller constituency of users.
Importance of services to me
Lending specialist & hard-to-find books
Community news & notice boards
Learning about neighbourhood & community
Learning about local history
Info about evening classes / courses
Lending books about interests
Access to printers
Lending the latest bestsellers
Today's newpapers
Access to computers
Help to set up a local interest group
Place to access health information
Lending ebooks
Personal book recommendations
Latest magazines
Advice for starting a business
Computer training courses
Lending DVDs
Offering tools like 3D printers
Study or homework clubs
Lending music on CDs
Lending books in other languages
Delivering books to your home
English courses and help
Lending computer games
49%
36%
47%
38%
41%
42%
40%
42%
39%
41%
34%
47%
32%
35%
28%
38%
27%
38%
30%
30%
23%
36%
22%
36%
21%
36%
18%
42%
19%
36%
21%
32%
22%
26%
17%
33%
17%
30%
16%
27%
13%
33%
15%
28%
Very important
13%
28%
Somewhat important
15%
21%
6%
21%
Question: How important are each of the following library services, to you?
12
Accessing books
Most Bristol citizens buy books more frequently than borrowing them from libraries.
Commentary
Buying & borrowing books
Perhaps surprisingly, there is no difference
between frequent library users, occasional
users and non-users in terms of book buying
(either in terms of frequency or money spent).
This suggests that book buying does not take
place at the expense of book borrowing, but
rather that the two are complementary for
some people.
Comments from respondents suggest that book
buying is driven by a greater range,
convenience / the ability to impulse buy,
availability, and the desire to own a particular
book. Those who buy books are particularly
interested in libraries lending specialist or hard
to find books, suggesting that the range offered
by libraries is a factor for them. However this
also implies that book sellers are
complementary to libraries, rather than in
competition. 63%
40%
19%
17%
13%
6%
8%
10%
9%
7%
6%
3%
At least weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly
Buying
Every few months
Only once
Not at all
Borrowing
Question: In 2014, how often have you bought books (either for yourself or your family)?; In 2014, how often have you borrowed books from the library?
13
Accessing books
While traditional book lending is regarded with fondness even by most non-users, there is a
recognition that library services need to adapt to changing patterns of living and technology use.
•
Women, older people, parents, BME people
borrow books more frequently
•
Women also buy books more frequently, as
do adults and those living in higher-income
households
•
The pattern of book borrowing differs by
library, with users of Central Library being
less regular borrowers of books (27% borrow
at least monthly) compared to other libraries
(36%)
“Automated drop-off and pickup points outside libraries…
either within another shop (e.g.
post office) or as its own little
shop… or Temple Meads
station”
“Have recommended reading
lists along the lines of 'if you
enjoyed reading books by
McCall Smith have you tried M
C Beaton?’"
“[An] electronic storage
system on each bus for a book
/ magazine selection… a mini
mobile library service for
commuters”
“Libraries need to strike a deal
with Amazon to loan ebooks
that can be read on Kindles
but meanwhile they should
loan ereaders"
A number of consultees want access to niche
collections (e.g. specialist art books), or Bristol’s
university libraries. For others, improved book
services are about convenience and
accessibility: being able to borrow ebooks
remotely, or being able to receive and drop off
books in non-library locations. Finally, some
would like a richer service around books (e.g.
recommendations, book-related events, or
online book clubs).
14
Work & study
The library as place to work (or find work) is of importance to a small number of citizens.
Commentary
There is a high correlation between working
and studying in libraries, suggesting that
citizens regard them as similar activities. The
proportion of respondents working in paid
employment in libraries seems to be small;
rather libraries serve as a ‘working space’ for a
much larger group who make use of the
atmosphere, ICT facilities and training for a
range of non-leisure activities.
There is also a good deal of latent interest in
working and using facilities, suggesting that
access or awareness is currently limited for
some. Unemployed citizens are particularly
reliant on library services. Not only do they rate
ICT services as important to a much greater
extent than non-unemployed respondents, they
also report using the library for ‘work’ or ‘study’
at a higher rate (59% and 61% respectively) vs
non-unemployed people (39% and 40%). Those
who work in libraries are also more likely to
make suggestions or comments for
improvements to ICT than are other visitors.
Activities undertaken in libraries
Work
Study
Meet colleagues
6%
26%
7%
3%
Use Wi-Fi
Use computers
Print
30%
11%
30%
9%
30%
Every visit
Could work there
6%
Could study there
7%
26%
30%
If they had Wi-Fi
23%
7%
Would use libraries more if…
Some visits
If they had computers
I could use printers
Every visit
16%
22%
7%
30%
9%
30%
Some visits
Range of library services used
Services rated as important
Frequent users
Computer training
Mean number of services used, from list on page 10
Occasional users
Unemployed users
6.8
4.3
Access to a computer
68%
64%
92%
5.4
People who work in
libraries
People who study in libraries
45%
9.1
7.1
Access to a printer
Unemployed
67%
87%
Other
Question: Thinking about your visits to Bristol libraries in 2014, how often have you done the following?; How important are each of the following library services, to you?
15
Work & study
Those citizens who use libraries to work or study are most interested in reliable basic facilities,
however there are opportunities for libraries to offer more.
•
BME regard libraries as more of a place to
work, as do those who regard libraries as more
social spaces, and use more services in general
•
Younger people and those on low incomes are
more likely to use libraries to work or study
“I need a library to be a place to
work in when I'm 'working from
home’ ”
“More computers with
programs and resources such a
photoshop or logic"
“At least one very late opening
or 24 hour library would be
really useful for me”
“Lending and borrowing skills…
someone who could build me a
wall, for example”
“Education hubs for green best
practice at home and in
business”
“[More] Plug sockets so you can
work on a laptop”
Whether libraries were the primary work/study
space, or an occasional backup, the core needs are
the same: power, seating, Wi-Fi, quiet and (for
some) access to a PC. Comments therefore centred
on these facilities, which are not consistently
available. Beyond the basics, citizens suggest that
libraries could be offering more to workers:
different kinds of lending (e.g. journals, tools,
software), courses (notably in skills which go
beyond the needs of novices, e.g. Photoshop rather
than beginners’ ICT training), and extended hours
of access.
16
What could increase use of libraries?
Citizens want libraries to play host to cultural activities and events.
Commentary
There is a contrast between the level of interest
in some of these activities, and current uptake
(which is very low). This suggests that either
awareness is low, the services are unsuitable or
hard to access, or that respondents are overrating their own willingness to make use of
them.
Altogether, 76% of respondents are interested
in one or more types of event, groups or
cultural activities - this group are also much
more likely to be willing to volunteer (36% vs
15%). Those who are interested in events or
classes, but not currently participating in them,
are more likely to see libraries as quiet and
educational, but less likely to see them as
welcoming or social, reinforcing the sense that
these citizens do not feel comfortable visiting
libraries for activities that they might otherwise
be interested in.
Would use libraries more / less if they offered…
Would use more
62%
59%
58%
46%
41%
39%
33%
33%
32%
31%
29%
29%
28%
26%
25%
25%
25%
22%
21%
19%
15%
9%
7%
Exhibitions/cultural events
Book clubs/meet authors
Interest groups/courses
Open at time that suited me
More books
Wifi connection
Could go there and relax
Closer to my house
Quiet environment
Could meet people there
Could set up interest group
Was more modern
Could meet people like me
Computers I could use
More for children
More DVDs
Could work there
Could get info on health
Closer to school/workplace
Could study there
Located with school
Located with council services
If it wasn't a quiet place
5%
4%
4%
1%
1%
4%
5%
1%
3%
8%
7%
5%
7%
4%
14%
6%
5%
11%
4%
5%
31%
40%
43%
Would use less
Question: Which of the following changes would encourage you to use a library more often?
17
Suggested improvements touch on a wide range of areas
•
Older people, and those who are already
active in the community are most interested
in further cultural events
•
Frequent library users are particularly
motivated by the suggestion of more books
•
Non-users are engaged by the idea of Wi-Fi,
computers and more sociable libraries
•
Young people are less keen on events, and
more motivated by convenience of access
and ICT facilities
Respondents’ comments touch on a wide range
of areas. Overall, there is a contrast between
those who want to defend libraries essentially
as they are, and those who want them to evolve
into a new kind of service, reflecting changes in
wider society (e.g. increased internet access
and availability of e-readers).
(continued on next page)
“Volunteers to work with the
library staff… There are a lot of
people who have time and
would enjoy helping others use
libraries”
“28 different exhibitions on
annual rotation around the city
each year… injecting a fresh
new idea or focus into the
library for a few weeks”
“Open-mics… a wide variety of
fun and inclusive
performances from singers,
poets, comedians, musicians,
songwriters, storytellers, etc.”
“Host hack events to work on
library data such as the library
catalogue”
18
(continued from previous page)
“Make sure all libraries have at least
one toilet that can be used by the
public. At the moment a few do have
them, but most don’t"
“The combination of being very
sensitive to localised needs for branch
libraries and the support of bigger
central library is the best way ahead"
“Some of the smaller Bristol libraries
could be reconverted into specialised
branches. I would love to see a Bristol
library only devoted to film studies and
music”
“You could scrap needing to be a
'member' as long as people give an
address that could be checked”
“One library in Bristol could be
dedicated to children, in particular age
0-5 and 6-11, with the whole space and
design tailored to children low level
displays, visual signage, accessible
toilet and baby changing, cosy reading
corners, space for nursing mothers, and
interesting theatre, play and music
groups. Could offer a specialist area for
books on parenting too”
“Incorporating
a post office”
“A section of the library (either on a
specific day or permanently) set up for
people with dementia and their carers”
“Stamps. Binder.
Laminator.”
“React to what's current and grabbing
people's attention e.g promote the
genre of books that are popular in any
given moment e.g. Scandinavian
literature or book/film combos”
19
Perceptions of libraries
How citizens perceive libraries
Libraries as social spaces
Libraries as quiet spaces
Modernity of libraries
How citizens want libraries to change
How young people perceive libraries
How do citizens perceive libraries?
There is a good deal of agreement about most of the words used to describe libraries: almost
everyone regards them as essential for society, helpful and educational
Commentary
This list highlights the difference between
libraries’ perceived benefits for society and the
wider community - about which there is broad
consensus - and personal usage. While even
non-users of libraries agree that they are
essential for society, they are less certain about
libraries themselves.
In some cases, respondents’ opinions are more
ambiguous: these are explored on the following
pages.
•
•
% agreeing
% disagreeing
95% Essential for society
1%
92%
Helpful
1%
89%
Educational
1%
88%
Safe places to be
1%
87%
Welcoming
2%
87%
Friendly
2%
86%
Open
2%
84% Community focused
2%
72%
Relaxing
3%
71%
Light and airy
6%
69%
Happy
3%
68%
Quiet
8%
BME groups are more likely to regard libraries
as welcoming, open and friendly, inspiring
and safe places to be
64%
Inspiring
6%
56%
Modern
10%
56%
Social
5%
Young people are less likely to see libraries as
community focused or essential for society
4%
Boring
84%
•
Words which describe Bristol’s libraries
Library users (especially frequent users) are
more positive about libraries in every case
Question: How well do each of the following words describe Bristol libraries, in your opinion?
21
How do young people perceive libraries?
Young people were asked to suggest words to describe libraries, as shown below.
The relative size of the words
indicates the frequency with which
they were used (i.e. larger print
means more commonly-mentioned
words).
As can be seen, the nature and
relative frequency of the words is
similar to those used by adults; the
difference being that adults were
not prompted for their own
choices, but were presented with a
predetermined list (see page 21). In
line with the responses from
adults, the words used to describe
libraries are almost universally
positive.
Question: Can you give up to five key words to describe Bristol libraries? (e.g. helpful)’
Base: all who answered (90, young people’s survey)
22
Are libraries perceived as social spaces?
A large minority see libraries as a social space. Those who see it as social also tend to
regard it as somewhere to meet friends, and to go and relax.
Commentary
Libraries are a point of focus within
communities, meaning that those who are
taking part in other activities such as yoga
classes or events at community centres are
more likely to see libraries as social - perhaps
reflecting a greater awareness of events taking
place at libraries. These ‘community active’
people are also much more likely to attend
libraries and to borrow books, and also to be
older and members of BME groups.
For some, this represents a way to tackle
feelings of isolation or loneliness: libraries can
be an important ‘safe space’ for people who feel
unwelcome elsewhere.
“Going to the library gets you out of
the house and stops you feeling
isolated. Although you can’t really talk
in libraries you do see people.”
Redcliffe Somali Women’s Group
Perceptions of libraries as ‘social’
% agreeing
% disagreeing
43%
Overall
59%
Frequent user
44%
Occasional user
27%
Non-user
45%
Female
53%
BME
4%
48%
Disabled
6%
50%
Parent
46%
Religious
6%
33%
LGB
3%
29%
Young adult
42%
Adult
44%
Older people
45%
Low income
9%
3%
9%
13%
10%
10%
7%
10%
6%
8%
Question: How well do each of the following words describe Bristol libraries, in your opinion?… ‘Social’
23
Are libraries perceived as social spaces?
A large minority see libraries as a social space. Those who see it as social also tend to
regard it as somewhere to meet friends, and to go and relax.
•
There is a striking difference between
frequent users and non-users, with the
latter far less likely to perceive
libraries as ‘social’
•
Young adults are notably less likely to
regard libraries as ‘social’, compared to
older people
“[Libraries should provide a]
Café in a library, but not a
library in a café”
“Have art exhibitions or hire
out space in the evening for
'gallery openings' with cheese
and wine”
“We could open a little space
inside for a private franchise
to run a coffee machine or
even a cafe”
“I think the Junction 3 library
is a great model which
recognises the needs of its
local community”
Making libraries work better as social spaces
may help to increase usage. Those who regard
libraries as social do not necessarily want to use
them as a place to arrange to meet friends or
colleagues, suggesting that their ‘social’ nature
may be about engaging in the community more
generally. While there is interest in
refreshments being more widely available,
there is also concern about enhancements in
the social facilities in libraries drowning out
quiet areas.
24
Are libraries perceived as quiet spaces?
While most people agree that libraries are quiet, they have differing views on whether this is
a good thing or not.
Commentary
Many citizens say they would use libraries less
if they were not quiet. On the other hand,
parents can feel awkward about needing to
keep their children quiet in libraries, and would
welcome an environment which was more
accepting of noise. The same is also true of BME
and younger respondents.
Noise, and the absence of noise, both seem to
play a part in making libraries a place to relax
for different groups of people - the difference is
in whether library time is seen as essentially
social or solitary. The time of day at which
participants had last visited appears to make no
difference to their perceptions of libraries as
quiet, suggesting that this is an enduring
impression based on past experience rather
than their most recent visit. Zoning within
buildings may also be a factor, with some
comments expressing concern about different
areas bleeding into each other
Perceptions of libraries as ‘quiet’
% agreeing
% disagreeing
76%
Overall
4%
77%
Frequent user
9%
82%
Occasional user
4%
68%
Non-user
1%
78%
Female
5%
79%
BME
2%
78%
Disabled
4%
83%
Parent
4%
77%
Religious
7%
72%
LGB
7%
76%
Adult
4%
76%
Older people
6%
74%
Low income
6%
Question: How well do each of the following words describe Bristol libraries, in your opinion?… ‘Quiet’
25
Are libraries perceived as quiet spaces?
Most people regard libraries as quiet places.
•
Parents and occasional users are most likely
regard libraries as quiet
•
In contrast, non-users of libraries are the
least likely to regard them as quiet
•
‘Quiet’ is also the word most commonly used
to describe libraries among the under 16s (see
page 22)
“ There could be a kind of dropin area for a chat. Something
like the almost completely
separate children's area”
“[I] use my library less because
it also has the housing office… I
don't particularly want to hear
the conversations when I am
trying to browse books”
“I wouldn't like the library to
be 'noisy' with people all the
time, but for an hour or two at
different times of the day
would be OK”
“Please don't throw out the
baby with the bathwater.
Libraries still need to offer
quiet space”
While many citizens would like libraries to be
more social, to host more events and to be
more lively, there is also concern that such
changes would make libraries less quiet. Careful
zoning is the most commonly-suggested
remedy to this potential problem.
26
Are libraries perceived as modern?
Only a minority regard libraries as modern.
Commentary
Modernity is the single biggest predictor of
the statement ‘libraries have to change to be
of use to me’. It is also a motivating factor in
using libraries more often, for some
respondents.
What do respondents mean by modern?
Those who described libraries as modern also
described them as friendly, light & airy,
welcoming and inspiring. They expected ICT
facilities and classes. Library users who visited
Central Library most often were less likely to
agree that libraries were ‘modern’ than those
who frequented other libraries. In particular,
visitors to Junction 3 were more likely to
describe libraries as modern. Perceptions of
modernity do not necessarily relate to
services offered so much as the building itself;
for example, the absence of Wi-Fi is not
reflected in a lower rating of modernity where
it is not offered. However perceptions around
libraries being ‘light and airy’ do make a
difference to ratings of modernity.
Perceptions of libraries as ‘modern’
% agreeing
% disagreeing
39%
Overall
17%
57%
Frequent user
10%
43%
Occasional user
17%
19%
Non-user
23%
39%
Female
18%
45%
BME
15%
46%
Disabled
12%
43%
Parent
21%
43%
Religious
11%
43%
LGB
7%
37%
Adult
19%
43%
Older people
10%
45%
Low income
12%
Question: How well do each of the following words describe Bristol libraries, in your opinion?… ‘Modern’
27
Are libraries perceived as modern?
Across the board, respondents can cite aspects of the library service that they would like to
see modernised.
•
Non-users are particularly unlikely to say that
libraries are ‘modern’. Again, this is at odds
with the view among frequent users
•
None of the under 16s used the word
‘modern’ (or a synonym), suggesting that this
group, while generally positive about
libraries, do not regard them in this way
“I would like to there to be a
virtual library"
There is broad consensus that many of
Bristol’s libraries need to be modernised, with
three themes emerging:
•
Improved/renovated buildings
•
Modernised, or indeed cutting-edge, ICT
services and connections to creative
industries
•
A recognition of changing trends in access
to information, e.g. lending of documents
in electronic formats
“Spend money on the outside
of the library buildings please some are dreadful - it means
that they are not inviting for
people to come inside. If this is
not feasible then start again Junction 3 is marvellous!”
“What we need is a strong
infrastructure, a community
hub and somewhere for people
of all ages to meet each other
and to access services that
inspire and enrich our lives.
The 21st century library could
be this place if they are more
welcoming, more modern,
used in a more imaginative
way to be more useful to a
wider section of people.”
28
Accessing libraries
Usage of different libraries
Travelling to libraries
Which libraries are users visiting?
Central Library is the most frequentlyvisited in Bristol by a large margin
Commentary
Those who visit Central Library most often differ from
visitors to local libraries in a number of respects: they are
more likely to be young, to have travelled by public
transport, and to use a wider range of non-book services.
The types of services used also differ by library: Central
receives fewer visits from children (38% ever bring children,
vs 45% for other libraries), while Central and Junction 3
serve more citizens who are working or studying, compared
to other libraries. 59% of visitors to Central have bought
refreshments in the last year, compared to 18% elsewhere,
suggesting that there may be untapped potential for similar
facilities in other libraries. The services required of libraries
differ too: for example, visitors to Junction 3 feel it more
important that libraries should lend books in languages
other than English. This seems likely to reflect the
demographic differences in library catchments, and
suggestions that needs differ across the city.
•
Users of Central Library are more likely to be either
young adults or older people. They are also more likely to
see libraries as a place to relax
Library visited most frequently
Central Library
Henleaze
Bedminster
Fishponds
St George
Redland
Westbury
Knowle
Cheltenham Road
Wick Road
Clifton
Junction 3
Stockwood
Eastville
Whitchurch
Horfield
Southmead
Bishopsworth
Hartcliffe
Filwood
Henbury
Sea Mills
Shirehampton
Hillfields
Avonmouth
Marksbury Road
Lawrence Weston
St Pauls
27%
9%
8%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
Question: Which Bristol library do you visit most often?
30
How do library users get to the library?
Most library visits are local. The typical journey is a walk from home, taking less than 20 minutes.
Commentary
Modes of transport are strongly related to journey
time and starting point. Those coming by train are
much more likely to have travelled for a relatively
long time, and to have come from work, while
journeys by car are relatively short in duration. As
implied by the duration of journeys and mode of
travel, most citizens are travelling to either their
local library, or a specialist location such as Central
Library. Those who are travelling from home are
more likely to be visiting a library in their area; the
pattern of travel to Central Library is an exception
to the rule, with longer journey times, more travel
from non-home origins, and more use of public
transport.
•
•
Disabled people and those on low incomes are
disproportionately likely to have longer journeys.
Disabled people are also relatively dependent on
buses or cars
Young adults are particularly likely to take less
than 10 minutes to get to the library, to arrive
from school, college or university. They are more
likely to walk or take the bus, less likely to arrive
by car, and much more likely to have come from
school (25% vs 1% for the sample as a whole)
Journey time to the library
Under 10 mins
48%
11-20 mins
13%
31-40 mins
3%
Over 40 mins
2%
Journey starting point
Home
89%
Work
8%
School / university
/ college
1%
Other
1%
Walking
59%
Car
33%
21-30 mins
Modes of transport to the library
26%
Bus
8%
Bicycle
6%
Train
1%
Motorbike / scooter
<1%
Libraries with shortest journey times
Lawrence Weston
Sea Mills
Shirehampton
Libraries with longest journey times
Hillfields
Bedminster
Central Library
Questions: How did you travel to the library?; For how long did you have to travel?; When you last visited the library…, where did you travel from?
31
Ideas for libraries
Most popular themes
Popular themes for different groups
Examples of ideas
How do citizens want libraries to change?
Book sellers and the internet offer alternatives to libraries for many people, but libraries still
have a role to play.
Commentary
Those who want change are most interested in more
modern libraries and access to Wi-Fi. The idea of
closing some libraries to modernise others polarises
parents: some would like a more specialised, childfocused service, while others value the proximity of
their existing library. However, there is a sense across
the research that libraries should be careful to retain
their identity, especially if co-locating with other
services.
There is a marked difference between low and high
income households in terms of willingness to buy
books, and to find information on the internet. This
may account for the higher proportion agreeing with
the statement ‘libraries have to change, to be of use to
me’. However there is no difference in the kinds of
change suggestions made by those who agree,
compared to those who disagree, suggesting that their
needs are broadly the same.
Opinions about the role of libraries
% agreeing
% disagreeing
64%
If I need a book, I buy it
12%
83%
I have no problem finding
the information I need on
the internet
8%
31%
Libraries have to change, to be of use to me
29%
25%
Its OK for some libraries to
close if the ones that are
kept open are modernised
53%
•
Frequent library users are less likely to agree with
the statement ‘if I need a book, I buy it’, however this
is not reflected in their actual book-buying activity,
which is indistinguishable from that of non-users
Question: Here’s a list of statements – for each one, please say whether you agree or disagree
33
Most popular suggestions for change
Across the Citizens' Panel survey, open consultation survey, Ideas Bank and postcards,
over 5,000 comments, suggestions and ideas were made
Commentary
While there is little interest in co-locating with schools
within the survey, many comments point to closer cooperation with schools. As elsewhere, there appears to
be a distinction in citizens’ minds between libraries as
they themselves experience them, and libraries as a
service to wider society. Comments encouraging young
people’s use of libraries seem to arise from the latter.
There is also a difference the prevalence of comments
about different aspects of libraries’ services: of those
which could be associated with one of the categories
from Carnegie UK’s work, social / community comments
accounted for 50% of comments, culture-related
comments 21%, learning-related comments 19% and
work-related comments 11%.
BME people, parents and non-users are more likely to
favour the integration of libraries with other services
such as schools, and livelier, more social atmosphere
• More frequent users want an enhancement of the
current library service
• Improved transport links are more important to women,
BME groups and those who arrive on buses
•
Suggestions, comments and ideas made by respondents
% of all comments
Keep all libraries open
Closer co-operation with schools
Encourage use by children & young people
Introduce charges for borrowing specialist titles
Modernise ICT facilities
Enhance specialist services (e.g. local history, art)
Change atmosphere: make libraries livelier
Increase community space / activity
Increase social space / café
Use volunteers to keep services open
Concentrate resources in fewer, better libraries
More advertising for library services
Digitise catalogue / more ebooks
Keep atmosphere quiet
More convenient opening hours
Community hub / colocate w other services
Provide training for working-age people
Recommendations for further reading
Better public transport links
Increase children's activities
19%
13%
10%
7%
7%
7%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Base: all who made a comment, suggestion or idea (Citizens' Panel, Open consultation survey, Ideas Bank, postcards)
34
Most popular themes, by group
Some themes were more common among particular groups, as shown in the differing sets of top three
themes, below:
Frequent library users
Occasional library users
Non-users of libraries
1. Keep them all open
2. Closer integration with schools
3. More prominence for niche / specialist
services (e.g. local history, art)
2. Encourage use by children & young
people
3. Introduce charges for borrowing
specialist titles
Young people
Adults
Older people
3. Modernise ICT facilities
people
3. More prominence for niche / specialist
services (e.g. local history, art)
Women
Men
BME
people
3. Change atmosphere: make libraries
livelier
3. Introduce charges for borrowing
specialist titles
Disabled
Parents
Low income
people
35
Conclusions
Themes
This report gives a sense of the rich and varied use of libraries, but also a sense of their future
potential. Through the research, several recurring themes have emerged:
The role of libraries within communities
The divergent needs of library users
Repeatedly, the responses in this research highlight a desire for
libraries to be venues for events, and the focus of activity within
a community. However, current uptake of activities within
libraries is very low. The implication is that libraries must do
more to host events that will appeal to people in their area, and
to make them aware of it. There is also a untapped willingness
to volunteer or engage with events at libraries among a smaller
group of citizens, which libraries should try to enlist.
Two competing views of libraries emerged from the research
The conflict between local and specialist
Ease of access is a repeated theme. For those who are better
able to visit libraries in the daytime, location is key. Indeed, for
some people a visit to the library is an important way to combat
isolation. However others are put off using libraries by
inconvenient hours, lack of available stock or the perceived
limitations of services. One way to approach this conundrum is
an enhanced online presence for libraries. However it is clear
that citizens need a new vision of libraries to be strongly and
repeatedly articulated to change their long-ingrained
perceptions of the service and what it can offer them. Ideas
such as home delivery for book loans, for example, may simply
be too novel for citizens to grasp without a clearer explanation.
•
‘The same, but better’: libraries with enhanced collections and
opening hours, but no change to the quiet atmosphere or colocation with other services. This direction appeals to current
users and older people in particular
•
‘Libraries as social spaces’: libraries for which book lending is
part of a portfolio of community services, including enhanced
ICT, events, support for working, and crucially the ability to
socialise. This direction holds more appeal to BME groups,
women, young people and non-users of libraries
The disconnect between ideal and reality
For many respondents, there appears to be a disconnect
between their idealised view of libraries, and the reality of their
own library usage. Thus, while all can agree that libraries are
important to society, for many this does not translate into visits.
Online booksellers and the internet are part of the reason, but
there is also a lack of awareness of services that libraries offer:
many of the proposed suggestions were for services that
already exist in libraries.
37
Themes
In many respects, the themes in this research echo those in Carnegie UK’s Speaking Volumes report:
Libraries as social and community hubs
Libraries as cultural centres
Libraries hold a central place in communities; indeed, many
respondents would like them to have an even more prominent
role. They act as a point of access for citizens who might
otherwise find it difficult to engage, such as older people or non
English-speaking parents. For some citizens, libraries could do
more to facilitate community engagement (for example,
through making it easier to set up and take part in groups), or to
host events (such as book clubs). At present, libraries ability to
act as social spaces can feel compromised by their perception as
‘quiet’ spaces and lack of catering, toilets and designated areas
for interaction.
Libraries’ status as cultural resources feels self-evident in the
great majority of responses, particularly among more regular
visitors. For this core of users, library services centre on lending
books. For others, particularly younger people, non-users, and
those in higher income households, libraries importance is less
well-established: these citizens have other ways of supporting
their cultural needs. However there remains a wider untapped
interest in cultural events such as festivals or meeting authors,
and which ties into interest in libraries as social hubs.
Libraries for learning
Bristol’s libraries act as a conduit to learning across different
age groups and needs. For young people, libraries can provide a
quiet ‘third space’ away from school and home. For adults,
libraries offer a route to explore topics of interest, especially
where the internet is unavailable or inadequate. A small
minority use libraries as a venue for classes or interest groups.
Taken together, these different strands of learning show the
breadth of need; similarly, this varied set of learners make use
of different channels (e.g. face-to-face in groups, internet / PCs
and books).
Libraries as economic enablers
While Bristol’s libraries are not regarded as workplaces by the
great majority of respondents, they have an important role to
play in helping citizens who want to develop their skills or find
work. Libraries provide a valuable basic infrastructure for those
who lack ICT access elsewhere. In many cases, citizens conflate
study and work; in either case, libraries offer a space for quiet
productivity as well as tools such as PCs, Wi-Fi, printing.
38
The needs of different groups
Finally, the differences and points of agreement between the needs of some groups came through strongly, while others
(such as LGBT people and those with religious beliefs) were less distinct from users and non-users as a whole. Drawing on
the full range of methodologies employed in the research, the dominant themes for individual groups were:
Older people
•
•
•
•
Continued access to book lending
A physical space to spend time around
other people and engage in the
community, which is nonetheless not
overly noisy
Access to information about events and
neighbourhood news
Easy access and proximity to the home
BME people
•
•
•
•
Libraries that function as spaces to
socialise with friends and colleagues
Connections between libraries and other
organisations / services within the
community
Modern, welcoming buildings
Books and courses for people with English
as a second language
Younger people
•
•
•
•
Study / work space
Modern, welcoming venues for meeting
other people
Access to ICT facilities, particularly Wi-Fi
Easy access via public transport or walking,
including from universities, schools and
colleges
Parents
•
•
•
•
Relatively noisy, lively libraries
Children’s events and play areas
Closer integration with other services,
such as schools or health centres
Continued access to book borrowing for
children
Disabled people
•
•
•
•
•
Accessible buildings and facilities (e.g.
signage, toilets)
Accessible stock and ICT services
Easy parking
A safe space to visit, to reduce social
isolation and increase access to events
Co-location with other services
People on low incomes
•
•
•
•
Continued access to book lending
Easy access via walking
Free ICT facilities
For those who are unemployed, a space to
search for work and access training
39
Appendix 1
Differences between groups:
What users do in libraries
The importance of individual services
Increasing use of libraries
How citizens want libraries to change
Travelling to the library
Browse the books
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Borrow the books
51%
40%
57%
38%
45%
41%
52%
39%
39%
42%
48%
46%
50%
39%
49%
45%
42%
47%
51%
38%
48%
47%
50%
44%
Find out about local news & events
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
15%
36%
18%
12%
43%
29%
14%
37%
22%
28%
21%
8%
38%
35%
20%
6%
41%
44%
13%
35%
23%
17%
45%
44%
Read books
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
46%
39%
60%
32%
36%
42%
51%
35%
40%
46%
44%
40%
50%
38%
50%
39%
35%
20%
42%
40%
57%
46%
34%
40%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
18%
45%
22%
14%
49%
40%
20%
45%
30%
42%
18%
51%
20%
47%
21%
24%
19%
16%
19%
44%
29%
46%
45%
45%
Read newspapers/magazines
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
14%
35%
17%
10%
44%
27%
11%
32%
20%
23%
7%
31%
Every visit
23%
Some visits
33%
16%
6%
35%
44%
12%
20%
18%
34%
42%
39%
41
Go and relax
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Take children to read / borrow books
12%
35%
14%
43%
10%
28%
14%
35%
23%
36%
17%
42%
12%
37%
16%
36%
6%
38%
13%
36%
10%
42%
14%
38%
Use library computers
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
9%
34%
9%
27%
8%
28%
8%
38%
13%
5%
41%
28%
8%
30%
19%
7%
11%
11%
20%
24%
22%
29%
18%
20%
23%
25%
22%
30%
8%
33%
45%
20%
36%
27%
7% 13%
23%
3%
25%
23%
13%
23%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
5%
35%
6%
45%
4%
25%
7%
35%
8%
42%
4%
26%
4%
42%
5%
34%
44%
5%
5%
38%
21%
6%
34%
Print
30%
8%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Borrow a DVD
38%
31%
27%
37%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
7%
30%
6%
37%
8%
23%
8%
32%
6%
39%
16%
3%
Some visits
25%
7%
35%
20%
7%
8%
8%
Every visit
25%
40%
28%
38%
42%
42
Study
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Use free Wi-Fi
7%
30%
8%
32%
6%
28%
5%
32%
13%
21%
16%
36%
6%
25%
5%
32%
31%
7%
32%
8%
25%
10%
36%
Children’s storytime or activity
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
5%
24%
6%
4%
5%
26%
22%
24%
7%
35%
2%
13%
11%
47%
4%
27%
25%
5%
2%
12%
2% 20%
26%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Do some work
11%
23%
13%
23%
9%
23%
10%
19%
17%
19%
23%
7%
28%
25%
12%
18%
33%
12%
8%
26%
15%
8%
27%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
6%
26%
7%
4%
30%
22%
5%
28%
14%
25%
9%
5%
28%
23%
7%
26%
35%
7%
28%
2% 19%
6%
31%
Borrow CDs
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
3%
23%
2%
30%
4% 17%
3% 17%
33%
4%
22%
Some visits
22%
5%
21%
6%
3%
2%
3%
Every visit
29%
25%
22%
26%
43
Meet friends
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
4%
Buy refreshments
20%
3%
29%
4%12%
5%
23%
6%
19%
6%
20%
3%
27%
4%
20%
6%
19%
3%
21%
5%
18%
5% 16%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
2%
9%
3%
8%
1%
10%
2%
8%
4% 18%
4%
4%
2%
9%
1%
11%
13%
3%
11%
5% 13%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Attend a local group (e.g. book club)
3% 19%
4%
24%
3% 15%
3%
21%
6%
27%
6%
28%
2%
22%
4%
19%
2% 20%
6%
22%
3% 18%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
1%14%
2%
21%
1%
8%
1%
13%
21%
4%
10%
10%
2%16%
13%
12%
5%
26%
2%16%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
5%
6%
4%
4%
8%
2%
4%
Every visit
Some visits
2%
7%
6%
2%
7%
44
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
5%
7%
1%
3%
6%
8%
2%
7%
5%
1%
7%
7%
4%
2%
9%
1%
7%
Other
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
8%
20%
8%
7%
27%
16%
9%
20%
11%
22%
10%
4%
Some visits
22%
7%
8%
Every visit
17%
24%
15%
8%
7%
16%
19%
37%
22%
45
Lending specialist & hard-to-find books
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
49%
36%
54%
34%
51%
36%
41%
37%
49%
36%
62%
50%
47%
28%
33%
38%
49%
33%
58%
51%
42%
35%
34%
36%
54%
33%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
40%
41%
42%
42%
35%
42%
37%
44%
55%
43%
35%
27%
36%
47%
47%
31%
39%
54%
41%
42%
49%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
47%
38%
54%
36%
50%
36%
38%
40%
50%
36%
53%
33%
43%
44%
46%
40%
52%
34%
54%
35%
48%
37%
44%
44%
55%
32%
Learning about neighbourhood & community
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
41%
42%
45%
42%
40%
44%
35%
42%
42%
42%
51%
45%
37%
30%
37%
47%
47%
38%
41%
48%
42%
42%
41%
41%
49%
37%
Evening class / courses information
42%
44%
Community news & notice boards
41%
43%
38%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
39%
41%
38%
45%
46%
35%
40%
38%
45%
42%
51%
41%
38%
Somewhat important
39%
29%
Very important
51%
41%
41%
50%
42%
42%
32%
41%
42%
44%
40%
46
Lending books about interests
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
34%
Access to printers
47%
39%
45%
32%
54%
31%
43%
37%
48%
43%
37%
34%
50%
32%
47%
37%
43%
31%
62%
36%
46%
29%
50%
40%
44%
Today’s newspapers
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
27%
25%
38%
38%
40%
35%
29%
31%
28%
21%
37%
37%
40%
40%
30%
38%
27%
28%
27%
34%
32%
35%
34%
37%
31%
37%
30%
32%
33%
38%
44%
30%
34%
36%
27%
40%
36%
34%
37%
37%
34%
35%
23%
38%
43%
31%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
28%
38%
33%
23%
42%
40%
27%
33%
32%
41%
30%
24%
39%
37%
31%
38%
34%
15%
37%
42%
28%
25%
38%
39%
29%
39%
Access to computers
35%
22%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Lending the latest bestsellers
46%
36%
41%
39%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
30%
30%
29%
33%
31%
28%
31%
30%
32%
30%
43%
37%
28%
29%
Very important
Somewhat important
30%
33%
28%
42%
33%
22%
26%
27%
32%
25%
39%
29%
47
Help to set up a local interest group
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
23%
36%
23%
36%
28%
37%
19%
34%
22%
36%
37%
31%
33%
18%
31%
40%
25%
36%
30%
33%
26%
15%
36%
36%
30%
40%
Personal book recommendations
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
18%
42%
22%
17%
44%
41%
16%
40%
20%
44%
30%
19%
20%
23%
8%
34%
40%
35%
42%
50%
19%
12%
40%
47%
21%
44%
A place to access health information
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
22%
36%
21%
36%
25%
38%
20%
34%
23%
36%
28%
31%
36%
28%
15%
45%
27%
36%
22%
41%
22%
21%
36%
34%
30%
37%
Lending ebooks
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
21%
36%
23%
37%
16%
39%
24%
33%
22%
35%
19%
43%
21%
37%
20%
37%
21%
35%
15%
38%
23%
14%
21%
37%
30%
35%
Latest magazines
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
19%
36%
28%
16%
35%
39%
15%
32%
20%
25%
19%
16%
36%
33%
Very important
Somewhat important
33%
38%
21%
36%
20%
36%
12%
54%
20%
26%
33%
36%
48
Advice for starting a business
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
21%
32%
18%
28%
24%
31%
19%
35%
21%
33%
30%
29%
23%
29%
17%
37%
23%
32%
35%
27%
24%
32%
10%
28%
24%
34%
Offering tools like 3D printers
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
17%
30%
17%
20%
17%
34%
17%
33%
16%
34%
26%
16%
31%
33%
18%
34%
17%
29%
12%
48%
20%
7%
31%
22%
20%
29%
Computer training courses
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
22%
26%
20%
28%
23%
24%
21%
26%
21%
26%
18%
33%
28%
27%
17%
24%
28%
30%
27%
23%
19%
25%
30%
29%
32%
29%
Lending DVDs
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
17%
33%
19%
19%
14%
34%
31%
33%
20%
18%
16%
20%
18%
34%
33%
35%
27%
32%
15%
19%
10%
19%
46%
32%
34%
36%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
16%
27%
14%
25%
17%
27%
18%
17%
29%
25%
25%
31%
15%
33%
19%
17%
13%
Somewhat important
31%
20%
19%
Very important
29%
15%
28%
24%
21%
31%
49
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
13%
33%
12%
40%
17%
30%
9%
32%
11%
36%
12%
37%
18%
34%
12%
27%
15%
30%
15%
41%
14%
34%
11%
32%
16%
40%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
15%
21%
16%
16%
15%
22%
14%
24%
15%
19%
24%
24%
19%
12%
22%
19%
20%
15%
16%
13%
22%
15%
21%
22%
22%
26%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
15%
28%
15%
27%
17%
31%
12%
26%
16%
30%
32%
13%
32%
29%
18%
25%
15%
29%
23%
31%
17%
28%
8%
26%
18%
31%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
13%
28%
11%
24%
10%
29%
17%
30%
14%
32%
19%
29%
22%
10%
27%
29%
15%
30%
15%
14%
10%
16%
33%
28%
24%
27%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
6%
21%
7%
6%
23%
18%
5%
22%
6%
22%
9%
18%
8%
4%
25%
Very important
Somewhat important
20%
7%
21%
6%
22%
35%
4% 16%
7%
25%
50
Exhibitions/cultural events
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
62%
5%
61%
5%
63%
4%
63%
4%
68%
4%
71%
<1%
57%
7%
59%
5%
59%
5%
75%
<1%
63%
4%
64%
6%
62%
5%
Open at time that suited me
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
46% 1%
43% 1%
47% <1%
46% 2%
48% 1%
51% <1%
42% 3%
48% 1%
43% 1%
50% <1%
49% 1%
35% <1%
44% 1%
Book clubs/meet authors
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
59% 4%
63% 7%
60% 4%
55% 3%
67% 4%
61% 4%
53% 10%
56% 5%
59% 5%
71% <1%
60% 5%
56% 4%
59% 4%
Interest groups/courses
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
58%
4%
51%
6%
60%
1%
61%
4%
61%
3%
63%
3%
56%
6%
45%
5%
57%
4%
68% <1%
59%
4%
61%
4%
62%
2%
More books
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
41% 1%
56% <1%
39% 1%
32% 2%
44% 2%
56% <1%
Would make me use libraries more
41% 4%
Would make me use libraries less
43% 1%
40% 1%
41% <1%
43% 1%
36% <1%
40% <1%
51
Able to use wifi
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Able to go there and relax
39% 4%
24% 5%
38% 1%
51% 5%
38% 3%
45% <1%
36% 8%
36% 2%
33% 4%
38% <1%
44% 2%
18% 10%
36% 6%
Quiet environment
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Closer to my house
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
33% 5%
27% 6%
30% 4%
40% 5%
36% 4%
51% 4%
35% 8%
34% 6%
33% 5%
19% 4%
36% 5%
21% 6%
33% 6%
33% 1%
27% 1%
33% <1%
36% 1%
35% 1%
42% 1%
39% 3%
34% 1%
31% 1%
28% <1%
35% 1%
29% <1%
36% 1%
Could go there to meet people
32% 3%
30% 3%
29% 1%
36% 4%
33% 2%
43% <1%
32% 7%
29% 3%
33% 3%
14% 4%
34% 2%
24% 4%
32% 3%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
31% 8%
23% 10%
31% 5%
37% 11%
36% 6%
46% 3%
33% 9%
31% 8%
32% 8%
19% 8%
34% 8%
24% 10%
34% 8%
52
Could set up an interest group
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
29% 7%
27% 9%
33% 4%
28% 7%
31% 6%
42% 4%
33% 10%
24% 8%
31% 9%
22% 7%
32% 6%
19% 7%
33% 5%
Computers I could use
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
If libraries were more modern
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
29% 5%
25% 5%
28% 5%
33% 5%
29% 6%
40% 3%
29% 6%
34% 5%
29% 5%
19% 7%
30% 5%
21% 3%
26% 5%
Could meet people like me
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
28% 7%
24% 8%
24% 7%
34% 7%
32% 6%
38% 4%
35% 8%
24% 7%
30% 8%
22% 4%
29% 8%
24% 8%
35% 8%
More for children to do
26% 4%
15% 4%
23% 1%
38% 6%
27% 3%
26% 1%
30% 7%
20% 2%
25% 3%
31% <1%
28% 3%
20% 6%
31% 4%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
25% 14%
30% 14%
27% 11%
20%
17%
28% 14%
45% 11%
23% 16%
54% 3%
29% 13%
11% 11%
27% 13%
15%
19%
21% 15%
53
More DVDs
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Could work there
25% 6%
31% 5%
22% 4%
22% 8%
27% 5%
32% 3%
17% 7%
27% 4%
22% 5%
22% 4%
28% 6%
15% 6%
25% 5%
Closer to my school / workplace
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
21% 4%
21% 5%
19% 2%
23% 4%
25% 4%
25% 3%
25% 7%
24% 3%
19% 3%
35% <1%
24% 4%
10% 2%
21% 4%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Could get health information
25% 5%
18% 7%
25% 3%
30% 5%
24% 4%
34% 1%
22% 10%
27% 3%
24% 4%
19% <1%
28% 4%
9% 8%
22% 6%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
22% 11%
19%
17%
25% 7%
20% 10%
26% 10%
26% 8%
29% 13%
21% 10%
25% 11%
26% 4%
21% 11%
24% 11%
27% 9%
Could study there
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
19% 5%
18% 7%
14% 2%
27% 6%
21% 4%
32% <1%
22% 8%
18% 4%
22% 5%
15% <1%
21% 4%
12% 9%
20% 6%
54
Located with school or leisure centre
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
15%
31%
15%
36%
14%
30%
15%
26%
17%
28%
24% 33%
14%
37%
27%
23%
16%
29%
11%
30%
16%
32%
6%
28%
14%
34%
Located with Job Centre / council
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
9%
40%
8%
52%
9%
38%
9%
32%
9%
37%
13%
48%
13%
37%
9%
39%
11%
36%
11%
37%
9%
42%
8%
31%
13%
41%
If they weren’t quiet places
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Non-user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
7%
43%
6%
51%
7%
43%
8%
38%
10%
41%
11%
49%
7%
37%
9%
39%
9%
42%
0%
65%
7%
44%
5%
46%
6%
43%
55
I have no problem finding the information I
need on the internet
If I need a book, I buy it
Overall
64%
12%
Overall
83%
8%
Agree
Heavy user
39%
25%
Heavy user
78%
11%
Disagree
Light user
64%
9%
Light user
81%
8%
Non-user
83%
5%
Non-user
87%
4%
Female
60%
14%
Female
83%
7%
BME
69%
13%
BME
87%
7%
Disabled
59%
12%
Disabled
Parent
66%
12%
Parent
88%
3%
Religious
62%
14%
Religious
78%
11%
LGB
50%
14%
LGB
79%
7%
Adult
66%
12%
Adult
88%
4%
Older people
59%
12%
Older people
66%
20%
Low income
59%
15%
Low income
74%
12%
Medium income
67%
10%
Medium income
91%
2%
High income
74%
5%
High income
90%
3%
73% 13%
56
Libraries have to change, to be of use to me
Its OK for some libraries to close if the ones
that are kept open are modernised
Overall
31%
29%
Overall
25%
53%
Agree
Heavy user
12%
54%
Heavy user
18%
70%
Disagree
Light user
29%
27%
Light user
23% 55%
Non-user
47%
11%
Non-user
32% 37%
Female
31%
32%
Female
22%
57%
BME
31%
41%
BME
30%
55%
Disabled
29%
30%
Disabled
22%
51%
Parent
35%
31%
Parent
30%
56%
Religious
28%
29%
Religious
26%
53%
LGB
32%
21%
LGB
7%
68%
Adult
35%
28%
Adult
26%
53%
Older people
19%
36%
Older people
21%
54%
Low income
26%
30%
Low income
22%
54%
Medium income
35%
28%
Medium income
26%
52%
High income
39%
25%
High income
32% 47%
57
How do library users get to the library?
Walking
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Car
59%
58%
60%
64%
61%
49%
65%
51%
63%
65%
45%
56%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Bicycle
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
6%
7%
5%
4%
6%
1%
6%
4%
13%
7%
3%
4%
Bus
26%
25%
26%
22%
23%
34%
23%
35%
17%
20%
41%
24%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
Train
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
8%
8%
9%
9%
9%
15%
5%
9%
8%
7%
10%
15%
Motorbike / scooter
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
1%
1%
1%
1%
Question: How did you travel to the library?
58
How long does it take to get to the library?
Less than 10 mins
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
48%
50%
47%
45%
47%
42%
51%
49%
46%
49%
49%
45%
11-20 mins
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
31-40 mins
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
3%
4%
3%
3%
4%
4%
2%
5%
4%
4%
6%
21-30 mins
33%
32%
33%
33%
27%
40%
34%
31%
21%
30%
38%
31%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
13%
12%
15%
16%
17%
11%
13%
13%
29%
15%
9%
16%
41-50 mins
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
2%
4%
2%
1%
3%
Question: For how long did you have to travel?
59
Where do library users travel from?
Work
Home
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
89%
91%
88%
89%
82%
92%
86%
90%
96%
86%
99%
92%
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
School, college or university
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
1%
2%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
8%
7%
10%
8%
10%
6%
9%
7%
4%
11%
1%
5%
Other
Overall
Frequent user
Occasional user
Female
BME
Disabled
Parent
Religious
LGB
Adult
Older people
Low income
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Question: When you last visited the library…, where did you travel from?
60
Appendix 2
Comparison of Citizens' Panel survey and
open consultation survey responses
Every visit
Some visits
Citizens’ Panel survey
Browse the books
51%
63%
40%
33%
Find out about local news and what’s going on
15%
15%
36%
51%
Read newspapers or magazines
14%
14%
35%
48%
Somewhere to go and relax
12%
15%
35%
43%
Take the children to read/borrow books
20%
22%
24%
27%
Borrow a DVD
5%
3%
35%
55%
Use the library computers
9%
13%
30%
42%
Print
7%
6%
30%
42%
Study
7%
7%
30%
33%
Use the free library Wi-‐Fi
11%
12%
23%
29%
Do some work
6%
8%
26%
34%
Childrens storyGme or acGvity
5%
6%
24%
25%
Borrow a CD
3%
2%
23%
37%
Meet friends
4%
5%
20%
29%
Buy refreshments
3%
3%
19%
30%
AKend a local group (eg book or history club)
1%
3%
14%
17%
2%
5%
9%
14%
0%
1%
5%
4%
0%
2%
5%
7%
62
How do citizens perceive libraries?
Agree / agree strongly
Disagree / disagree strongly
Essential for society
81%
95%
3%
1%
EducaGonal
79%
89%
2%
1%
Helpful
78%
93%
2%
1%
Quiet
76%
69%
4%
8%
Safe places to be
75%
87%
2%
1%
Open
73%
87%
2%
2%
Welcoming
70%
88%
3%
2%
Friendly
68%
87%
2%
1%
Community focused
67%
85%
4%
2%
Relaxing
60%
72%
5%
3%
Light and airy
51%
72%
8%
5%
Happy
49%
70%
6%
3%
Inspiring
45%
64%
8%
5%
Social
43%
56%
9%
5%
Modern
39%
57%
17%
10%
Boring
7%
4%
63%
84%
63
Very important
Somewhat important
40%
32%
50%
42%
Community news and noGce boards
47%
48%
43%
38%
Learning about my local neighbourhood and community
41%
38%
48%
42%
InformaGon about evening classes or courses
39%
38%
48%
41%
Lending specialist and hard to find books
49%
51%
37%
36%
Lending books to help people learn about interests (like craVs, cookery or fixing a car)
34%
43%
43%
47%
Offering prinGng
32%
33%
37%
35%
Lending the latest bestseller
28%
32%
39%
38%
Todays newspapers
27%
30%
38%
38%
Offering personal book recommendaGons
18%
20%
45%
42%
Advice and support for starGng a local interest group (like craV, history or languages)
23%
17%
40%
36%
Providing access to a computer (with internet and office programs)
30%
35%
32%
30%
A place to access health support informaGon (eg books on prescripGon, health support groups)
22%
19%
39%
36%
Helping find out about an interest from the internet (e.g. craVs, cookery or fixing a car)
21%
20%
37%
39%
The latest magazines
19%
19%
37%
36%
Lending eBooks
21%
18%
34%
36%
Lending the latest films on DVD
17%
18%
36%
33%
Advice and support for starGng a business
21%
14%
31%
32%
Teaching me how to use computers
22%
19%
28%
26%
13%
15%
36%
33%
15%
17%
31%
28%
Offering tools like 3D printers to help make things
17%
13%
27%
30%
16%
13%
27%
27%
13%
10%
23%
28%
15%
12%
20%
21%
6%
5%
17%
21%
Would use more
Would use less
If it offered art exhibitions or other cultural events
62%
63%
5%
5%
If it offered book clubs, fesGvals or meet the author events
59%
63%
4%
4%
If I could aKend an interest group or course (eg computers, local history)
58%
53%
4%
4%
If it was open at a Gme that suited me
46%
49%
1%
1%
If they had more books
41%
59%
1%
2%
If they had Wi-‐Fi internet connecGon
39%
28%
4%
5%
If I could go there and relax
33%
30%
5%
5%
If it was closer to my house
33%
31%
1%
1%
If I could relax in a quiet environment
32%
32%
3%
3%
If I could meet people there
31%
29%
8%
9%
If the library could help me set up an interest group (eg local history, craV)
29%
30%
7%
6%
If it was more modern
29%
25%
5%
9%
If I could meet people like me
28%
30%
7%
7%
If they had computers I could use
26%
23%
4%
5%
If they had more for the children to do
25%
32%
14%
15%
If they had more DVDs
25%
28%
6%
6%
If I could do work there
25%
24%
5%
5%
If I could get more informaGon on health (e.g books on prescripGon, clubs about health)
22%
21%
11%
11%
If it was closer to my school/workplace
21%
22%
4%
4%
If I could study there
19%
22%
5%
4%
If it was in the same place as my childrens school or leisure centre/pool
15%
14%
31%
32%
If it was in the same place as the Job Centre or other council services
9%
11%
40%
42%
If it wasnt a quiet place
7%
6%
43%
50%
Appendix 3
Detailed methodology
The consultation drew on multiple methodologies and sources, as outlined over the following pages.
Bristol City Council’s Citizens’ Panel is a group
of 2,000 people who have agreed to take part
in research on issues which affect the city. A
stratified sample (reflecting the demographic
profile of the city as a whole) of adult citizens
are invited to join; the membership is renewed
regularly. Members are sent 3-4 surveys per
year on various topics, and have the option of
completing them online or on paper.
The Citizens’ Panel were sent a survey about
libraries in December 2014. 919 participated, a
response rate of 46%. The survey took around
20 minutes to complete.
Completed surveys were matched with
preexisting demographic profiling data, and
passed to cxpartners. Bad data (e.g. spoiled
surveys) and outliers were removed.
Hypotheses, based on prior qualitative
research and CarnegieUK’s Speaking Volumes
report, were tested; the results are presented
in pages 9-26 of this document. Suggestions
made by respondents were coded for
quantification, and included with suggestions
from other sources in the analysis reported on
pages 27-32.
Invitations to complete an online consultation
questionnaire were posted in libraries,
neighbourhood partnerships and via Bristol
City Council’s Facebook page. Paper versions
were also available. In addition, an ‘easy read’
version of the questionnaire was created. The
questionnaire itself was identical to that sent
to the Citizens’ Panel, with the addition of
equalities profiling questions. Any interested
member of the public was able to complete the
survey, from November 2014 and to the
beginning of February 2015. Overall, 4,692
questionnaires were submitted.
Youth survey
Young people were given the opportunity to
complete an adapted version of the open
consultation questionnaire. The coverage of
questions was broadly similar to the adult
questionnaire, but with some simplification of
wording and format. Young people were given
the questionnaire in PSHE school lessons, in
some schools on an opt-in basis. An e-mail with
information about the consultation and a link
to the questionnaire was be sent to all head
teachers in Bristol to give them the
opportunity to opt into the exercise. 484
surveys were returned.
The data processing and analysis process was
identical to the Citizens’ Panel survey, and
suggestions were likewise included as part of
the reporting on pages 27-32. Side-by-side
comparison of the results from the Citizens’
Panel survey and open consultation survey are
presented in Appendix 2.
67
Public meetings and focus groups
Face-to-face meetings were held with groups
representing different communities around
Bristol. 87 groups were contacted and 65
sessions were arranged. Four organisations ran
two sessions. In total, 847 people took part.
Meetings were advertised through a variety of
mechanisms. Social media, letters, posters,
online information and word of mouth were
used. The sessions took place in a range of
community venues including, supplementary
schools, libraries, community centres,
community rooms in tenanted blocks and
places of worship. The sessions were structured
around a pre-agreed discussion guide, and
conducted by Bristol City Council staff. The
emphasis was placed on what would make
participants use libraries more; reflecting back
on their circumstances. Where possible, the
facilitators also explored reasons participants
didn't use libraries.
The amount of time available to discuss
libraries varied: in some cases, the entire
meeting was dedicated to this topic, whereas in
others it was a very brief item on a diverse
agenda. As well as English, Somali, Urdu, Hindi,
Bangladeshi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Arabic and
Tamil community languages were used by
community workers and volunteers at
meetings and outputs were translated.
Groups were geographically spread across
Bristol, with an aspiration to hold a meeting in
each Neighbourhood Partnership area. A
greater proportion of meetings, however, were
held in central areas of the city as more
equalities groups were located there. Of the
847 participants, there were:
• 479 people who are from BME Communities
• 86 disabled people
• 196 people in social housing
• 21 LGBT community members
• 89 older people (59 not counted under
another equality group)
• 44 Women’s groups (16 not counted
elsewhere)
Online Ideas Bank
An online ideas sharing forum* was created to
capture suggestions and comments. The website
allowed users to propose ideas, and others to vote
and comment on them. The Ideas Bank was
accessed from Bristol City Council’s library
consultation website**. Users were required to
register to be able to submit ideas. The forum was
post-moderated by Bristol City Council staff to deal
with offensive or inappropriate postings.
* http://bristolfuturelibraries.dialogue-app.com ** http://www.BristolFutureLibraries.co.uk
Ideas postcards
Postcards and suggestion boxes were displayed in
each library, alongside paper copies of the open
consultation questionnaire. Postcards were also
distributed at face-to-face neighbourhood and
targeted consultation meetings. Respondents also
had the option to mail postcards back rather than
hand them in.
Postcards were collected from the suggestion boxes
periodically and input into a spreadsheet for
analysis along with those from the Ideas Bank and
questionnaires.
68
Appendix 4
Questionnaire
Appendix 4: Strategic Priorities
Bristol City Council:
We have developed our approach to this work in the context of a range of strategic
priorities.
We have also worked in the context of the strategic priorities for Bristol as demonstrated
through the Council’s Corporate Plan 2014-17, where we see our work as contributing
directly to the following priorities:



Healthy Caring & Protecting
Keep Bristol working and learning
Vibrant Bristol
Furthermore, we have confirmed through our consultation the importance of the service
contribution to the 2 cross cutting strategic priorities of:


Addressing Inequality: “We will work to address inequalities of health, wealth
and opportunity in the city, providing the right kind of help and support, at the
right time”.
Active Citizens: “Bristol will be a place where we celebrate and champion
the diversity of our population and every individual, organisation, business
and community is encouraged to play an active role in the life of the city”
Department of Culture, Media & Sport Principles:
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport set out their expectations of any review or redesign of library services in a letter to all Local Authorities in 2010 which included:




A statement of what the service is trying to achieve
A description of local needs, specifically those of children and adults who
live, work and study in the area.
A detailed description of how the service will be delivered, how the plans
will take into account the demography of the area and the different needs
of adults and children, generally and specifically in different areas.
The resources available for the service, specifically the annual budget
The guidance is also that consultation should happen at a formative stage in the process
so there is sufficient detail and time to respond, that the service offers an efficient and
comprehensive library service (in line with Section 7 Public Libraries and Museums Act
1964), that the Council complies with its Public Sector Equalities Duties and Local
Government Act 1999, that the council complies with its Best Value Duty.
We have responded to this by setting out our aspirations for the service in the November
Cabinet paper, undertaking a comprehensive Equality Impact Assessment that looks at the
information we have about the city and its neighbourhoods, and also what the library
service knows about it current customers.
29
Appendix 5: 1.5 Mile Radius Map on the new service
30
Appendix 6: Draft Consultation Plan
Following on from the first phase of consultation on the future of Bristol’s Libraries, which
was an open conversation about the current use of libraries and the future needs of local
areas in the city, there will now be second phase of consultation to consider proposals for
the future service.
What will the second phase of consultation involve?
The next phase of consultation will run from 4th March – 27th May 2015.
Unlike the first phase of consultation, we will now be consulting on a set of specific
proposals for the whole service. The aim of the exercise is to capture comments and
feedback on the different elements of the proposals and how they apply across all areas of
the city, prior to any final decisions being made in July.
Some of the proposed changes – for example, the revised core service offer – will apply to
all libraries across the city. However other parts of the proposals, such as how the service
will operate at specific branch libraries, may vary according to the local area. We will
therefore be specifically focusing some of the consultation on the areas where the greatest
level of change is proposed, to ensure that we have comprehensive and detailed
discussions with affected communities.
We want the consultation to be accessible to everyone and will therefore be using a variety
of different channels to share information, to engage in discussions about the future
service and to capture any feedback.
These channels include:







Consultation hub online – dedicated web pages with contextual information and
details of all consultation meetings, online survey
Social Media – to share information and create a platform for 2-way dialogue
Face to face meetings – At some libraries and via Neighbourhood Forums &
Partnerships
Newsletters – email bulletins to anyone who has registered an interest
Printed information – hard copies of survey, posters, information leaflets
Press/media – Initial media briefing event, followed by proactive and reactive press
releases
Internal communications to Council staff and trade unions
Who are we consulting with?
This consultation needs to reach a very wide range of different stakeholders in order to
ensure we have a real view of the needs of the city and different potential ideas for
31
delivery. We want to consult with current library users, but we need equally to talk to those
who do not use libraries currently to understand their perspective and encourage a wider
more diverse use of the service. The list of stakeholders below is not exhaustive, but
provides a sense of the scope of this consultation.
















Public (adults)
o Library users who live or work in Bristol
o Citizens who do not currently use, nor have recently used libraries
Children and Young People, including children’s centres, schools, Early Years settings
Community groups
Equalities Groups
Partner organisations (e.g. Police, Health, Adult Learning service, Charities and the
Voluntary Sector)
Mayor and elected Members
Members of Parliament
Neighbourhood Partnerships and Forums
Bristol City Council staff, including specifically current libraries staff
Trade Unions
Libraries West/ neighbouring authorities
Other local authorities e.g. Core Cities
Department of Work and Pensions – Job centres
Universities
Library Campaign groups/Advocates
Relevant external national organisations e.g. Arts Council England, Carnegie Trust
What are we consulting on?
Following the first phase of consultation, a set of proposals have been put together for the
new library service. These are based on the feedback from the consultation so far, as well
as knowledge of wider community needs across the city, local and national libraries
expertise, and the need to make financial savings. The information presented will include
the following:

The overall vision and the principles at the heart of the service

Details of the core service offer and how this may be tailored to local areas

The different models that set out how we will deliver the service

What these different models of delivery mean for our existing libraries

The developments, improvements and areas we will be investing in for the future
service (e.g. regarding opening hours, accessibility, new technology, capital works)
32
How will feedback during this phase of consultation affect the final decisions about
the library service?
At this stage we are only consulting on proposals – no final decisions have been made.
We will capture all comments and feedback arising through the different communication
channels and this will help us to refine and further develop the proposals.
The final decisions on the future service will be made by the Council’s Cabinet at a
meeting on 7th July 2015. Once agreement has been reached, a detailed implementation
plan will be put in place. It is anticipated that the majority of the changes will be
implemented between September 2015 and April 2016, with some longer term
developments taking place within 2-3 years.
33
34
Appendix 8: Scrutiny Day Inquiry Report
BRISTOL OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Report of the Scrutiny Inquiry Day
“How do we Redesign the Library Service to Ensure it is fit for
the Future?
Conclusions of the Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission,
January 2015
35
1.
Executive Summary
Bristol City Council’s Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission is responsible for
contributing to policy development and scrutinising the performance of the
Council’s Executive. It hosted a Scrutiny Inquiry Day on 22nd January 2015
to bring together a variety of stakeholders to discuss how the library service
could be redesigned to fit residents’ needs in the future.
The Inquiry Day took place in the context of the City Council’s public
consultation in which there has been considerable public and media interest.
All of Bristol Councillors were invited to the event, along with a range of
external organisations, council officers and community representatives.
The key question that the Inquiry was seeking to address was:
‘Taking into account all we know already and all we are learning from the
consultation, how do we shape a universal, core offer for the Library Service,
which can be developed locally and reflect community needs?’
To this end, the Commission identified a number of key principles that should
be addressed when developing the core offer of the Library Service. These
fall under three main themes: accessibility and location; materials and
technology; information, advice and support.
Key Principles In Relation to the Core Offer;
The following were identified as priorities to be considered in the proposals for
the new library service;
Access and Location
•
•
•
•
•
A free and accessible service.
Provides premises in convenient locations that are well served by public
transport and have improved facilities wherever possible (e.g. toilets and
changing tables).
Opening hours must be consistent and as responsive to local need as
possible.
Acts as a ‘community hub;’ could mean being co-located with other
services, and providing quality space for local groups.
Offers a range of facilities and activities to encourage learning and
exploration.
Materials and Technology
•
•
•
Books, DVDs and CDs should be available in a range of formats and
languages to cater for different needs and interests.
Wi-Fi and power points must be provided, as well as access to appropriate
IT equipment such as desktops and E Readers.
Relevant research materials should be accessible, such as local and family
history resources.
36
Information, Advice and Support
•
•
•
•
2.
Libraries must be staffed by knowledgeable employees/volunteers.
A broad range of information should be available for all citizens, including
details of/access to Bristol City Council’s services, local information and
signposting to partner or community organisations.
Support for Job seekers is important, including offering facilities for
completion of applications and guidance about relevant supporting
organisations.
Libraries have a role in facilitating adult learning within communities.
Background
The Inquiry Day arose from a proposal in the Medium Term Financial Strategy
2014-17 to reduce the library revenue budget by £1.1m by redesigning the
service. This coincides with a national and worldwide debate about the role of
libraries in society, and how they could work in the future. Local authorities
across the country are trying to understand how they can provide a better
service that meets the changing needs of customers in a challenging financial
climate.
The libraries in Bristol are well-loved and highly valued by those that use
them,
and often even those who do not use them are very vocal in their support.
Libraries are a statutory service, but the numbers of people actively using
libraries for their traditional purpose is very low (Bristol City Council’s
‘universal’ service
currently serves 15 % of citizens). It is hoped that within Bristol it will be
possible to achieve a vibrant and sustainable network of libraries which will
better respond to the needs of more of citizens and provide additional and
relevant services to communities, particularly those who experience more
challenges and have less access to opportunities.
Conclusions from the Inquiry Day will feed into the Libraries for the Future
public consultation currently being undertaken by Bristol City Council, which
will inform the
proposals for the Library Service that will initially be
considered at a Cabinet meeting on
3rd March 2015. The final decision
regarding the Library Service will be taken by the
Cabinet in June/July
2015, after a period of further consultation.
3.
The Inquiry Day
What is a Scrutiny Inquiry Day?
Scrutiny inquiry days enable Councillors to acquire an understanding of
complex issues by hearing expert speakers and engaging in debate with
specialists, with the objective of identifying well-informed evidence-based
recommendations. A range of experts and stakeholders share their expertise
37
and opinions via the workshop sessions, to help Councillors identify and
understand key issues. Inquiry days aim to create a balance between
information-sharing and discussion, thus allowing the broad range of views to
be heard, and enabling participants to share their particular perspective.
The Inquiry Day was held on 22nd January 2015 at M Shed in Bristol and was
led by the
Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission. The participants included
local Councillors, Council officers, representatives from the local university
libraries, library user groups,
partner organisations, Trade Unions and
Equality Forums. The views of young people fed in via a video recording.
The full attendance list can be found at Appendix 1.
The format for the event included a mixture of speakers from Bristol and
national organisations, small table discussions and questions and answer
sessions. The programme for the day can be found at Appendix 2.
The intended outcomes of the Inquiry were:
•
•
•
To gather evidence to inform the discussions relating to the redesign of the
library service by holding an interactive session with stakeholders,
including service users and nationwide experts.
To conduct a review of the Libraries for the Future consultation feedback
received to date to ensure residents’ opinions feed into any
recommendations arising from the Inquiry Day.
To fully explore the various models of libraries that could be selected for
communities within Bristol.
The table groups were set the tasks of answering two main questions - “What
does a core offer look like?” and “What should the local offer be for the North,
South, East and Central areas of Bristol?”
4.
Key Discussion Points – the Local Offer
The overarching principles relating to all libraries can be found in the
Executive
Summary, but feedback regarding the local offer can be found
below;
North
•
•
•
•
Needs in the north area varied considerably across the region.
Education was regarded as a primary function of the libraries, with support
for job seekers being more relevant in the north-easterly wards
(Avonmouth and Kingsweston) and adult learning opportunities a priority in
the other areas.
Services for children, including those with special educational needs,
should be a key consideration for the libraries redesign.
Provision of community space was an important aspect in some wards,
although Bishopton, Cotham and Redland already had good facilities.
38
•
•
•
Social isolation was common to all wards so it was essential that the
library service played a role in connecting local residents.
IT access was a priority for all libraries and consideration should be given
to increasing provision in some areas (particularly Henbury and
Southmead).
Steps should be taken to attract new users to the libraries, particularly
students, who underutilised the northern libraries.
South
•
•
•
•
•
•
One of the primary issues in the south of the city was the provision of
services for young people. Efforts should be made to offer a range of
facilities for learning, training and entertainment, both at the libraries and
online.
Unemployment levels were relatively high in south Bristol so access to
employment was highlighted as a priority for the library service.
A good level of IT access was important in the south and the digital offer
should be enhanced.
Adult learning facilities were identified as an important area of provision,
which must be tailored towards the needs of local residents.
The role of staff – both paid and volunteers – could be developed so that
they had a greater role in connecting with the community, signposting and
providing outreach support.
Different models ought to be considered for library provision in the south,
including shared services, social enterprises and public/private sector
collaborations. The community hub approach was the preferred option for
all libraries.
East & Central
•
•
•
•
•
The Central Library should be the main cultural hub for the city, with the
local libraries offering bespoke services designed in conjunction with each
community.
Residents needed to be able to access library services in the way that was
most convenient for them, which included a good balance between digital
and printed materials and some form of mobile service (perhaps organised
by volunteers).
The location of libraries and their accessibility was a central factor in
attracting more service users. Fishponds Library could be developed to
offer a broader range of facilities as it was a large venue.
Successful libraries offered a range of services and were the ‘community
hub.’ Junction 3 Library’s offer should be adapted to reflect the diversity
of the local community.
Access to employment was highlighted as a priority for the area and added
value could be gained from offering support from trained staff/volunteers.
Further details of discussions and presentations can be found at Appendix 3.
39
5.
Appendices
Appendix a) Attendance List
Appendix b) Inquiry Day Programme
Appendix c) Minutes from the Meeting
Appendix a)
Attendance List
Scrutiny Inquiry - Day 22nd January 2015
“How do we redesign the Library Service to ensure it is fit for the future?
Councillors
Name
Cllr Charlie Bolton
Cllr Jeff Lovell
Cllr Martin Fodor
Cllr Sue Milestone
Cllr Fi Hance
Cllr Daniella Radice
Cllr Rhian Greaves
Cllr Brenda Massey
Cllr Olly Mead
Cllr Lesley Alexander
Cllr Ron Stone
Cllr Matt Melias
Officers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Name
Job/Organisation
Alison Comley
Di Robinson
Kate Murray
Emily Hewitt
Gemma
Dando
Janet
Bremner
Julian Rush
Julie York
Emelli Doran
Emma Timm
Kirstie Stillwell
Jon Bos
Strategic Director, Neighbourhoods
Service Director, Neighbourhoods
Head of Libraries
Senior Project Manager, BCC
Service Manager, Neighbourhood Management
Library Services
Library Services
Library Services
Library Services
Library Services
BCC Public Relations
Community Assets Manager
40
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Jane Taylor
Lucy Fleming
Romayne de
Fonseka
Jo Holmes
Karen Blong
Jeremy Livitt
Graham
Wilkie
Taj Butt
Jordan Vibert
Service Manager, Employment and Skills
Scrutiny Co-ordinator
Policy Advisor
Policy Advisor
Policy Advisor
Democratic Services Officer
Policy Co-ordinator
Assistant Democratic Services Officer
BCC Neighbourhoods
Others
Name
Job/Organisation
Knowle West Media Centre
Entrepreneur in Residence at British Library
Arts Council
Carnegie Trust
Unison
Unison
Director of Library Services, UWE
Director of Library Services, Bristol University
9
Carolyn Hassan
Dr Stephen Fear
Phil Gibby
Jenny Peachey
Steve Crawshaw
Dawn Dyer
Jason Briddon
Dr Jessica
Gardner
Angela Auset
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Gillian Seward
Helen Pocock
Eloise Cresswell
Chris Brown
Anne Hooper
Val Cobbin
Katy Lusty
Jenny Staples
Dick Penny
Carol Price
David Cobbin
Val Jenkins
Rebecca Amiel
Bristol Older People’s Forum
Friends of Bristol Central Library
Bristol University – Students Union
Staff Representation Group
Staff Representation Group
Wick Road Library Committee
Arts Council
Local Resident
Watershed
Community Representative
Wick Road Library Committee
Friends of Central Library
23
Christopher
Warren
Community Representative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
41
Appendix b)
Bristol City Council
Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission
Scrutiny Inquiry Day
How do we Redesign the Library Service to Ensure it is Fit for the Future?
Thursday 22nd January 2015, 9.00am (for a 9.30am start) – 1.30pm
M Shed, Princes Wharf, Wapping Road, Bristol BS1 4RN
Key Question; Taking into account all we know already and all we are
learning from the libraries consultation, how do we shape a universal, core
offer for the Library service, which can be developed locally in your
neighbourhoods and reflect community needs?
Programme
9.00am
Registration and Refreshments
9.30am
Introduction
Cllr Jeff Lovell, Chair of Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission, Bristol
City Council (BCC)
9.35am
Cllr Daniella Radice – Assistant Mayor for Neighbourhoods, BCC
9.40am
Setting the Scene
 Alison Comley, Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods
 Kate Murray, Head of Libraries, BCC
9.55am
The National Context;
 Jenny Peachey, The Carnegie Trust
 Phil Gibby, The Arts Council
10.15am
Personal Reflections
from Dr Stephen Fear, Entrepreneur in Residence at the British Library
10.25am
Innovation Through Libraries – A Creative View
Carolyn Hassan, Knowle West Media Centre
42
10.35am
10.55am
Q&A Followed by Table Discussions
“What Does a Core Offer Look Like?”
Refreshments available
Plenary Feedback
11.10am
Introduction Regarding the Local Libraries Situation
Di Robinson, Service Director for Neighbourhoods, BCC
11.20am
Video Edit of Comments from Community Representatives and
Young People
11.35am
Bristol Future Libraries Consultation
Kate Murray, BCC
11.45pm
Q&A
12.00pm
Table Discussions
“What Should the Local Offer be for the North, South, East and Central
Areas of Bristol?”
12.45pm
Refreshments available
Plenary Feedback
1.25pm
Chair’s Closing Statement
1.30pm
CLOSE
43
Appendix c)
Notes – Libraries Scrutiny Inquiry Day – Thursday 22nd January 2015
The inquiry day opened with introductory comments from:
Councillor Daniella Radice, Assistant Mayor for Neighbourhoods
Councillor Jeff Lovell, Chair of the Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission
Alison Comley, Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods
Kate Murray, Service Manager – Head of Libraries
They outlined the following key points:








The service currently offers a wide range of different services in addition to
loaning books (e.g. e-books, reading challenges for children, digital access), but
only 14% of the city’s population were currently using the service.
There is a lack of awareness of what the service offers, which may be one reason
for the decreasing usage
The extensive nature of the current consultation process on this service was
highlighted, which could be used as a model for future consultations
There is a need for libraries to improve in reflecting the diversity of the city
The importance of the proposed revenue reduction to the library service (£1.1
Million)
The rise of new technology was vital in library development and identifying their
role in a digital future.
As most libraries were single buildings, alternative uses needed to be considered,
including more imaginative uses of library space
The options for 24-hour usage of libraries were important
Key speakers then presented on the following themes:
Jenny Peachey – The Carnegie Trust
This organisation was set up in 1930 and had resulted in the creation of over 100
libraries. Following the completion of the Trust’s work, it had disengaged from
libraries in 1950 and had then re-engaged in 2000. The Trust was currently
working with the Scottish Library and Information Council to develop Scottish
Libraries.
The presentation referenced a recent poll on attitudes to and use of public library
services. This information can be viewed via the following link:
Carnegie Trust Factsheet
44
Phil Gibby – Area Director, the Arts Council of England
The Arts Council had taken on the national development role for libraries three
years ago. The presentation emphasised the need for libraries to “Think digital,
think community.” The future of libraries had been discussed as part of a report
entitled “Envisaging Libraries of the Future” which set out several key elements
for a library. It also referenced the Arts Council’s work on research called
‘Envisioning Libraries of the Future’. Full details on this research can be found
via this link:
The Arts Council - Libraries of the Future





The following case studies were mentioned as examples of different ways of
delivering library services:
Social enterprise in Lewisham
Public Service mutual in York
Trust model in use at Winchester Discovery Centre
Library with hotel and cultural embassy at the Lloyd Hotel and Cultural
Embassy, Amsterdam
Dr Stephen Fear – Entrepreneur in Residence at British Library
Dr Fear spoke about the powerful role of libraries in educating young people. He
also explored the developments in hybrid public/private facilities (referencing the
successful partnership model between the library, Borders and Starbucks in
Connecticut, US).
Carolyn Hassan – Knowle West Media Centre (KWMC)
This presentation highlighted the current activities taking place at Knowle West
Media Centre, aiming to address some key concerns for the city and how this could
be reflected in a future library service:



Bristol was the only major city in the UK where there was growing health and
wealth inequality;
Digital inclusion was important to avoid social exclusion for certain
communities;
Providing opportunities to learn about areas which had not traditionally been
used for such purposes ie DIY; how particular types of machinery operated;
and learning about different types of technology.
45
The full presentation can be found here:
Carolyn Hassan - Libraries of the Future
There followed a series of table discussions concerning “What Would A Core Offer
Look Like?” from which a series of possible options were proposed.
Di Robinson, Service Director – Neighbourhoods and Communities

This presentation highlighted the need to address inequalities as Bristol was a
divided city;
 The development of tailored, local offers for different parts of the city was crucial
– the consultation had involved discussions with residents across Bristol;
 It was important to consider how the development of a local service could add
value to our communities.
Kate Murray, Service Manager - Head of Libraries
This presentation outlined the approach that had been taken during the libraries
consultation and the initial findings. The full presentation can be found here:
Kate Murray - Future of the Libraries Consultation
Video Presentations
2 video presentations were screened:

Discussions setting out a series of views from adults who had participated in
research visits to other libraries. This covered the following key themes:
- Enhancing the library experience through design
- Different models for libraries
- Libraries as community assets
- What should a library offer?
- Raising awareness of library services
 Children from Parson Street Primary School on Bristol libraries
The research visit video can be viewed at the following link:
Research Visit Video
There then followed a series of table discussions concerning “What Would A Local
Offer Look Like?” from which a series of possible options were proposed.
Councillor Lovell, Chair of the Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission, closed the
event.
46
Appendix 9 - Bristol City Council Equality Impact Assessment
Form
(Please refer to the Equality Impact Assessment guidance when
completing this form)
Name of proposal
Libraries of the Future – Service
Impact
To redesign the library services to
better meet the needs of our
communities.
Updated January 2015
Neighbourhoods
Kate Murray
Directorate and Service Area
Name of Lead Officer
Step 1: What is the proposal?
Please explain your proposal in Plain English, avoiding acronyms and jargon.
This section should explain how the proposal will impact service users, staff
and/or the wider community.
1.1 What is the proposal?
The libraries in Bristol are well-loved and highly valued by those that use them.
Often even those who do not use them are very vocal in their support.
Libraries are a statutory service, but the numbers of people actively using them
is very low. Our most recent data shows that just 6% of Bristol citizens used a
part of the library’s “lending service” more than once in the 3 month period
measured.
We want to achieve a vibrant and sustainable network of libraries in Bristol.
Libraries will better respond to the needs of more of our citizens. Libraries will
provide additional and relevant services to communities; particularly those in
our city who experience more challenges and have less access to
opportunities.
The vision is to provide a vibrant and sustainable library service designed with
the citizens of Bristol that supports reading & learning, health & wellbeing,
employment and business growth and free access to information, for all our
diverse communities.
1
This vision will be delivered by working to a clear set of design principles:
• A defined core service ensuring access to information, books and
information technology for all of Bristol’s citizens, available through all
Bristol’s libraries
• A sustainable network of high quality libraries with local community
focused branch libraries complimented by a Central Library offering
more specialist resources
• 24/7/365 access to online library services and resources. This includes
specialist material from Bristol Libraries and access to catalogues and
stock of other library services through the Libraries West consortium
website
• Good geographical access across the city with all residents being within
1.5 miles of a library and libraries located, where possible, near the locus
of community activity in that area and on public transport routes.
• Delivery tailored to local community need with special focus on those
who are disadvantaged, vulnerable and socially isolated.
• Opening hours which are designed to match the local demand and usage
• Digital inclusion access for the city through the free library computers,
complemented by trained staff offering mediated access to online
information and services during opening hours.
• Creative and innovative ideas to enhance the delivery and content of
library services, including shared services with other partners.
A comprehensive Phase 1 consultation took place between 10th November
2014 and 2nd February 2015 which included online and paper surveys; young
persons and Plain English surveys; an online ‘ideas bank’; a programme of face
to face consultation opportunities across the city; and targeted work with
equalities communities; including 65 sessions with a variety of equalities
groups and focus groups with young people. The feedback from this
consultation has been central to developing the proposal for the core content
offer, and the proposals for the local branch offer. This report seeks agreement
to consult on both of these in a Phase 2 consultation.
The Phase 2 consultation will follow a similar pattern to Phase 1, with
opportunities for communities to engage through a variety of media. This will,
again, include online and paper surveys, face-to-face meetings in communities,
drop-in sessions in libraries, and targeted equalities group work.
2
Step 2: What information do we have?
Decisions must be evidence-based, and involve people with protected
characteristics that could be affected. Please use this section to demonstrate
understanding of who could be affected by the proposal.
2.1 What data or evidence is there which tells us who is, or could be affected?
The Library service is a universal service and available to all; therefore
everyone in every neighbourhood could be affected by the proposals. It is
important for us to use comprehensive data about the protected
characteristics of the whole population when considering and designing the
future service.
We hold comprehensive information from the Neighbourhood Partnership
Statistical Profiles about the Age, Gender, Disability, Race, and Religion & Belief
of citizens living in each Neighbourhood Partnership area. This information is
based on 2011 Census data relating to Ethnicity, Religion & Disability, and mid2013 estimates for Sex and Age. There are gaps in this data about Sexual
Orientation, Marriage and Civil Partnership, Gender Reassignment, and
Pregnancy and Maternity. To attempt to fill these gaps, and to enrich the
profile data, we have used citywide data (where it is available) about protected
characteristics. We have also ensured that we captured information from our
consultation work with equalities groups that represent all protected
characteristics. While for some protected characteristics (specifically Sexual
Orientation, Marriage and Civil Partnership, Gender Reassignment and
Pregnancy and Maternity) the data cannot be broken down by neighbourhood,
it outlines the importance of comprehensive engagement with equalities
groups when designing and consulting on the tailored neighbourhood branch
offer. This will enable us to be mindful of all of the protected characteristics
when designing the universal core offer.
We know that all current library users will be affected by any changes to the
library service. The library service holds data about the Age, Gender, Disability
and Race of its members, which was captured up to 2012 in the membership
form (not compulsory). These data can be analysed by the library that the
members most commonly use. We have used these data to compare library
member protected characteristics with those of the general population in each
Neighbourhood Partnership area. The aim was to determine whether the
characteristics of library users are representative of the local population, and
3
especially to highlight areas where people with protected characteristics seem
to be under represented.
Since October 2012 Library Member equalities data continues to be captured
on the membership sign-up form. However, this information is now detached
from a person’s membership profile. This means that while data about
protected characteristics is held of people who signed up to become a library
member, we can no longer track library usage, by branch. We also do not know
how many people have since ceased membership with Bristol’s library service.
The benefit of using this data (with caveats) is that it includes additional data
for:
 Gender Reassignment
 Sexual Orientation
 Religion
Protected Characteristic Census data for Bristol Libraries Data for Bristol
%
%
Transgender
N/A
0.6*
Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual
N/A
3.4*
Religion
54.5*
53.2*
Table 1. Proportions of library members during 2013/14 who disclosed their
equalities information. Please note the caveats to these data in the description
above. * These data exclude ‘rather not say’ responses.
The full data known about the neighbourhood populations compared with the
library members, broken down by Neighbourhood Partnership area, is
appended to this EqIA. From these data, we can see if there are equalities
groups who are not well represented as library users, and also where they are
over-represented as library users. We have ensured that this is taken into
account when we are looking at the results from the surveys, as a large
proportion of the survey respondents were existing library users.
The Citizens’ Panel Survey was a key strand of phase 1 consultation because it
employs a method of recruitment which ensures that demographic profile of
participants matches that of the Bristol population. When the demographic
profile of respondents to the open consultation were compared against those
from the Citizens’ Panel Survey, it was clear that the demography of Citizens’
Panel respondents matched the Bristol population more closely. In the open
consultation, some equalities groups were underrepresented, meaning that
results from the consultation could not be extrapolated with the same degree
4
of confidence as those obtained from the Citizens’ Panel Survey. While we still
referred to data obtained in the open consultation, responses from the
Citizens’ Panel Survey were used in the main analysis, and key differences in
responses by equalities groups were particularly highlighted.
From the appended equalities profile information, we can see that in all areas,
there is low library membership from disabled people, and in some areas there
is low membership from BME populations and certain age groups.
In addition to the equalities data available about neighbourhoods and library
members, all of the responses received during phase 1 of consultation were
analysed by each equalities group. This means that we have excellent data
about the needs of each equalities group that we have been able to use when
designing the future library services.
2.2 Who is missing? Are there any gaps in the data?
As highlighted above in 2.1, there are some gaps in the Neighbourhood
Partnership Statistical Profile data about:
 Sexual Orientation
 Marriage and Civil Partnership
 Gender Reassignment
 Pregnancy and Maternity
There are gaps in the Libraries data up to 2012 about the above 4 protected
characteristics and also about Religion and Belief.
Since 2012, libraries data now includes data for Gender Reassignment, Sexual
Orientation and Religion and Belief, but this can no longer be broken down by
branch usage.
As explained above, these gaps have been filled as best as possible, and all of
the consultation data is being broken down by equalities group.
2.3 How have we involved, or will we involve, communities and groups that
could be affected?
In November 2014, Cabinet approved a 3-month consultation period to assess
what different communities need from Bristol’s library service and their ideas
for its future. The consultation helped us to develop a broader understanding
of what each community needs and how the library service and council can
better support those needs through the service redesign.
5
Between 10th November 2014 and 2nd February 2015, we talked to people both
in their neighbourhoods and local libraries, as well as offering citywide
opportunities for different groups and interests to talk to each other.
In order to try and engage as many people as possible (including as many
people from equalities groups as possible), we used a range of different
formats. We will continue to use these formats throughout the second phase
of consultation.
Digital
People who prefer to get involved via digital communication can use the
website ‘Future of Bristol libraries’ which outlines the reasons we are
consulting, timelines for the consultation and ways to get involved. Website
users can change the colours of the text, background of the pages and the font
and text size. The website also has several subtitled videos.
Throughout all phases of the consultation, people can sign up to receive
regular e-bulletin updates and can use social media to engage in the
consultation through our Facebook site and Twitter handle @BrLibraryFuture.
Survey
The first phase of consultation included an online survey which was also sent
to the 2000 members of the Citizens’ Panel (who are broadly representative of
the City’s population in terms of protected characteristics). The survey was
adapted and was also available as a young people’s survey which was designed
for young people aged under 16 and an Easy Read survey was also available
which was more accessible for people with learning disabilities, and people
who have difficulty reading English. Paper copies of the survey were available
in all library branches across Bristol, community buildings, customer service
points and could be made available in alternate forms and community
languages on request.
In the proposed phase 2 consultation, similar survey arrangements will be in
place. An online survey, Easy Read survey and paper copies will be widely
available.The survey will be shared with the Citizens’ Panel, if possible (this will
depend on dates for the Panel, but is important to us to try to engage with the
Citizens’ Panel for phase 2 consultation). The young people’s survey did not
provide a rich source of information in phase 1. Young people’s focus groups
run by Real Ideas Organisation (RIO) were much more successful, so it is
proposed for phase 2 that focus groups are used to engage with young people,
6
rather than a survey.
Research visits
We organised research visits by bus to example libraries in Bristol, Westonsuper-Mare and Exeter. These provided opportunities for willing participants
from the public and councillors to see examples of different service delivery
models in action. These visits were only for phase 1 as this phase was about
developing ideas.
Face to face meetings, young people focus groups, equalities groups.
We recognise that people may want to feed back their views as part of a
geographical community or an equalities group or both, so in phase 1 of the
consultation a total of 53 open public meetings took place throughout
November and December 2014. 22 of these meetings were Neighbourhood
Forum/Partnership meetings and 31 were meetings held in the various library
branches across Bristol. Meetings took place during Monday-Friday and
included morning, afternoon and evening sessions in order to offer
opportunities to as many different people as possible to take part.
In addition to the open public meetings, we also recognise that there are
equalities groups that rarely attend open public meetings, and that some
subjects related to protected characteristics need to be talked about in a safe
environment. We therefore designed a comprehensive targeted engagement
and consultation offer for equalities communities. 87 groups were contacted
and 65 face-to-face consultation sessions were arranged to get input into the
proposed service design work. These groups included Bristol’s Equality Forums
and Voice and Influence organisations - Bristol Women’s Voice, Bristol LGBT,
Bristol Disability Equality Forum, BME Voice and Influence, Bristol Older
People’s Forum and the Multi Faith Forum.
In phase 2 of the consultation, based on the learning from the first phase of
the consultation, one dedicated open public evening meeting per
Neighbourhood Partnership area will take place, followed by drop in sessions
at each of the 28 libraries during the daytimes. Information will be available at
all Neighbourhood Forums and Neighbourhood Partnership meetings (approx.
45 meetings). The comprehensive targeted equalities work will be repeated
for the second phase, with a real focus on equalities input into the tailored
neighbourhood libraries offer.
7
Young people are a key user group for libraries and it was very important to
hear their voices. A series of focus groups was set up with young people in
phase 1 of the consultation and these will continue in phase 2.
Step 3: Who might the proposal impact?
Analysis of impacts on people with protected characteristics must be rigorous.
Please demonstrate your analysis of any impacts in this section, referring to all
of the equalities groups as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
3.1 Does the proposal have any potentially adverse impacts on people with
protected characteristics?
There will be significant change as part of the libraries redesign; there will be
changes to the way that libraries are run, when they are open and staffing.
This means that there are potentially adverse impacts for some citizens of
Bristol, including people with protected characteristics e.g. if a library changes
location or is open at a different time, this may affect people in different ways.
We already know from our data that across the city, % membership and usage
of libraries by disabled people is significantly lower than the % of disabled
people in the local population. The consultation with equalities groups,
highlighted some of the reasons for this, including:
 poor physical access to the buildings (e.g. signage not suitable, old
buildings with compliant but not convenient disabled access, poor
transport access)
 need more accessibility equipment (e.g. one handed equipment only
available in Central library)
 need to do more to make disabled people welcome; demonstrating that
they don’t have to be quiet in the space (a lot of people mentioned that
they avoided libraries as they would find it difficult not to make noise)
 need for more choice for disabled people – more influence over choice
of large print stock, being consulted when accessibility equipment is
purchased so it is suitable
The implications of a reduction in funding could adversely impact disabled
users and potential users, for example if the funding reduction resulted in less
investment in large print stock or assistive software / ICT equipment.
8
We already know that in some libraries the membership/usage by BME people
is low compared with the local population – for example in Henleaze Stoke
Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym; Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East; Greater
Brislington; and Knowle, Filwood and Windmill Hill areas, the % library usage
by BME people is lower than the % BME population in the area. However, in
other areas usage by BME people is higher than the local population.
Consultation with equalities groups told us that a good library offer to BME
people would include:
 Diverse stock in different languages (fiction / non-fiction) and stock
which is culturally relevant.
 Libraries as central meeting point of community /a social space
 Libraries as a key place of learning for their children (placed higher
importance on learning for their children than for themselves)
The implications of a reduction in funding could adversely affect BME people if,
for example, stock was no longer sourced in different languages, or libraries
with good quality social spaces in areas with a high BME population were to
close or change their use significantly.
In the phase 1 consultation, we ensured that the feedback from as much of the
engagement as possible, and especially the surveys and face to face work,
could be broken down by equalities group. The consultation highlighted that
differences and points of agreement between the needs of some groups came
through strongly, while others (such as LGBT people and those with religious
beliefs) were less distinct from users and non-users as a whole. Drawing on the
full range of methodologies employed in the research, the dominant themes
that were most important for individual groups were as follows:
Older people
• Continued access to book lending
• A physical space to spend time around other people and engage in the
community, which is nonetheless not overly noisy
• Access to information about events and neighbourhood news
• Easy access and proximity to the home
Younger people
• Study / work space
• Modern, welcoming venues for meeting other people
• Access to ICT facilities, particularly wi-fi
• Easy access via public transport or walking, including from universities,
schools and colleges
9
BME people
• Libraries that function as spaces to socialise with friends and colleagues
• Connections between libraries and other organisations / services within
the community
• Modern, welcoming buildings
• Culturally relevant stock
• Books and courses for people with English as a second language
Disabled people
• Accessible buildings and facilities (e.g. signage, toilets)
• Large print stock and assistive/accessible ICT services
• Easy parking / transport
• A safe space to visit, to reduce social isolation and increase access to
events
• Co-location with other services
Parents (not an equalities group but relevant due to importance to BME
communities and also relevant to maternity)
• Relatively noisy, lively libraries
• Children’s events and play areas
• Closer integration with other services, such as schools or health centres
• Continued access to book borrowing for children
People on low incomes (not an equalities group, but relevant due to high % of
BME and disabled people represented in this group)
• Continued access to book lending
• Easy access via walking
• Free ICT facilities
• For those who are unemployed, a space to search for work and access
training
As outlined in the Cabinet Report (3 March 2015), libraries have been
categorised in to 2 groups which show how we are going to invest in the future
service. These libraries are subject to a number of changes including opening
hours. Some libraries currently are not included in these 2 groups - the
locations of these libraries and the spread of the remaining library branches
have carefully taken into consideration data and comments from equalities
communities to minimise the impact as much as possible. For example, rather
than stop supporting a larger number of libraries to make the financial saving,
the proposal tries to keep as many as possible and look at joint delivery,
shorter staffed hours with access available outside the staffed hours which
offers the safe space and community access that, for example, BME and
disabled equalities groups have identified as a need, while still being able to
10
realise savings. These proposals will be consulted on in more detail in Phase 2
of the consultation and full exploration of the impacts will develop as phase 2
consultation gets underway. This EqIA will be updated to reflect this.
3.2 Can these impacts be mitigated or justified? If so, how?
Designing a library service for the future which meets our ambition as a city
but in the context of ongoing financial restrictions is extremely challenging and
there will be impacts on some of our citizens. However, we have designed the
proposals for the service based on a complex range of criteria with equalities
information firmly established as one of the four main sources of information;
with the overall aim of providing the best possible quality library service
targeted to the areas of greatest need.
One of the key drivers has been the need to modernise the service and make it
relevant to more of our citizens and these improvements and changes would
be recommended, regardless of any savings required. We need to address the
fact that we have communities in areas of need who are poorly served by
existing services, while we have a much higher level of provision in other areas
of the city. We have therefore looked hard at how we can re-balance the
service across the whole city to find the right solution for Bristol. So, while
there is an impact on all citizens, where possible the negative impact on
citizens with the most need has been minimised.
By doing a wide-reaching phase 1 consultation, planning an equally wide
reaching phase 2 consultation, and by ensuring that equalities groups thoughts
and opinions are listened to and used in design and development of proposals,
this has mitigated some of the potential impact on equalities communities.
The core content offer described in the report contains many of the needs
identified by equalities groups as the most important to them during phase 1
consultation, including, for example, an educational offer to make materials
available in a variety of formats and languages to meet diverse needs, and a
cultural offer to ensure that cultural activities are designed for local interested
(i.e. cultural diversity/identity).
The proposals for individual branch libraries have also been developed using
neighbourhood profile data alongside consultation feedback from equalities
groups (this is described in more detail above in section 3.1). To further
11
mitigate any negative impact on equalities communities, phase 2 consultation
has a real emphasis on targeted engagement with equalities groups. This will
enable us to have conversations with equalities communities and ensure that
comments and feedback are used to develop the final shape of the local
branch library offer. It will also ensure negative impacts are minimised as much
as possible.
Phase 2 consultation will build on feedback that equalities communities have
already provided to us in Phase 1, and will enable us to develop conversations
about specific mitigations relevant to equalities communities to minimise any
impact of, for example, shorter staffed hours at the libraries, or a library no
longer being supported by the council. This will help us to mitigate as best as
possible potential specific impacts of the proposals contained within this
report, on equalities communities.
3.3 Does the proposal create any benefits for people with protected
characteristics?
Some of the benefits have been described above – specifically the new core
content offer, which has been designed using information that equalities
groups provided in Phase 1 of the consultation. Phase 2 of the consultation
about the proposed local offer will use equalities information to further design
the local offer.
3.4 Can they be maximised? If so, how?
The benefits have the potential to be maximised through phase 2 consultation
proposals and development of tailored local offers using this information
(details are provided in sections 2 and 3 of this EqIA and in the full Cabinet
report).
Step 4: So what?
The Equality Impact Assessment must be able to influence the proposal and
decision. This section asks how your understanding of impacts on people with
protected characteristics has influenced your proposal, and how the findings of
your Equality Impact Assessment can be measured going forward.
12
4.1 How has the equality impact assessment informed or changed the
proposal?
Much of this detail has been covered above. Rather than this EqIA informing
and changing the proposal, the method used in developing the proposal has
put equalities data and engagement with equalities communities at the heart
of how the proposals have been developed so far, and how they will continue
to be developed in the next phase of the Libraries service redesign and
beyond. The EqIA is a living document which is regularly updated, and full
equalities information that is being used to design and develop the proposals
and the consultation methods is appended to this EqIA.
4.2 What actions have been identified going forward?
• Phase 2 consultation to include targeted work with equalities groups
(with development of this work to hopefully include more groups in the
next phase of consultation)
• Phase 2 consultation to ensure access to all materials is available to all
citizens through providing different media and formats of information
• Equalities information to continue to be one of the four main areas of
information that is used to develop further proposals
• To ensure that the targeted equalities work in phase 2 consultation
helps to inform the details of the redesign moving forward; i.e.,
informing what investment might be recommended for future library
improvements; informing the details of the locally tailored offer to
ensure that it serves the widest possible local community.
4.3 How will the impact of your proposal and actions be measured moving
forward?
This EqIA will be updated alongside development of proposals as a living
document.
A cumulative impact assessment will be produced as part of the July cabinet
report when the final proposals are presented for decision.
Service Director Sign-Off:
Di Robinson
Date:20/2/2015
Equalities Officer Sign Off:
Anne James
Date:20/2/2015
13
12/02/2015
Equalities Impact Assessment: Libraries for the Future Project
Baseline data & information
Neighbourhood Partnership
Libraries
Ashley, Easton & Lawrence Hill
• Junction 3
• St Pauls
Junction 3 and St Pauls libraries are located within the boundaries of Ashley, Easton
& Lawrence Hill Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Ashley, Easton & Lawrence Hill NHP will be compared against the
equalities monitoring information held for Trinity Road library, which has since
been replaced by Junction 3 library. The libraries data covers the 12 month period to
April 2012, this is before Junction 3 library was opened, and Trinity Road library was
closed. The data represent active usage (where a person has used a part of the
lending service within the previous 12 months).
Library usage data compared with resident population
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
Percentage of library
users who are…
Trinity Road
(now Junction 3)
Female
55.4%
58.0%
48.1%
Disabled
2.4%
1.7%
15.5%
Aged 0-15
46.7%
44.8%
22.2%
Aged 16-25
10.8%
10.2%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
38.0%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
4.5%
Aged over 65
BME
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
NP Area
Population**
-
14.6%
-
55.9%
41.8%
-
-
-
3.3%
-
59.0%
-
St Pauls
-
-
58.8%
-
-
7.3%
43.8%
-
55.9%
 34.0% library users
were Black/Black
British at Trinity
Road and 42.2% at
St Pauls library.
 18.1% were
Asian/Asian British
at Trinity Road and
9.1% at St Pauls
library.
 5.9% were Mixed at
Trinity Road, and
7% at St Pauls
library.
Data source: *Libraries West (April 2012) **Census (2011) *** % excluding ‘not stated’
1
12/02/2015
What do we know about the Ashley, Easton & Lawrence Hill
Neighbourhood Partnership area? (Census 2011)
Population
A fifth (18%) of the people living in Bristol
who cannot speak English or cannot
speak English very well live in Lawrence
Hill ward.
The NP has a young age
profile with a higher than
average proportion children
22% (Bristol average 18%)
and lower than average
proportion of older people
7% (Bristol average 13%).
Almost a third
(30%) of people not
born in the UK
(Bristol average
15%)
Highest proportion of
non-Christians including
the highest proportion
of Muslims at 21%
(Bristol average 5%) and
the highest proportion
of people with ‘other
religions’
How could libraries help
improve educational
attainment in Ashley,
Easton & Lawrence Hill
area?
Lawrence Hill is the
only ward in the city
where the majority of
the population
belong to a BME
group. In 2001 the
BME population
made up 32% of all
people compared to
55% in 2011
Do libraries have a role in
creating safer & stronger
communities?
 In Ashley an above average
proportion of residents feel
they get on well together.
 Educational attainment rate at 11
years (Key stage 2 Level 4+ with
English and Maths) is improving in
Easton and Ashley and is close to
the city average. In Lawrence Hill,
despite general improvement in
the last 12 years, attainment
dropped in 2011 and 2012.
 Low levels of community
cohesion exist in Lawrence Hill
(sense of belonging, respect
and trust) and residents are less
satisfied with the
neighbourhood generally
compared to the rest of the city.
 Educational attainment rate at 16
(Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) is
improving and is very similar to the
city average in Ashley and Easton,
and below average in Lawrence Hill
 Residents feel most safe in
Ashley and fear of crime in the
neighbourhood is more
common in Easton and
Lawrence Hill.
2
12/02/2015
Case Studies: What groups are being run from library branches?
Case Study: ESOL classes
• Run by private tutor who is
engaged and funded by the
Junction 3 Community Interest
Company (J3 CIC).
Case Study: Financial
budgeting advice
• Run from Junction 3 (J3) Library.
• Around 20 people attend weekly
and the courses are on a rolling
programme.
• Run by Pennywise, for people in
social housing.
• Clients self-refer for advice by
calling advice worker to set up
meeting at J3.
• Classes cover the absolute basics
for people with no English and
there is also a follow-on class for
help with literacy and numeracy.
• J3 CIC also funds a crèche to help
parents attend.
Libraries
Avonmouth & Kingsweston
•
•
•
•
Avonmouth
Lawrence Weston
Sea Mills
Shirehampton
Avonmouth, Lawrence Weston, Sea Mills and Shirehampton libraries are located
within the boundaries of Avonmouth & Kingsweston Neighbourhood Partnership
area (NHP).
Census data for Avonmouth & Kingsweston NHP will be compared against the
equalities monitoring information held for each branch library. The data represent
active usage (where a person has used a part of the lending service within the
previous 12 months).
3
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
users who are…
Avonmouth
63.3%
Female
Lawrence
Weston
61.0%
Sea Mills
61.3%
Shirehampton
NP Area
Population**
61.7%
51.5%
Disabled
3.8%
5.6%
4.3%
5.1%
20.7%
Aged 0-15
36.7%
26.9%
41.4%
34.5%
21.3%
Aged 16-25
7.3%
11.8%
4.8%
6.4%
-
Aged 16-24
-
-
Aged 26 – 60
38.5%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
17.6%
Aged over 65
-
-
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.5%
-
-
51.0%
-
16.2%
28.7%
-
5.3%
-
30.4%
24.0%
-
10.1%
-
29.8%
21.0%
-
3.4%
BME
40.3%
-
-
5.7%
-
-
6.8%
-
58.6%
What do we know about the Avonmouth & Kingsweston
Population
 7% of the population belong to a Black or
minority ethnic group (BME) (city average
16%).
 This is the third lowest % BME of all
Neighbourhood Partnerships.
 The largest ethnic group after White British
is Other White.
 9% of people living in the area were not
born in the UK (Bristol average 15%).
Do libraries have a
role in creating safer &
stronger
communities?
 Satisfaction with their
neighbourhood is
below average in
Kingweston
 Fewer people think
there is respect and
consideration in
Kingsweston compared
to other wards
Satisfaction with leisure facilities for teenagers and older people is below average.
4
12/02/2015
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Avonmouth
& Kingsweston?
 Educational attainment rate at 11 years (Key stage 2 Level 4+ with English and
Maths) is improving overall. This rate is similar to the city average in both wards.
 Educational attainment rate at 16 (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) is improving. The
rate in 2012 is higher than the city average in Avonmouth and just below in
Kingsweston.
Case Study: Silver Surfers
Sessions
• Run at Sea Mills Library by UWE
students
• One-to-one drop-in sessions to
provide older people with support
in using computers
Case Study: Therapeutic
Reading Group
• Run at Sea Mills Library
• Run by a volunteer (recruited via
the Reading Promotion Manager)
• 4-5 people attend
Libraries
Bishopston, Cotham & Redland
• Cheltenham Road
Cheltenham Road Library is located within the boundaries of Bishopston, Cotham &
Redland Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Bishopston, Cotham & Redland NHP will be compared against the
equalities monitoring information held for Cheltenham Road branch library. The
data represent active usage (where a person has used a part of the lending service
within the previous 12 months).
5
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
users who are…
Cheltenham Road
Library
Female
60.2%
48.4%
Disabled
2.4%
9.6%
Aged 0-15
29.1%
15.5%
Aged 16-25
8.8%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
50.0%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
12.0%
Aged over 65
BME
Religion (any)
-
-
23.3%
-
53.2
-
-
10.5%
-
NP Area
Population**
8.0%
10.2%
-
42.4%
What do we know about the Bishopston, Cotham & Redland
Population
 93% of the population are aged under 65 (Bristol average 87%).
 More than half of usual residents in Cotham ward (52%) are aged 18-30
years (Bristol average 25%).
 10% of the population belong to a Black or minority ethnic group (BME)
(city average 16%).
 The NP has the highest proportion of people with no religion at 49%
(Bristol average 37%)
6
12/02/2015
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Bishopston,
Cotham & Redland?
 Educational attainment at Key stage 2 and 4 is some of the highest in the city.
 Children with Special Educational Needs is rising in Bishopston and Redland.
Do libraries have a role in creating safer & stronger communities?
 Community cohesion indicators are above average in this neighbourhood
(respect, get on well together, responsible parenting and trust) and residents
are very satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live compared to the
rest of the city.
Libraries
Cabot, Clifton & Clifton East
• Bristol Central
• Clifton
• Redland
Bristol Central, Clifton, and Redland libraries are located within the boundaries of
Cabot, Clifton & Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Cabot, Clifton & Clifton East NHP will be compared against the
7
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
Library*
users who are…
Female
Bristol Central
54.9%
Clifton
Redland
64.0%
NP Area
Population**
61.6%
47.3%
Disabled
2.2%
2.6%
2.7%
8.6%
Aged 0-15
15.4%
25.1%
19.9%
7.7%
Aged 16-25
18.7%
6.8%
8.5%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
52.6%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
13.3%
Aged over 65
-
BME
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.1%
-
-
50.1%
-
7.2%
19.4%
-
7.2%
-
52.2%
21.8%
-
13.1%
-
46.3%
-
-
9.3%
-
-
17.3%
-
45.6%
What do we know about the Cabot, Clifton & Clifton East
Population
Cabot ward has a much
higher proportion of
BME residents (26%)
than both Clifton East
(11%) and Clifton (11%)
compared to Bristol
average 16%).
30% of all
Chinese people
in Bristol live in
Cabot.
More than half of usual
residents in Cabot (60%)
and Clifton East (53%) are
aged 18-30 years (Bristol
average 25%).
41% of all usual
residents in Cabot
are full time
students aged 18
and over.
Almost a quarter
(23%) of people were
not born in the UK
(Bristol average 15%),
the highest
proportions being in
Cabot ward at 30%.
8
12/02/2015
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Cabot,
Clifton & Clifton East?
 Educational attainment rate at 11 years (Key stage 2 in English and Maths) is
improving and is above the city average.
 At 16 years, educational achievement (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) is average
for Clifton and Cabot but below average in Clifton East.
 Residents are very happy with the neighbourhood in Clifton and Clifton East.
 High levels of community cohesion exist in Clifton and Clifton East (respect, get on
well together, responsible parenting and trust).
Libraries
Dundry View
• Bishopsworth
• Hartcliffe
Bishopsworth and Hartcliffe libraries are located within the boundaries of Dundry
View Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Dundry View NHP will be compared against the equalities
monitoring information held for each branch library. The data represent active
usage (where a person has used a part of the lending service within the previous 12
months).
9
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
Bishopsworth
users who are…
63.0%
Female
Hartcliffe
NP Area
Population**
65.5%
51.9%
Disabled
2.2%
4.9%
22.3%
Aged 0-15
37.8%
36.7%
22.0%
Aged 16-25
5.3%
8.6%
-
-
Aged 16-24
Aged 26 – 60
35.1%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
21.8%
Aged over 65
-
-
-
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
-
-
48.5%
-
17.6%
-
4.2%
-
-
11.9%
-
18.9%
-
4.0%
BME
35.7%
4.3%
-
53.7%
What do we know about the Dundry View Neighbourhood
Partnership area? (Census 2011)
Population
 4% of the population belong to
a Black or minority ethnic group
(BME) (city average 16%). This
is the lowest % BME of all
 Eight Lower Super Output
Areas in this neighbourhood are
in the top 10% deprived in the
country.
 The number of Disability Living
Allowance claimants for all ages
is rising in this neighbourhood.
communities?
 34% of respondents in Hartcliffe
fear their day to day life is
affected by fear of crime and is
rising.
 The percentage of people in
Whitchurch Park who are
satisfied with their
neighbourhood remains below
average (73%).
 Only 35% of respondents agree
that people take responsibility
for their children in this
neighbourhood
10
12/02/2015
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Dundry View
Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Educational attainment at Key Stage 2, 4+ English and Maths continues to improve
to at or above the city average.
 Educational attainment at Key Stage , 5 GCSEs A* - C continues to improve.
Case Study: Reminiscence
Group
• Held at Bishopsworth Library.
• Monthly group with around 6-10
attending each time.
• Run by library staff.
Libraries
Filwood, Knowle & Windmill Hill
• Filwood
• Knowle
Filwood and Knowle libraries are located within the boundaries of Filwood, Knowle
& Windmill Hill Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Filwood, Knowle & Windmill Hill NHP will be compared against the
11
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
Filwood
users who are…
Knowle
60.8%
Female
NP Area
Population**
62.0%
50.7%
Disabled
4.9%
3.4%
18.2%
Aged 0-15
53.8%
34.1%
22.1%
Aged 16-25
6.3%
5.7%
-
-
Aged 16-24
Aged 26 – 60
27.5%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
12.4%
Aged over 65
-
-
-
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
-
-
55.6%
-
11.5%
-
8.0%
-
-
10.7%
-
18.7%
-
7.5%
BME
41.6%
10.9%
-
50.0%
What do we know about the Filwood, Knowle & Windmill Hill
Population
 The NP has a higher than
average proportion of children
22% (Bristol average 18%).
(BME) (city average 16%).
 The largest ethnic groups after
White British are Other White
and Mixed.
 Disability Living Allowance
claimants are almost twice the
city average in Filwood.
communities?
 Low levels of community
cohesion exist in Filwood
(respect, responsible parenting,
trust and antisocial behaviour)
and residents are less satisfied
with the neighbourhood
compared to the rest of the city.
 More residents in Filwood feel
unsafe in their neighbourhood
compared to the other two
wards.
12
12/02/2015
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Filwood,
Knowle & Windmill Neighbourhood Partnership area?
improving in all 3 wards and is close to the city average.
 At 16 years, educational achievement (at Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) has also
improved and is just below the city average in Knowle and Filwood, but in Windmill
Hill it has fallen in the last year.
 The number of children with Special Educational Needs is three times the city
average in Filwood.
Case Study: Coffee Mornings
Case Study: Creative writing
groups
• Run monthly on a Saturday at Filwood
Library by a ‘sort-of’ friends group.
• Run weekly at Knowle Library, by
a volunteer from the local
community.
• Activities include a raffle, selling teas,
coffees, cakes and sometimes bric-abrac.
• Run as a drop-in, but 10-12
people attend regularly.
Libraries
Greater Bedminster
• Bedminster
• Marksbury Road
Bedminster & Marksbury Road libraries are located within the boundaries of
Greater Bedminster Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Greater Bedminster NHP will be compared against the equalities
months).
13
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
Bedminster
users who are…
62.6%
Female
Marksbury
Road
NP Area
Population**
62.1%
49.6%
Disabled
2.9%
4.2%
17.0%
Aged 0-15
25.6%
46.6%
14.6%
Aged 16-25
8.5%
4.6%
-
-
Aged 16-24
Aged 26 – 60
51.9%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
14.0%
Aged over 65
-
-
-
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
-
-
61.3
-
13.0%
-
9.7%
-
-
11.0%
-
13.6%
-
9.4%
BME
35.2%
7.7%
-
47.8%
What do we know about the Greater Bedminster
Population
 8% of the population belong to a
Black or minority ethnic group
communities?
 The largest ethnic group after
White British is Other White.
 High levels of ‘sense of
belonging’ and feeling
influential in Southville.
 The NP has the third highest
proportion of people with no
religion at 44% (Bristol average
37%).
 Only 48% of Bedminster
residents feel people with
different backgrounds get on
well together (average is 60%)
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Filwood,
Knowle & Windmill Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Educational attainment rate is improving. At 11 years (Key stage 2 in English and
Maths) and at 16 years (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) it is average in
Bedminster and above average in Southville.
14
12/02/2015
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Greater
Bedminster Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Educational attainment rate is improving. At 11 years (Key stage 2 in English and
Maths) and at 16 years (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) it is average in
Bedminster and above average in Southville.
Case Study: Chatterbooks
• Run from Bedminster Library by
library staff.
• A children’s reading group for ages
8-12 years.
Case Study: Craft sessions
• Run every Saturday morning on a
drop-in basis from Marksbury Road
Library.
• Sessions for children aged 3-18
years.
• 12 children registered in the group.
• Run by library staff.
Libraries
Greater Brislington
• Wick Road
Wick Road Library is located within the boundaries of Greater Brislington
Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Greater Brislington NHP will be compared against the equalities
monitoring information held for Wick Road branch library. The data represent
15
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
users who are…
Wick Road Library
Female
63.8%
50.2%
Disabled
2.6%
16.5%
Aged 0-15
44.3%
19.2%
Aged 16-25
3.9%
-
-
Aged 16-24
Aged 26 – 60
39.8%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
12.1%
Aged over 65
-
BME
Religion (any)***
-
9.7%
-
56.7%
-
-
5.4%
-
NP Area
Population**
14.3%
8.7%
-
55.9%
What do we know about the Greater Brislington
Population
 9% of people living in the area
were not born in the UK (Bristol
average 15%)
Do libraries have a role
in creating safer &
stronger communities?
 Community cohesion
indicators are above
average in this
neighbourhood
(respect, get on well
together, responsible
parenting and trust)
and residents are very
satisfied with their
neighbourhood as a
place to live compared
to the rest of the city.
16
12/02/2015
Brislington Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Educational attainment at Key Stage 2, 4+ English and has improved and is now at
the city average.
 Educational attainment at Key Stage , 5 GCSEs A* - C improved in Brislington East
from last year but dropped in Brislington West and are both now at the city average
Case Study: Baby Bounce
and Rhyme
Case Study: Reminiscence
sessions
• Held at Wick Road Library, run by
library staff
• Held at Wick Road Library; run
monthly by library staff.
• Two sessions per week in term-time
on Wednesday mornings.
• Tends to be regular attendees, but
anyone can join.
• Approx. 50-60 attend each session.
• Approx. 8-12 people attend.
Libraries
Greater Fishponds
• Eastville
• Fishponds
• Hillfields
Eastville, Fishponds and Hillfields libraries are located within the boundaries of
Greater Fishponds Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Greater Fishponds NHP will be compared against the equalities
months).
17
12/02/2015
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
Library*
Eastville
users who are…
Fishponds
60.0%
Female
59.7%
Hillfields
NP Area
Population**
63.4%
50.3%
Disabled
2.3%
3.6%
2.5%
18.9%
Aged 0-15
39.7%
35.1%
39.9%
20.4%
Aged 16-25
7.6%
7.5%
9.7%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
37.9%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
14.8%
Aged over 65
-
-
-
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.7%
-
-
51.0%
-
14.1%
20.7%
-
22.0%
-
29.8%
16.6%
-
25.9%
BME
40.8%
-
-
25.4%
-
-
25.5%
-
61.2%
What do we know about the Greater Fishponds
Population
25% of the population belong
to a Black or minority ethnic
group (BME) (city average
16%). This is
the second highest % BME of
all Neighbourhood
Partnerships.
The NP has the second highest
proportion of Muslims at 10%
(Bristol average 5%) and the
largest
number of Sikh residents.
Eastville has the most diverse
population of the 3 wards - after White
British the next largest ethnic
groups include Pakistani, Mixed, Black
African, Other White, Black Caribbean
and Indian.
Only 73% are satisfied with
their neighbourhood in
Eastville and Hillfields.
18
12/02/2015
Fishponds Neighbourhood Partnership Area?
Maths) is improving in line with the city but Eastville and Frome Vale are below the
city average.
 Educational attainment rate at 16 (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) is improving in
line with the city but in the last year there has been a drop in attainment in Frome
Vale.
 Only 43% in Hillfields and 48% in Eastville feel they belong to their neighbourhood.
 All of the neighbourhood, around 36%, think their neighbourhood has got worse in
the last two years, which is above average.
 Fewer than average people feel safe outside during the day and after dark in
Eastville and Hillfields.
Case study of library activity at Fishponds Library
Job Advice Sessions
 Run by ‘Move On’.
 Sessions are by appointment and an advice worker arranges to meet clients at the
library.
 Library staff signpost potential clients.
19
12/02/2015
Libraries
Henbury & Southmead
• Henbury
• Southmead
Henbury and Southmead libraries are located within the boundaries of Henbury &
Southmead Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Henbury & Southmead NHP will be compared against the
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
Henbury
users who are…
Southmead
NP Area
Population**
Female
63.7%
63.6%
51.7%
Disabled
5.4%
5.6%
21.4%
Aged 0-15
30.3%
34.1%
22.1%
Aged 16-25
6.0%
6.7%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
36.4%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
27.2%
Aged over 65
BME
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
11.1%
-
50.5%
33.5%
-
-
-
25.7%
-
9.3%
-
-
-
-
16.5%
-
-
16.3%
14.0%
-
57.8%
20
12/02/2015
What do we know about the Henbury & Southmead
Population
 There is a higher than average
proportion of children at 22%
(Bristol average 18%).
 14% of the population belong
16%).
White British is Other White
communities?
 Low levels of community
cohesion exist in both wards
(respect, responsible parenting
and trust) and residents
perceive problems from antisocial behaviour (ASB).
 Fewer residents feel safe is in
Henbury and more Southmead
residents say they day to day
life is affected by fear of crime.
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Henbury &
Southmead Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Educational attainment rate at 11 years (Key stage 2 in English and Maths) is
improving and is similar to the city average in both wards.
 At 16 years, educational achievement (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) has
dramatically improved over the last two years and is similar the city average in
Southmead, and above average in Henbury.
Case Study: Benefits Advice
Sessions
• Run by Child Poverty Action Group
• Drop-in sessions.
Case Study: Art Class for
Children
• Run at Southmead Library by
library staff.
• Up to 10 children attend.
• Drop- in sessions
21
12/02/2015
Libraries
Henleaze, Stoke Bishop & Westbury-onTrym
• Henleaze
• Westbury
Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym libraries are located within the boundaries of
Henleaze, Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Partnership area
(NHP).
Census data for Henleaze, Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym NHP will be
compared against the equalities monitoring information held for each branch
library. The data represent active usage (where a person has used a part of the
lending service within the previous 12 months).
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
Henleaze
users who are…
Westbury-onTrym
NP Area
Population**
Female
64.2%
62.3%
52.1%
Disabled
2.5%
3.1%
15.4%
Aged 0-15
33.4%
30.9%
18.3%
Aged 16-25
4.5%
4.1%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
37.9%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
24.1%
Aged over 65
BME
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
13.2%
-
46.4%
37.2%
-
-
-
27.8%
-
6.0%
-
-
-
-
5.3%
-
-
22.1%
8.3%
-
63.4%
22
12/02/2015
What do we know about the Henleaze, Stoke Bishop &
Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Partnership area? (Census 2011)
Population
average proportion older people
at 21% (Bristol average 13%).
communities?
 8% of the population belong to a
Black or minority ethnic group
 Residents say this is the safest
area with significantly more
residents feeling safe and fewer
victims of crime.
 The area has very few young
offenders.
 The NP has the highest
proportion of Christians in Bristol
at 60% (Bristol average 47%)
 Community cohesion indicators
are some of the best in city.
 There are high levels of
volunteering.
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Henleaze,
Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym have some of the highest
educational attainment rates in the city that are significantly above the citywide
average for both Key stage 2 (English and Maths) and Key stage 4 (achieving 5
GCSEs A*-C).
Case Study: Crime Reading
Group
Case Study: Summer
Reading Challenge
• Run alternately between Henleaze
and Southmead libraries.
• 1500+ took part from the Henleaze
library.
• Up to 11 people attend.
• The busiest library in the City for
this activity.
23
12/02/2015
Libraries
Horfield & Lockleaze
• Horfield
Horfield Library is located within the boundaries of Horfield & Lockleaze
Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Horfield & Lockleaze NHP will be compared against the equalities
monitoring information held for Horfield branch library. The data represent active
months).
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
users who are…
Horfield Library
Female
61.7%
49.5%
Disabled
3.6%
17.7%
Aged 0-15
33.1%
19.8%
Aged 16-25
8.8%
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
43.0%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
15.0%
Aged over 65
BME
Religion (any)***
-
-
52.1%
-
-
10.3% of library users at
Horfield branch were
Asian/Asian British (9.1%
Horfield & Lockleaze
population).
13.2%
-
-
22.1%
-
NP Area
Population**
13.0%
7.3% of library users at
Horfield branch were Black
/ African / Caribbean /Black
British (9.6% Horfield &
Lockleaze population).
24.3%
-
59.4%
24
12/02/2015
What do we know about the Horfield & Lockleaze
Do libraries have a role
in creating safer &
stronger communities?
Population
(BME) (city average 16%). This is
the third highest % BME of all
 Lockleaze ward has a higher
proportion of BME residents
(30%) than Horfield ward (19%).
 The NP has the third highest
proportion of people not born in
the UK at 19% (Bristol average
15%).
 Levels of community
cohesion are fairly typical for
the city.
 In Horfield significantly more
residents are satisfied with
how the police and local
services are dealing with
crime and ASB.
83% are satisfied with leisure facilities /
services for all ages in Horfield and is the
highest in the city.
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Horfield &
Lockleaze Neighbourhood Partnership area?
improving and is very similar to the city average in both wards.
 At 16 years, educational achievement (at Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) has
improved in both wards; Lockleaze is just below the city average and Horfield is
above average. This improvement has been extremely marked since 2008.
Case Study: Knitting Group
• Volunteer- run at Horfield Library.
• Up to 5 people take part.
25
12/02/2015
Libraries
St George
• St George
St George Library is located within the boundaries of St George Neighbourhood
Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for St George NHP will be compared against the equalities monitoring
information held for St George branch library. The data represent active usage
(where a person has used a part of the lending service within the previous 12
months).
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
users who are…
St George Library
Female
60.5%
50.6%
Disabled
2.4%
18.2%
Aged 0-15
39.1%
19.6%
Aged 16-25
5.7%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
48.1%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
7.1%
Aged over 65
-
BME
Religion (any)***
-
10.5%
-
-
55.2%
-
-
16.1%
-
NP Area
Population**

6.1% of St George
library users were
Asian/Asian British.
 5.9% were Black/Black
British.
 3.5% were Mixed.
14.6%
14.7%
-
58.2%
26
12/02/2015
What do we know about the St George Neighbourhood
Partnership area? (Census 2011)
Population
 15% of the population belong
16%).
 St George West has a higher
proportion of BME residents
at 19% than St George East at
10%.
 The largest ethnic groups after
White British are Other White
and Mixed.
communities?
 Only 14% of the residents in St
George East feel that they can
influence decisions in their
neighbourhood.
 Only 47% agree that people from
different backgrounds get on well
together.
 Only 49% in St George West feel
they can trust people locally.
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in St George
Neighbourhood Partnership area?
Maths) is improving in line with the city and is average for the city.
 Educational attainment rate at 16 (Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) is improving in
line with the city and is average for the city.
Case Study: St George Library
Separate Latvian and Polish Children’s
Story Times are held at this library.
27
12/02/2015
Libraries
Stockwood, Hengrove & Whitchurch
• Stockwood
• Whitchurch
Stockwood and Whitchurch libraries are located within the boundaries of
Stockwood, Hengrove & Whitchurch Neighbourhood Partnership area (NHP).
Census data for Stockwood, Hengrove & Whitchurch NHP will be compared against
the equalities monitoring information held for each branch library. The data
represent active usage (where a person has used a part of the lending service within
the previous 12 months).
Key:
= More than NP
= Less than NP
= Equal to NP
Library*
users who are…
Stockwood
Whitchurch
NP Area
Population**
Female
62.8%
65.0%
51.7%
Disabled
2.1%
3.4%
21.6%
Aged 0-15
38.0%
36.5%
18.4%
Aged 16-25
5.9%
4.9%
-
Aged 16-24
-
Aged 26 – 60
33.5%
Aged 25 - 64
-
Aged over 60
22.7%
Aged over 65
BME
Religion (any)***
-
-
-
11.1%
-
49.0%
32.4%
-
-
-
26.2%
-
3.2%
-
-
-
-
3.7%
-
-
21.5%
4.9%
-
60.9%
28
12/02/2015
What do we know about the Stockwood, Hengrove &
Whitchurch Neighbourhood Partnership area? (Census 2011)
Population
average proportion of older
people 21% (Bristol average
13%).
(BME) (city average 16%). This
is the second lowest % BME of
all Neighbourhood
Partnerships.
 Second highest proportion of
Christians at 59% (Bristol
average 47%).
communities?
 Community cohesion indicators
are average or just below
average for the city (getting on
well together, respect, feeling
influential, sense of belonging
and trust).
 Perception of an anti-social
behaviour problem is below
average in Stockwood.
 Fear of crime is similar to the
city average.
How could libraries help improve educational attainment in Stockwood,
Hengrove & Whitchurch Neighbourhood Partnership area?
 Educational attainment rate at 11 years (Key stage 2 in English and Maths) is
improving and is similar to the city average.
 At 16 years, educational achievement (at Key stage 4 with 5 GCSEs A*-C) in both
wards has improved; Hengrove is now better than the city average, and Stockwood
just below average.
29
Appendix 10 - Eco Impact Checklist
Title of report: Libraries for the Future - Proposals
Report author: Kate Murray Head of Libraries
Anticipated date of key decision 4th March 2015
Summary of proposals:
The Cabinet Report outlines a proposed future model for the Library service, based on a
wide ranging city wide consultation, national research, an assessment of the needs of the
city & a need to reduce the current budget. The proposals set out a strategic approach to
the service at both the citywide and local level, and also give specific details on how the
existing provision fits within the future service model.
The proposals set out how the service will target our investment to deliver in the future.
The current library network has been assessed as follows:
•
•
•
Group 1: Libraries already delivering at a high standard
Group 3: Libraries which will not form part of the library network requiring
consideration for alternative use
A further full public consultation on the specific proposals for all the libraries across the
city is planned for 4th March – 27th May 2015.
Will the proposal impact Yes/ +ive
on...
No or
-ive
If Yes…
Briefly describe
impact
Briefly describe Mitigation
measures
Emission of Climate
Changing Gases?
Reduction in the
number of staffed
branches will reduce
energy bills, but
increasing
community
accessibility to the
buildings will
increase energy
usage in evenings
and at w/ends.
Library staff are currently
well briefed in usage of
the Systemslink online
Energy monitoring and
management system.
This gives
comprehensive individual
building energy usage
stats (electricity, gas and
water) and building
managers should use this
tool regularly.
Yes +ive
andive
Bristol's resilience to the
Yes +ive
effects of climate change?
As Libraries become
more community
focussed their role as
information points for
communities to
prepare will be
enhanced.
48
Consumption of nonrenewable resources?
Yes -ive
and
+ive
Increase I.T.
provision (selfservice and
broadband) will
increase energy
usage.
1.5 miles maximum
travel to the local
branch.
Ensure systems are run
as efficiently as
possible.eg: equipment is
switched off when not in
use.
Facilitates the promotion
of sustainable travel to
the library by foot, cycle
or bus- encouraging
health benefits to citizens
and reducing single
occupancy car usage and
associated fuel.
Production, recycling or
disposal of waste
Yes +ive The reduction in the
and - number of staffed
ive
branches will mean
less production of
waste but increasing
community
accessibility to the
buildings will
increase waste
production in
evenings and at
w/ends.
Ensure comprehensive
recycling systems
continue to be in situ.
Encourage reduction and
reuse of resources.
The appearance of the
city?
Yes Unkn Libraries identified as Ensure developers take
own no longer part of the environmental factors
supported library
into consideration.
network will be
repurposed/
redeveloped.
Pollution to land, water, or No
air?
Wildlife and habitats?
?
+ive
Community
involvement may
enhance usage of
locality libraries
grounds for
cultivation or to
encourage wildlife.
Encourage biodiversity
opportunities at locality
libraries.
Consulted with: Steve Ransom, Environmental Programme Manager
Summary of impacts and Mitigation - to go into the main Cabinet/ Council Report
The significant impacts of this proposal are…
Positive:
 Reduction in energy consumption due to reduction in number of staffed branches
 Reduction in waste production due to reduction in number of staffed branches
49

Enhanced digital provision may reduce travel, for example through increased
downloads
Negative:
 Potentially, increased travel by service users due to reduction in number of staffed
branches
 Increased energy consumption in libraries due to increased community access at
evenings / weekends
 Potentially, buildings where no alternative use is identified falling into disrepair
The proposals include the following measures to mitigate the impacts…
 Libraries should reduce travel impacts by providing appropriate information and
facilities for customers, such as bike racks and bus timetables
 Building Managers need to continue to use on-line energy management tools and
facilitate comprehensive recycling facilities at all library branches.
 Proposed community involvement with libraries should include consideration of
biodiversity opportunities in library grounds.
 The service should work closely with Corporate Property to carefully manage the
condition of any building that becomes surplus to service requirements
The net effects of the proposals are…
The mix of positive and negative impacts are anticipated to largely cancel each other out,
so there is unlikely to be a significant change overall
Checklist completed by:
Name: Claire Craner-Buckley
Environmental Project Manager
Dept.: Energy Service
Extension: 9224459
Date: 4.2.15
Verified by
Energy Service
50
Appendix 11: Bridge Cultural Innovation Programme – Libraries Consultation with Schools & Young People
BRIDGE CULTURAL INNOVATION PROGRAMME –BRISTOL LIBRARIES CONSULTATION WITH SCHOOLS & YOUNG PEOPLE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Context & Purpose
Bristol Libraries has recently carried out the first phase of their major public consultation on the future of libraries services in the county. As part of the
consultation process Bristol libraries wanted to contact Primary and Secondary age children, to engage with the library design process and glean their
thoughts and ideas.
Through our Bridge Cultural Innovation Programme, the Real Ideas Organisation contacted an agreed number of schools and engaged pupils to understand
their views on the future of the library services and ideas on improving them. We also agreed to work with named youth groups to engage in the consultation.
The following outcomes were agreed:
-
Evidenced engagement of children and young people in the consultation about the future of the library in their area and their ideas on designing a
library service.
Ensuring children and young people have had an opportunity to talk about their ideas on the library, voicing opinions on likes & dislikes; in addition to
discussing current use or non-use of the library services
To explore whether the library’s vison of : “providing a vibrant and sustainable library service designed with the citizens of Bristol that supports reading
& learning; health and wellbeing; employment & business growth and access to free information; for all diverse communities” is relevant and
complete. As well as establishing the importance of young people’s opinion in this process.
Summary of consultation
We contacted all 13 schools recommended to us by Bristol libraries and successfully carried out workshops with 3 primary schools. Schools contacted were:
Parson Street Primary, Victoria Park Primary School, Christ The King RC Primary School, Oasis Connaught Primary school, St Barnabas Primary, Cabot Primary
School, Knowle Park Primary , Oasis Bank Leaze Primary, Glenfrome Primary, Brislington Enterprise College, Oasis John Williams Secondary and Bristol
Metropolitan Academy.
The same workshop session was delivered to all groups. Session plans are attached in appendix 2. The schools that we successfully delivered workshops with
were:
 Parson Street Primary, BS3
 St Barnabas Primary, BS2
 Cabot Primary , BS2
From the 3 Bristol based youth groups contacted, we successfully ran workshops with 1 of them. This was The Prince’s Trust (The Fairbridge programme
(www.princestrust.org.uk/about_the_trust/what_we_do/programmes/fairbridge_programme.aspx)
Workshops were carried out during 25th November 2014 and 15th January 2015, a total of 42 young people were engaged in the consultation workshops.

Ages ranged from 8 to 18 years old.

24 of the young people were female and 18 were male.

There were 21 non users and 21 library users.

9 young people consulted were from youth group setting and 33 from Primary school setting.
Summary of findings
The answers are varied, ideas are creative. They prove interesting and are good to gain an understanding of how young people use the library, reasons why
they do not, and to look at ideas generated in order to make the library service more attractive to themselves, their communities and how libraries can adapt
current services and what they offer. Detailed responses to questions asked during the workshops are attached to this summary in appendix 1.
-
Interestingly, it was a challenge to engage with schools at both primary and secondary level. Responses from both Primary and Secondary schools
were not readily offered. We made 3- 4 phases of contact with all 13 schools with offers of engaging with the library consultation, a request to youth
organisations and people working young people & schools was also promoted through Bristol city Council’s Ways to Work email network (which goes
out to across Bristol & surrounding areas) to engage in the process and received no responses.
-
Feedback from staff spoken to stated that academic calendars are full and could not accommodate workshops, in other instances no responses were
gained at all. No responses from secondary schools were gained at all. Similarly two out of the three youth organisations who we contacted, did not
respond to requests of engaging with the workshops at all. During workshop introductions, it was apparent that not a great deal was known about the
city wide library consultations and the changes that are to take place.
-
Two Primary schools located within Ashley ward (44% of population are from BME backgrounds and hold one of lowest volumes of visitors approx.
3,304 to 20,759 visits), were rapid in their responses to engage in the consultation workshops. More specifically, Cabot Primary presented a group of
9 heavy readers where the majority of the group and their families used either St Paul’s library or Junction 3 at least twice a week. Enthusiasm for
books and reading was overwhelming and during the session new ideas for the library were enthusiastically presented. When asking for individuals to
partake in library workshops during assembly, the school’s Librarian explained that she was inundated with pupils volunteering and the group could
have easily been larger. One pupil in the group noted an idea of “taking more than 20 books out at a time” and the group’s description of the library
was by far the most positive in terms of language & what it meant to them.
Cabot Primary Feedback images
-
-
-
Reviewing feedback from the youth group (profiled by the Princes’ Trust as marginalised, disengaged with various social barriers) against the primary
schools’, it is worth noting that the groups’ non-library users (8/9 people) felt self-conscious and out of place in a library setting, this prevented them from
using the library more often or using it at all. Their idea to simplifying the registration process and have easier access to membership would encourage
them to use local library or central library service and linking library services with other services young people use proved a popular idea during their
session.
The relationship between school non library users appears to be more of a ‘comfortable’ one. Not a case of disconnection, but more a case of needing
“ I get self conscious when I walk into the
more free time to go, not having transport to go to the library and their families not using library services.
Generally perception of the library amongst young people is positive with many describing it as a
library. I wish it was a more inviting place to
go”
place to ‘get away from the world’, relax and learn. Young people go there to read and hire books,
but in most cases they did not go there to use PC’s or socialise, but generally agreed that access to
- 16 yr old female (Non library user)- Prince’s Trust
to pcs, laptops & digital equipment and the library spaces could be developed to benefit them,
their families and the wider community.
- Dislikes for the quality of the library service were minimal, but a common opinion was that that the Libraries’ appearance was dull and unwelcoming,
interiors not vibrant enough, with some libraries not being clean & needing improved toilet facilities.
Summary and highlights of feedback gained.
Stock- What’s in the Library
have a wider selection of books, latest children’s books, more genres to
choose from.
Increase the amount of PC’s in local libraries and have access to tablets, so
people can have quick use sessions.
Better quality CDs/DVDs to rent out/Download music at cheaper prices
Sell books at the library or set up a way to get cheap 2nd hand books.
Community- What could the library offer families & young people
Advertising the library services further. Create films/adverts/mailings to
households.
More regular activities for families, workshops, training, reading & writing
improvement – a better variety of act vies overall.
Activities for parents & children to do together ie- reading, book reviews,
poetry clubs.
Times specifically for families to come to the library i.e.– 6-7pm.
Make Libraries more of a social place for the community to come.
Cheaper priced refreshments, food & hot drink facilities .
Ideas: Engaging young people
Interschool reading challenges & reading competitions—the summer reading challenge is
popular.
Inspirational key note speakers/local authors visiting libraries offering reading afternoons
Clubs/events specifically for young people & ages groups, music and film are of real interest.
Keep library stock up to date with latest young person’s authors and trends.
Use young people to advertise services for young people (peer to peer ),i.e.- Films/posters
Design a library card competition for all schools to take part in.
Young person’s section on library website, where YP’s can design book covers, talk to other
library users etc.
Make process for library cards easier for young people and teenagers., Issue membership in
conjunction with other social memberships (link in with partners such leisure centres and gyms,
& cultural venues)
Space- How to use the library space differently?
Make the libraries more colourful bright & welcoming– make them
‘happier’ and comfortable places to be.
Better cleanliness & public amenities in local libraries.– I.e. toilets,
baby changing, cafes, & vending machine.
Use spaces to hold events, pop up shops, film nights, community
events.
More sections in local libraries, for reading, pcs, younger
children– similar to Bristol Central library.
Staff- What could the staff do differently?
Be more approachable and friendlier.
Additional staff during peak times, so they can assist people and
show people where books are, be more interactive with people
‘Employ’ younger people or have young people volunteer at the
libraries.
Staff to have fun and bright uniforms to make them
distinguishable.
* Staff to have fun, bright uniforms .
Summary of themes found in feedback and ideas
Recognition of young people as
valued users.
Financial Awareness
amongst young people
Increasing access for schools & young
people to take part in reading comps &
challenges.– a sense of healthy of
competition & achievement was apparent,
in addition to incentives for using library
services.
Develop relationships with young people
profiled as ‘hard to reach’ & ‘disengaged’
to break down barriers between them &
library
Access to cheaper book buying,
film rental & music download for
young people and their families as
well as an opportunity to buy
cheaper refreshments and food
whilst using library services.
Library brand &
Vibrancy
Digital Technology
Access to more technology and
libraries to ‘upgrade’ current
digital services as well as provide
additional resources – bring
libraries digital services up to
date. Library to promote and
enhance its profile as providers of
“innovative technology”.
Library card design to be
fresher & appealing to
young people- run a design
comp. Update Library brand
and makeover interiors so
they are bright and
welcoming
Engaging Audiences
Raising awareness of local library services,
through various mediums.
Provide fewer steps to library registration
process- almost ‘instant’ registration.
Adapt library environment s to become
community hub and social spaces;
strengthening the position of the library
as central to communities.
Fulfilling the Outcomes

Evidenced engagement of children and young people is illustrated through communication between RIO and named organisations; in detailed feedback attached
to this report and also through film footage of Parson Street Primary workshop.
 A group of 42 young people and children across school and youth group settings have been given the opportunity to tell Bristol libraries their thoughts and
ideas on current library service through a fun and interactive workshop led by RIO through our Cultural Innovation Programme.

We have established that the library’s vision “ providing a vibrant and sustainable library service designed with the citizens of Bristol that supports reading &
learning; health and wellbeing; employment & business growth and access to free information; for all diverse communities” is not complete and relevant in
relation to young people in Bristol. Young people do not consider the current library service to be a “vibrant and sustainable” service and the current library offer
for young person needs to be modified and updated.
Potential next step ideas
 To hold a library workshop event or a series of events; across Bristol Central library or selected local libraries to engage young people from school and nonschool settings. The event will allow further space for ideas and opinions on future library services to be presented and will provide an equal opportunity for all
young people to be involved in the conversation.

To find ways of increasing range of library stock for young people; using a group of young people to influence and shape the options of stock and the libraries
offer while considering the implications of cost for the library service.
 To work in partnership with a specific school (or schools) and its key staff and pupils – in a detailed context to develop future solutions for improved library
services in their area.

To investigate methods of Increasing awareness and engaging young people, schools and youth organisations with the current library changes and future of
libraries, in light of the lack of engagement throughout this process.
 For Bristol Library Services to explore the idea of developing library presence on various social media platforms; creating engaging marketing campaigns to
connect with a variety of younger audiences while celebrating/promoting the Library’s services in Bristol and using young people as the ‘face’ of campaigns.
 To explore methods of increasing library subscription among young people, by partnering with local cultural, arts & leisure organisations.
 To investigate and review the potential for selected libraries to adapt current environments to provide innovative ‘spaces’ such as makerspaces or hubs where
young people can learn and develop new skills ; to research and investigate socially enterprising/community impacting models to create a robust and sustainable
library service for young people and communities- using young people in research and design processes of potential ideas.
BRIDGE CULTURAL INNOVATION PROGRAMME – BRISTOL CONSULTATION WITH SCHOOLS & YOUNG PEOPLE
APPENIX 1: Detailed feedback of workshops groups.
Setting
No. of young people
Gender breakdown
Princes Trust Centre
9
5 boys/4 girls
Date
Age Range
Libraries used
9th Dec 2014
15- 18
Wick Road
Group has no additional relationship to the library.
SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK.
What does the word library mean to you?
Relaxing, Reading only, Printing, Job search, Information, Borrow books, Boring, A Social place, No meaning, don’t use at all, won’t use.
Library users (1 out of 9)
-What do you do when you go to the library?
Take neighbours children to read, print stuff out, take books and movies (6-7 books a month) Meet friends, read books
-How would you describe the library?
Place I can escape, Get away from the world, relax, peace & quiet. It’s an informative place, lots of information.
-What would make you use the library more?
Wider selection of books in specific genres, more activities for young people in the library.
Non library users (7 non users I partial user- not current user)
Why don’t you go to the library?
Don’t have the time, doesn’t enter my mind, Moved to an new area, not yet a member, not interested, PC’s are always really busy and spend too much timing
waiting around, libraries seem exclusive, Problems with membership (if I forget my card, they can never find me on the system) . The fines you get are not
flexible, too expensive for young people. Its always too hot in the library, not clean or tidy. People stare at you when you walk in, makes me self-conscious.
How would you describe the library?
Untidy, not welcoming - its too quiet, too many children making noise, embarrassing to walk into the library, quiet, informative.
What would make you go to the library?
Parents controlling children, so doesn’t disrupt my time there, more nonfiction books. Quality of DVDs, games that you are hire are bad, distracted by other
users, then you can’t watch the films you have paid for, more visual aids for people who are not able to read signs/directions properly. Quick use PC access, no
waiting around.
Ideas Generator activity
Stock – what’s in the library.

Different types of books, wider selection of genres.

Get better quality DVD’s & Games to get more people using that instead of Netflix or Amazon.

Increase security on PC’s to ensure safety when browsing & using personal data sticks.
Space- How to use library space

Make the space comfortable- get heating/air conditioning right, clean & smelling fresh- more inviting.

Create a ‘happy’ inviting space with more colours around the building.

Create an area for PCS that is away from the reading areas.

Quick use PC’s, hop on hop off for those people that just need to use the internet.

Create a Music room- where you can download music onto smart phones cheaply, safely & easily. Have a space where it almost has a youth club feel,
but not limited by age. Where you could learn about music, play music through headphones, relax.
Library staff- what could library staff do that was different?

Be more approachable & respectful to teenagers.

More helpful when you ask them questions.

Be friendlier and respectful to young people.

Libraries appear to be understaffed as never enough staff to help you, more staff at peak times
Young people- How can the library attract young people to the libraries?







Link library membership to other services in the city, like you do with an active Gym card. Maybe sports having access to sports clubs give you
access to the library too, so you don’t have to register separately.
Make the registration process more simplified, easier, too many forms, too much information is needed.
Design the library card so it can be more personalised- the flower design on the current one is not really attractive. Can you choose from a
couple of designs? Or create your own to make it more personalised have more a connection to the library.
Music Room- see above.
More digital equipment- can we have access to tablets for quick use/research. Can we hire cameras for digital projects or use design packages
on PC’s & laptops in the library- learn to use photoshop etc.
More activities/workshops generally- hire out the space to people to hold these.
Distracted/annoyed by children making noise- so can we have times specific times, when we know the library is children free. Or can more be
done to control naughty/loud children?
Community- what could the library offer young people & their families?



Crèche facilities while parent’s job search or hire books out.
More story times for parents & children, times specifically for young people & families, 6-7pm, read together groups.
Can you offer free or cheap hot drinks & refreshments in libraries for families/people that come in, so we can socialise together.
Setting
No. of young people
Gender breakdown
Cabot Primary, BS2
8
3 boys 5 girls (heavy reading activity)
Date
Age Range
Libraries used
9th Dec 2014
8-10
Junction 3, St pauls, Central
Cabot primary have taken part in Summer Reading challenge.
SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK
What does the library mean to you?
Books, Reading, an amazing place, reading, calm, comfortable, comic books, taking time out, having fun, enjoyment, computers, massive buildings.
Library users review (all)
-What do you do when you go to the library?
Use computers, read books, take books, home, read in the library, learn something new, stay silent, express yourself, look at the covers of books, sit
comfortably, read with my family, go with my family to read and get books out.
-How would you describe the library?
Quiet, amazing, cool, peaceful, welcoming, an escape, not very colourful, lots of different books, I like being alone- it’s calm and relaxing and fun.
-What would make you use the library more often?
(the majority of the group use either St Pauls library or Junction 3 at least twice a week already as well as using their school library)
More computers, more time to visit the library, if I lived in the library, more top rated/latest books, new books.
(As there were no non library users in the focus group, we asked how to describe the library to their friends and family or people that didn’t like the library.
As well as asking why some people may not use the library)
“There are all kinds of books, big, small, with words and pictures, it’s a good place to go to relax, take your time to choose books and read. It’s calm and quiet.
When asked why young people may not use the libraries the overall answer was no being able to travel to the libraries on their own and parents not
allowing them to go to the library. “some people may not be able to travel to their local library , their families don’t like reading, don’t realise the other
things you can do at the library”.
Ideas Generator activity
Stock – what’s in the library.





If we can take more than 20 books out at a time.
More books stocked.
Different types of genres/books for children and young people.
More selection or DVDs and interesting books.
More educational books.
Staff- what could library staff do differently?


More staff to help.
Can we get young people to ‘work’ in the library?





More computers and access to tablets/digital equipment.
Separate section for children and young people when using the computers.
“The St Pauls library needs more space, so lots more people can borrow more than 3 books”
More colour on the walls, to make it more colourful.
Better toilet facilities.








New design on library card- makes it more eye catching for young people.
Create a ‘hall of fame’ for the person that read the most books in a month- their picture goes up on the wall.
Rewards for reading more books.
Separate section for children and young people , so not distracted by adults.
Special guests that visit the library- authors/artists/etc.
The library could create a website where you design your own book cover and you can write your own book & print it.
A club that runs from 5pm til 6pm, so you can read with your parents.
You could make an advert (film ) about the local libraries.








Club for reading skills (both parents & children)
Activities for children while waiting for parents
Book review clubs for children and parents
Adult reading to babies room.
Free of reduced price food for people.
Free or used books for families to buy or take.
Café facilities/vending machines.
Poetry club, book clubs and blog writing clubs.
Libraries for the Future: Cabinet: v11
Setting
No. of young people
Gender breakdown
Parson Street Primary, Bedminster
17 (Youth Council members)
7 boys & 10 girls
Date
Age Range
Libraries used
15/01/2015
Year 5 & 6
Marksbury road
What does the library mean to you?
Books, reading, peaceful, learning, words, learning skills, knowledge, learning to read. Educational, exciting.
Library users review (6 users)
What do you do when you go to the library?
Read, learn new things, collect books, draw, homework, play on computer, research stuff, get better at rading and learning, get dvds, relax, sit down and read a
good book.
How you would you describe the library?
Good, fun, bright, colourful, peaceful, big, has computers, quiet.
What would make you use the library more?
(1 pupil used Marksbury road library 4 times a week, the rest maybe once a week)
Better book (quality of the books and then selection especially for children) if we could get the latest books, better pcs and IT equipment, if it was brighter and
painted blue!
Library Non Users (11 non users)
Have enough books at home, the books that I want to read I buy and read at home, I don’t have time, no transport and can’t get to the library, not interested in
the library, too tired and its can be too loud in the library with babies making noises. No one mentions the libraries, I don’t see posters for the library, so don’t
63
think of going there, only go there for special events or with school because other times, I have enough books at home and I get some from school. My parents
don’t take me and I live too far away to walk there.
As a non user can describe the library?
Its ok, boring, too far, it has books, but not enough of the ones I like.
If I had more time, if they had more reading challenges, more books, my mum says im too loud to take to the library and I live too far away to go more than I do.
If there were posters advertising the library and what is on in the library, more services for younger people?
Ideas Generator Activity
Stock – what’s in the library
 Different books
 More ipads/tablets
 Better games, dvds, toys, comics and music
 If we could buy music in the library
 Make the variety of children’s books better
“Libraries are good if you want to read books, so you
can get better at your reading and when you go to
school, you can move up levels very quickly and
become a good reader!”
Member of Youth Council, Parson Street Primary
School.
Staff- what could library staff do differently?
 If there were more staff to help
 If they were friendlier
64
 Clubs for young people, film clubs, reading clubs, magic clubs, magic events.
 Themed sections and each section is customised according the theme- ie Harry potter, Easter, etch
 Reading competitions to get people reading more, get vouchers if you read lots of books.
 More kid friendly, softer cushions and chairs for babies and young children.
 Every time you read a book, you get a stamp and the more books you read the more stamps you get. Get so many stamps & get a prize, more reading
challenges, like Summer Reading challenge, more reading competitions,
 Story time with authors reading to them, promotional events
 Design a library card competition across schools.
 Have a library party (!) so people could celebrate books and talk about their favourite books and have snacks, at Christmas open up the library and have mince
pies and talk to different people about books.







More sections within the library (age specific)
More tables and chair
If the library was brighter and different colours inside, have murals on the walls of different book covers,
More signs in the library so we can understand where to go
Better toilets and a café.
Pop up book sales, books fairs in the libraries themselves.
Really comfy areas with bean bags, where you can read in peace and quiet.
65
 Put libraries near schools, then more people would go.
 Games sections for smaller children, so parents do their job-hunting
 If they could advertise the library better so parents know where the libraries are.
 Get a library bus to go around to different areas, so who can’t access libraries people can get books
Parson Street Primary word cloud.
66
Appendix 2- Session plan
Introduction
Bristol Libraries are changing.
There are currently 28 libraries across Bristol; some are used more than others.
Bristol libraries would like to change the way in which libraries are used and understand what you think about libraries. Your ideas are important to them.
You can help create a modern library service for Bristol!
Activity 1
Brainstorming session on current library use.
5 – 10 min discussion on what a library means to them. Move around circle & record/interpret feedback.
Prompts- What is in a library? What do you do there? Who uses the library? Who can you meet there?
Under each heading capture feedback on individual post it notes for collation.
I go to the library
I don’t go to the library.
What do you do when you go to the library?
Prompts- Borrow books, dvds, cds, read in library, do homework, use
internet/computers?
Prompts- too far, don’t read, use internet at home/phone?
Prompts- Safe, welcoming, friendly, where you learn, happy, quiet.
What would make you use the library more?
Prompts- Safe, welcoming, friendly, where you learn, happy, quiet.
Prompts- meet friends, opening times, closer to home
Prompts- knew more about library services, meet friends,
67
Design your own library service task.
You have been hired!
By Bristol libraries to create a new library service.
Here is your chance to design your very own library service.
Activity 2 – Ideas generator activity
Providing sheets of paper & pens- ask groups to work together to generate ideas for an up to date library service.
Hand out visual resources to assist in idea generator
Think about the space- how can it be used?
People in the library? What can staff do to help, what could they do differently?
Stock of library? Different books, DVDS, games, etc
What could the library offer young people & their families?- workshops, safe spaces, clubs activities
How can we attract young people to the library?
68
Activity 2- Resource b
Space
How to use the library space?
Library
Staff.
What could people
Ideas Generator
inDesigning
the library
do to
a modern
library help?
service.
We want your ideas!!We
Designing
Young People
Ideas
Generator!
How to attract young
people and children to
the libraries?
We want your ideas!
Stock.
What is in the library?
Community
What could the library offer
young people & their
families?
69
Appendix 12: Map of Bus Routes with Proposed Library Locations
This map can be viewed in detail via the
Bristol Future Libraries web pages from
the 4th March
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/leisure-andculture/future-bristols-libraries-consultation
70
CABINET – 3 MARCH 2015
Report title: AVONMOUTH AND PORTBURY DOCKS - FREEHOLD
Wards affected: Avonmouth
Strategic Director: Barra Mac Ruairí / Strategic Director - Place
Report Author: Robert Orrett / Service Director - Property
1.
To approve the sale of the freehold interest in property comprising
land and building which were sold on a long leasehold basis to
First Corporate Shipping by the Council in 1991. The freehold
interest would be sold for £10m to First Corporate Shipping.
2.
To authorise the Strategic Director - Place to approve the legal
property transaction to conclude this sale.
a. Purpose of report: To report to Cabinet that due diligence investigations have been
completed, confirming that no new information has been identified to change the
recommendation to sell the Council’s freehold interest in this property to the Port
Company. To recommend that the freehold sale is approved.
b. Key details:
1.
The City Council sold in 1991 the business comprising the Port of Bristol
(Avonmouth and Portbury Docks) together with 150 year leases at a
peppercorn rent in all the land used by and directly supporting the port. The
Council retained a shareholding, through which it continues to receive a share
of the profits, and the residual freehold interest in the land, subject to those long
leases.
2.
At its meeting of 1 April 2014 Cabinet approved the proposed sale of the
Council’s residual freehold subject to formal external valuation advice that the
payment and terms represent best consideration, and conclusion of legal due
diligence including confirmation that the Council’s position as minority
shareholder in the port business is not materially changed by the freehold
transfer.
3.
External valuation advice has been obtained from Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL).
The content is commercially sensitive as publication of their valuation advice at
this stage would make it also available to FCS which is inappropriate prior to
legal completion of the freehold purchase. The advice does conclude that “we
are of the opinion that the purchase price of £10million for the freehold would
appear a favourable price for Bristol City Council.” The valuation report
confirms that the price represents the best price reasonably obtainable.
4.
External legal advice has confirmed that “a sale by the Council of the freehold
reversion to the various leases ….. would not have a specific impact on the
Council’s shareholding in the Company”. This conclusion is drawn following
previous consideration of the same question by this adviser.
1
5.
Due diligence research has been completed by Council officers from Legal,
Finance and Property for legal and other matters relating to the proposal to sell
the Council’s freehold. Nothing has been identified from the due diligence
which conflicts with the advice given in the report for Cabinet 1 April 2014.
6.
The JLL report is an exempt appendix and the summary of the due diligence is
an appendix to the Cabinet report.
2
AGENDA ITEM 6
CABINET
3 MARCH 2015
REPORT TITLE:
AVONMOUTH AND PORTBURY DOCKS - FREEHOLD
Ward(s) affected by this report: Avonmouth
Strategic Director:
Barra Mac Ruairí / Strategic Director - Place
Report author:
Robert Orrett / Service Director - Property
& e-mail address:
0117 922 4086
[email protected]
To report to Cabinet that due diligence investigations have been completed, confirming
that no new information has been identified to change the recommendation to sell the
Council’s freehold interest in this property to the Port Company. To recommend that
the freehold sale is approved.
1.
To approve the sale of the freehold interest in property comprising
land and buildings which were sold on a long leasehold basis to First
Corporate Shipping by the Council in 1991. The freehold interest
would be sold for £10m to First Corporate Shipping
2.
To authorise the Strategic Director - Place to approve the legal
property transaction to conclude this sale.
Background/context:
1.
Bristol City Council was the owner of the Avonmouth & Portbury Docks (the Port)
until 1991. The Council decided to sell the Port as there had been a long period of
substantial financial losses. Evidence was that shipping operators would not increase
business with the Port whilst the Council continued as port owners. The Council sold
the Port to First Corporate Shipping (FCS), the only party willing to purchase and
operate the port. There were significant risks involved: (i) FCS was formed specifically
to operate the Port; (ii) Whilst the principals had previous industry experience, this was
a new company without a wider business or asset base to support this loss making
operation; (iii) It was uncertain that the Port could be turned into a profitable business
thus there was risk that the large port property holdings may be diverted away from port
uses to general development; (iv) there were technical aspects relating to transfer of
statutory port authority status which need to be dealt with via legislation after the port
sale transaction. The Council sold FCS long leasehold property interests to provide an
element of protection against these risks.
2.
Selling the ownership of the Port land and buildings in the form of long leases
enabled the Council to retain some limited involvement with the property. The Council 3
also retained an ability to share in future profits of the new Port Company. The three
long leases were granted each for 150 years with peppercorn (effectively nil) rent. This
meant that all normal returns from the land by way of rents or benefits from occupation
are owned by FCS throughout the 150 year period. The leases provided some initial
management controls which fell away when the Harbour Revision Order was approved
by Government. Beyond these, the leases provide very little involvement with or control
over management decisions affecting the Port or the property. The leases do provide
for the core port operational area to continue in use as an operational port and entitle
the Council to a 50% share in any value above values for port, industrial or storage
uses if property is sold on subsidiary long leases for alternative uses.
3.
The residual freehold interest of the Council is a very minor share of the total
ownership value of the property. The external valuation advice provided to the Council
indicates that ownerships held respectively by FCS and the Council are in the ratio
249:1.
4.
Since the sale of the Port with the long leasehold ownership to FCS, there have
be a number of approaches by FCS to the Council seeking to purchase the Council’s
freehold interest. The Council has obtained external professional advice on several
occasions to consider its response. The current proposal started with discussions
between representatives of the Council and FCS in 2013. It became evident that FCS
were prepared to offer a purchase price for the freehold interest that was several times
greater than levels previously offered creating a once in a generation opportunity to be
considered by the Council.
5.
On 1 April 2014, a report on this matter was considered by Cabinet. The report
is attached as appendix A. The Mayor’s decision at the Cabinet meeting was:
1. That subject to 2. below, approval be given to progress negotiations to transfer
the Council’s freehold interest in all of the land held on a long leasehold basis by
First Corporate Shipping forming the Port of Bristol and associated land
adjoining, for a payment by First Corporate Shipping of £10m.
2. Proceeding with the freehold transfer is to be subject to formal external valuation
advice that the payment and terms represent best consideration, and conclusion
of legal due diligence including confirmation that the Council’s position as
minority shareholder in the port business is not materially changed by the
freehold transfer. Conclusion of this due diligence will be followed by a final
recommendation for the Mayor’s approval before a transfer is concluded.
Proposal:
6.
This proposal has been prepared to report on the completion of the action
required to implement the Mayor’s decision of 1 April 2014. Formal external valuation
advice has been obtained. Due diligence has been completed. Further negotiations
with FCS have been carried out, informed by the valuation advice and due diligence
conclusions.
7.
External valuation advice has been obtained from Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL).
The valuation report from JLL is attached as exempt appendix 1. The content is
commercially sensitive as publication of their valuation advice at this stage would make
it also available to FCS which is inappropriate prior to legal completion of the freehold
purchase. The advice does conclude that “we are of the opinion that the purchase price
of £10million for the freehold would appear a favourable price for Bristol City Council.”
The valuation report confirms that the price represents the best price reasonably
obtainable.
4
8.
A process of due diligence has been carried out. This has included obtaining
external legal advice that the Council’s position as minority shareholder in the port
business is not materially changed by the freehold transfer. Other due diligence has
been carried out by Council officers from Legal, Finance and Property.
9.
External legal advice has confirmed that “a sale by the Council of the freehold
reversion to the various leases ….. would not have a specific impact on the Council’s
shareholding in the Company”. This conclusion is drawn following previous
consideration of the same question by this adviser.
10.
Due diligence research has been completed for legal and other matters relating
to the proposal to sell the Council’s freehold. The range of matters that have been
reviewed is set out in Appendix B. The response to each matter is then shown in the
subsequent Appendix C. Nothing has been identified from the due diligence which
conflicts with the advice given in the report for Cabinet 1 April 2014.
11.
Once the due diligence had advanced sufficiently, further negotiations were held
with FCS. These negotiations established that:
a. The price of £10m for the purchase of the Council’s freehold is the
maximum amount FCS is prepared to pay. This will only be paid for a
sale of the freehold interest without significant additional restriction.
Historic restrictive covenants already affecting the Council’s freehold title
will transfer and continue insofar as they still have effect.
b. FCS is not prepared to consider part or all of the consideration for the
purchase of the Council’s freehold being in the form of additional
shareholding or profit share in the company. In the event, advice from
Finance officers is that such an option would not be recommended to the
Council. This possibility has therefore been taken no further.
12.
Proceeding with this sale achieves the outcome of good asset management for
the Council. The capital sum receivable is considerably greater that the current market
value of the Council’s freehold interest. No income return is provided by the current
freehold interest before 2141. There will be immediate return from the purchase price
by reducing the Council’s borrowing costs. The negotiating position of the Council has
been optimised by previous decisions not to sell the freehold, and the lack of specific
need for the Council to achieve this sale now or in the foreseeable future.
Consultation and scrutiny input:
a.
Internal consultation:
This report will be considered by Place Scrutiny Commission before being
presented to Cabinet.
There has been consultation with the following officers:
 City Director
 Strategic Director – Place Service Directors for Legal, Finance, Economy,
Energy, Planning, Transport and Property
b.
External consultation:
The principle of this proposal was report to Cabinet and considered at the
Cabinet meeting on 1 April 2014. The following were recorded in the decision
record:
5



Four public forum questions and replies (copies have been placed in the
decision record book).
Seven public forum statements (a copy has been placed in the decision
record book).
The Mayor noted that Cllr Janke had indicated at this meeting that she was
unable to support the decision. Cllr Janke noted the fact that formal external
valuation advice was being sought and suggested that scrutiny members
should be given an appropriate opportunity to comment before the final
decision was taken.
Consultations with First Corporate Shipping Limited.
Other options considered:
1. Retaining the freehold with no change in arrangements. This would not provide
FCS with the support they seek for long term further capital investment in the
Port of Bristol. This would be to the detriment of the city region generally. The
opportunity for additional current capital return from the property asset would be
declined.
2. Alternative changes to the freehold/leasehold property interests. There could be
other property title changes which would give business confidence to FCS, but
fall short of the unconditional freehold sale. The premium price would not then
be achievable by the Council, but the incentive to pay such a premium would in
effect have been removed. The effect would be to decline the premium currently
being offered, without financial benefit being likely for decades to come.
Risk management / assessment:
FIGURE 1
The risks associated with the implementation of the (subject) decision :
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
High
Low
Mitigation (ie controls) and Evaluation
(ie effectiveness of mitigation).
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
Whilst there is no mitigation it is
considered extremely unlikely that the
facility would close.
High
Low
Robert Orrett
1
A sale would mean that FCS no
longer has a contractual
obligation to keep open the
facility or to only use the property
for certain uses.
2
High
Further development of the port
depends on long term capital
investment. FCS will be reluctant
without an improved property
interest
Medium
Transfer of the freehold will improve
future prospects
High
Low
Robert Orrett
3
The transaction may have
adverse impacts that have not
been evaluated
Medi
um
Low
Detailed due diligence has reviewed
the overall documentation and issues
Low
Low
Robert Orrett
Sanjay Prashar
4
The transaction may not be
concluded
High
Medium
There is some risk as with any
property transaction. Concluding legal
work and achieving a transaction as
soon as is reasonable will help reduce
the risk
High
Low
Robert Orrett
Sanjay Prashar
6
FIGURE 2
The risks associated with not implementing the (subject) decision:
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
High
1
The significant capital receipt
would be lost.
High
The transaction may take place in the
future
2
An alternative property
restructure may be agreed
High
Medium The capital returns and financial
benefit will be much reduced
3
FCS investment priorities will be
diverted away from Bristol
High
Medium
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
Low
Low
Robert Orrett
High Medium Robert Orrett
High
Alternative property restructure may
provide a satisfactory position whilst
not releasing significant capital to BCC
Medium Robert Orrett
Public sector equality duties:
ii) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and those do not share it. This involves having due
regard, in particular, to the need to:
- encourage persons who share a protected characteristic to participate in public
life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is
disproportionately low.
Guidance:
* Insert a note on how the public sector equality duties are relevant to the
proposals and how these duties have been taken into account in developing the
proposals. Where an equality impact assessment has been undertaken,
summarise its findings here, and provide a link to the full document, or include
the equality impact assessment as an appendix. Where no equality impact
assessment has been undertaken, give the reasons why this has not been carried
out.
Freehold transfer
The freehold transfer is considered to have no identifiable equalities impact.
Eco impact assessment
The freehold transfer does not directly change any environmental impacts.
7
Resource and legal implications:
Finance
The report contains comprehensive financial and valuation analysis.
Upon the sale of the freehold assets to FCS, the current waiver on receiving
profit share on revenue as rental income will be reverted, the equivalent sum will
thereafter be received as a dividend payment; with no net financial impact to
BCC, subject to financial performance of FCS and payment of dividends.
In accordance with the Council’s Treasury management strategy, the capital
receipt can be used to offset the costs of capital borrowing to significantly
reduce/minimise the impact of capital borrowing/financing costs.
Advice given by
Date
Peter Gillett Service Director, Finance
23 January 2015
It is noted that the £10m capital receipt proposed is assessed by external valuers
as “the best price reasonably obtainable.” The receipt will support the aims of
both the City Council’s Asset Management Strategy and the Treasury
Management Strategy, and will contribute to any future opportunity for capital
investment in alternative assets.
Sale of the freehold would however, mean that council would forgo its current
entitlement to a share in any future uplifts from development potential - if the
value of land were to rise in future; the council would forgo its current entitlement
to receive 50% of the amount by which the value of the land is enhanced
thereafter, if FCS subsequently disposes of the land for a capital sum under
freehold ownership.
Advice given by
Date
Peter Gillett Service Director, Finance
23 January 2015
No comments on the proposal from the Corporate Capital Programme Board.
Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 applies to the disposal of any land
owned by the Council. Under S.123(1) The Council may dispose of land held by it in
any manner it wishes. Under S.123(2), except with the consent of the Secretary of
State, the Council is not to dispose of land under Section 123, otherwise than by way of
a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.
Valuation advice has confirmed that the stated price of £10m is the best available for
the Council’s interests in the land.
Advice given by
Legal Services
Date
Shahzia Daya / Service Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer:
23 January 2015
8
This proposal offers an exceptional opportunity to deliver a major capital receipt from
the Council’s property portfolio with no income reduction. The price proposed is
considered to be the best that the Council may achieve unless it waits for many
decades before transacting. Property due diligence has been completed and external
valuation advice obtained. Neither causes any change to the advice given to Cabinet
in the report dated 1 April 2014.
Advice given by
Date
21 January 2015
There are no Human Resources implications arising from the recommendations.
Advice given by
Date
Mark Williams, People Business Partner
23 January 2015
Appendices
A. Report to Cabinet - 1 April 2014
B. Due diligence matters considered
C. Due diligence reports
Exempt Appendices
1.
Valuation Report
9
10
Appendix A
Report to Cabinet - 1 April 2014
CABINET – 1 APRIL 2014
Report title:
Port of Bristol – Freehold Property
Wards affected: Avonmouth
Strategic Director: Neil Taylor, Strategic Director - Place
Report Author:
Robert Orrett, Service Director - Property
1.
That subject to 2. below, approval is given to progress negotiations to transfer
the Council’s freehold interest in all of the land held on a long leasehold basis by First
Corporate Shipping forming the Port of Bristol and associated land adjoining, for a
payment by First Corporate Shipping of £10 million.
2.
Proceeding with the freehold transfer is to be subject to formal external
valuation advice that the payment and terms represent best consideration, and
conclusion of legal due diligence including confirmation that the Council’s position as
minority shareholder in the port business is not materially changed by the freehold
transfer. Conclusion of this due diligence will be followed by a final recommendation
for the Mayor’s approval before a transfer is concluded.
a. To approve the sale of the Council’s freehold interest in land held on long leases by
the port company.
b. Key details:
1.
Sale of the Council freehold to First Corporate Shipping (FCS) will improve the
expectation of future economic impact to the city region by the Port of Bristol.
2.
The freehold owned by the Council does not provide any meaningful influence
over management or use of the land.
3.
There is no rental income under the leases which have 127 years to run, and
prospects for other financial returns from the leases are low.
4.
The financial offer of £10m provides the Council with a very full recognition of
the benefit being gained by FCS, well above the level indicated by technical
property valuation assessment.
5.
This amount can only be achieved by a transaction between the specific
parties. The value of the Council’s freehold on the general property market is
currently about £1m.
11
AGENDA ITEM 10
CABINET
1 APRIL 2014
REPORT TITLE:
PORT OF BRISTOL – FREEHOLD PROPERTY
Ward(s) affected by this report: Avonmouth
Strategic Director:
Neil Taylor, Strategic Director - Place
Report author:
Robert Orrett, Service Director - Property
& e-mail address:
0117 9224086
[email protected]
To approve the sale of the Council’s freehold interest in land held on long leases by the Port
company.
1.
That subject to 2. below, approval is given to progress negotiations to transfer the
Council’s freehold interest in all of the land held on a long leasehold basis by First Corporate
Shipping forming the Port of Bristol and associated land adjoining, for a payment by First
Corporate Shipping of £10 million.
2.
Proceeding with the freehold transfer is to be subject to formal external valuation
advice that the payment and terms represent best consideration, and conclusion of legal
due diligence including confirmation that the Council’s position as minority shareholder in
the port business is not materially changed by the freehold transfer. Conclusion of this due
diligence will be followed by a final recommendation for the Mayor’s approval before a
transfer is concluded.
The proposal:
Policy
1. Planning Core Strategy identifies the land outside the statutory operational port area as a
priority area for industrial and warehousing uses, with support in principle for
development for those uses. There are constraints in relation to environment, flooding
and highways. For the operational port area, First Corporate Shipping (FCS) is the
statutory undertaker for the port. As such, they benefit from permitted development
rights which grant consent for development on operational port land for shipping and for
the loading/unloading of passengers and goods at a dock or harbour.
12
Context
2. The Council owned and directly operated the commercial Port of Bristol at Avonmouth
and Portbury until 1991. The port was then sold by BCC to FCS with the aim of
improving the future success of the port and relieving the Council from the debts and
losses involved with it. The sale decision was in line with decisions taken by other
authorities in the same era selling operational infrastructure such as ports and airports to
commercial undertakings which were better placed to raise new capital and employ
specialist sector expertise to increase services and economic activity supported by those
operations. Ports had experienced particular challenges with labour issues and also the
impact of containerisation of goods changing the patterns of activity for deep sea
shipping and ports serving that market.
3. The Council sold the port business and infrastructure, the land on which the port is
situated, together with adjoining land used for related purposes and capable of some
further development. The total land area is about 2,100 acres. The land transfer was by
means of granting several leases on generally similar terms, each for 150 years at a
peppercorn rent. These allowed for interim arrangements whilst the Council remained
the statutory port authority and some influence in case the purchasers of the port were
unable to sustain the port operations and secure the major capital needed to turn around
the port business.
4. FCS has succeeded in placing the port business in a much stronger position. Between
1991 and 2007 throughput of goods increased from 4m to 12m tonnes, and that the port
supports approximately 7,500 jobs in the sub-region economy. FCS directly employs
around 550 staff and there are over 6,500 other jobs in the port. It is estimated that FCS
have secured around £450m of capital investment in the port. There are proposals to
develop a deep sea container terminal at Avonmouth which could create an additional
1,500 jobs. This would involve investment estimated at £600m.
5. There have been periodic approaches by FCS to the Council seeking to purchase the
freehold. UK ports are generally owned freehold by the port operator. This provides the
optimum basis as port infrastructure requires major capital investment which has long
operating life and very extended pay-back periods. The last discussion was in 2012
when the proposal was declined by the Council. The highest offer for the freehold
previously was £3.85m.
Freehold transfer
6. The stated objective for FCS to own the port freehold, is that they wish to invest further
into their business, but would only concentrate this on the Port of Bristol if they own the
freehold. Their position is that they would need to look elsewhere for further
development if they cannot secure the freehold. Investment decision makers view the
freehold ownership of land, as a more favourable prospect than leasehold, however long
the lease, and therefore it is considered that the sale of the freehold would improve the
prospect for long term growth and economic success.
7. FCS have offered £10m to purchase the Council’s freehold interest. The objective of
both parties is that the Council’s minority shareholding in FCS would be unaffected by
the freehold sale. The freehold sale helps increase the business performance of the port
in future. The Council will share in that improvement.
13
8. The Council receives no rental income under the terms of the leases, which continue
until 2141 – a further 127 years. Once FCS became statutory port authority, the Council
no longer has any meaningful influence on management of the port or land via the port.
There are lease obligations on FCS to keep the port open on competitive terms. It is
considered that the scale of the capital investment secured by FCS and the value to FCS
of the business provide sufficient reason for them to keep the port open on competitive
terms if possible. It is also the case that there is very little prospect of a landlord
succeeding in court for termination of such long leases for a claimed breach of covenant.
9. There is provision for the Council to share in future land value increase from uses outside
the core permitted uses. Having regard to the amount of the land already developed, the
character of the area and planning policy, the prospect for returns from this are
considered low. When the possibility of freehold transfer was reviewed in 2012,
recommendations were given that there was potential on some of the land for the
Council to share in development potential, particularly if land values were to rise in future
due to flood alleviation works. This encouraged expectations for future returns beyond
those actually supported by the lease agreements. If development is for the permitted
uses – port operational, industrial and warehousing – no value is receivable by the
Council until the end of the leases in 2141. All of the value and return prior to that
remains with FCS.
10. The current value of the Council’s freehold on the general market is estimated at £1m or
below. This would increase as the unexpired portion of the lease term reduces.
However, the meaningful increase in value occurs from a point in time when there are
around 40 years unexpired. If the freehold/leasehold arrangement were to be left
unchanged, there will have been a significant harm to the business sustainability of the
port many years before the financial growth in the Council’s freehold interest starts to
materialise.
11. The realisation of an amount for the freehold property interest above value which may be
attained on the general market, can only be attained from the actual leaseholder. The
reason they may pay a higher figure is because the improvement in the value of their
property ownership and business position is uniquely affected. Applying the normal
property valuation methodology to this situation indicates that a payment in the range
£3m to £4m may be reasonable. However, there is no a precise formula and the scale of
the overall capital sums involved in the port business are a reason why there has been
resistance from the Council to transact at that level. The offer to pay £10m is a very full
transfer of the benefit from the transaction to FCS.
12. The basis proposed for the freehold transfer is that it is unconditional. The intention is
that there would not be restrictions within the freehold on FCS. It is the agreed intention
on both sides to ensure that the value to the Council of its minority shareholding is not
impaired by this sale, and the Seabank power station is also unaffected.
13. The potential financial benefit to the Council from receiving £10m capital now, rather
than waiting decades is of major significance. The returns from prudent investment
could provide significant returns or capital appreciation. Taken in the context of the full
127 years the compound growth impact is capable of being extremely large.
14. If the recommendation is approved, there will need to be detailed due diligence and legal
drafting to confirm all details, before the transaction can conclude. It is not economically
prudent to invest in that work until the decision in principle has been taken.
14
15. During the due diligence period, full assessment of the detail will be made, with
appropriate discussions with FCS. The Council may explore scope for changes to the
shareholding arrangements, subject to agreement. Potential for future development
would also be carefully considered.
Scrutiny update to be reported verbally
a.
The proposal has been treated as commercially sensitive and therefore dealt with as
a confidential matter. There has been consultation with the following officers:
 City Director
 Interim Strategic Director – Place
 Service Directors for Legal, Finance and Property
b.
First Corporate Shipping
1. Retaining the freehold with no change in arrangements. This would not provide FCS
with the support they seek for long term further capital investment in the Port of
Bristol. This would be to the detriment of the city region generally. The opportunity
for additional current capital return from the property asset would be declined.
2. Alternative changes to the freehold/leasehold property interests. There could be
other property title changes which would give business confidence to FCS, but fall
short of the unconditional freehold sale. The large premium price would not then be
achievable by the Council, but the incentive to pay such a premium would in effect
have been removed. The effect would be to decline the premium currently being
offered, without financial benefit being likely for decades to come.
FIGURE 1
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
1
High
A sale would mean that FCS no
longer has a contractual
obligation to keep open the facility
or to only use the property for
certain uses.
Low
2
High
Further development of the port
depends on long term capital
investment. FCS will be reluctant
without an improved property
interest
Medium
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
Whilst there is no mitigation it is
considered extremely unlikely that the
facility would close.
High
Low
Robert Orrett
Transfer of the freehold will improve
future prospects
High
Low
Robert Orrett
15
3
The transaction may have
adverse impacts that have not
been evaluated
Medi
um
Low
Detailed due diligence will review the
overall documentation and issues
Low
Low
Robert Orrett
Liam Nevin
4
The transaction may not be
concluded
Medi
um
Medium
There is some risk as with any property
transaction. Concluding due diligence
and achieving a transaction as soon as
is reasonable will help reduce the risk
Low
Low
Robert Orrett
Liam Nevin
FIGURE 2
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
Low
1
The significant capital receipt
would be lost.
High
High
The transaction may take place in the
future
Low
Robert Orrett
2
An alternative property
restructure may be agreed
Medi
um
High
The capital returns and financial benefit Medi High
um
will be much reduced
Robert Orrett
3
FCS investment priorities will be
diverted away from Bristol
High
Medium
Medi Low
Alternative property restructure may
um
provide a satisfactory position whilst
not releasing significant capital to BCC
Robert Orrett
- encourage persons who share a protected characteristic to participate in public life
or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately
low.
Guidance:
* Insert a note on how the public sector equality duties are relevant to the proposals
and how these duties have been taken into account in developing the proposals.
Where an equality impact assessment has been undertaken, summarise its findings
here, and provide a link to the full document, or include the equality impact
assessment as an appendix. Where no equality impact assessment has been
undertaken, give the reasons why this has not been carried out.
16
Freehold transfer
The freehold transfer is considered to have no identifiable equalities impact.
The freehold transfer does not directly change any environmental impacts.
The sale of the freehold may reduce the Council’s revenue attributable to the rent on the
power station by £215k per annum. This income stream has been “discounted” to reflect the
time value of the annual receipt over the life of the 127 year leasehold to provide a value of
the income stream if received in full today of £3.8m. It is this amount which should be set
against the potential capital receipt of £10m. The rental stream could be protected as
therefore be collected as part of the dividend stream.
If the settlement sum of £10m was applied to reduce part of the Council’s outstanding loans,
the additional saving in borrowing costs (interest) would be approximately £450k per annum.
On the basis that the potential capital receipt exceeds the discounted value of the rental
stream by £6.2m, the offer represents good value to the Council.
Advice given by
Date
Mark Taylor, Interim Section 151 Officer
24/3/2014
There are no capital implications arising from the disposal except for the potential capital
receipt to be held for future capital investment in alternative assets.
However, the disposal of the freehold will prevent the Council from unlocking any potential
development value which might arise in the future, albeit that any development value is likely
to be restricted by the flood risk and the existing pre-emption agreement with the leasehold.
Advice given by
Mark Taylor, Interim Section 151 Officer
Date
24/3/2014
Due to commercial sensitivity the proposal has not been reviewed by Corporate Capital
Programme Board.
Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 applies to the disposal of any land owned by
the Council. Under S.123(1) The Council may dispose of land held by it in any manner it
wishes. Under S.123(2), except with the consent of the Secretary of State, the Council is not
to dispose of land under Section 123, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a
17
consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained. Valuation advice
must therefore confirm that the stated price of £10m is the best available.
In addition, whilst the freehold provides the Council with little direct influence over the
activities of the port and FCS, it does, as is apparent from the report, have some benefits
(albeit limited) and other impacts in more indirect ways (eg the obligation to keep the port
open; the right to share in certain disposals; the very fact that as freehold owner the FCS
are not able to deal as they please with the site). Rights which endure for the duration of
the long lease. We can only speculate as to how the area may develop over the next 127
years. An unconditional sale (ie one free from any restrictions as to future use etc ) will
mean that these rights/influences, however marginal, will be lost. The Councils only
remaining interest will be through its non-voting shareholding.
There are very clear advantages to FCS in acquiring the freehold, not least the apparent
ability to access funding for further investment. As a shareholder the Council might also
benefit from this. Nonetheless the Council needs to be satisfied that the £10m is
acceptable compensation for giving up its existing rights and interests in the property.
Advice given by
Date
Shahzia Daya / Service Manager and Deputy Monitoring
Officer: Legal Services
21 March
2014 d. Land / property
implications:
This proposal offers an exceptional opportunity to deliver a major capital receipt from the
Council’s property portfolio with no income reduction. The price proposed is considered
to be the best that the Council may achieve unless it waits for many decades before
transacting.
Advice given by
Date
21 March
2014 e. Human resources
implications:
The recommendations have no HR implications.
Advice given by
Date
Mark Williams / HR Business Partner
21 March 2014
Appendices:
None.
16
18
Appendix B
Due diligence matters considered
1. BCC Legal to contact FCS lawyers to identify any unforeseen aspects
2. BCC Property + Legal – consider any issues on demise boundaries and
variation
3. Shareholding documentation review - Could freehold sale impact on share
return?
4. Potential to receive payment by way of additional shares.
5. Seabank Power Station – review arrangements on “rent” and confirm no
impact of sale
6. Freeholder’s past consent on disposals for non-authorised uses, include in JLL
instruction
7. Community engagement by FCS
8. Review Deloitte valuation report (2012) and consider any points of concern on
sale
9. Impact of sale on BCC retained land – need for access rights, services rights
10. Points raised by Cabinet members at 1 April 2014 meeting
11. Harbour Revision Order – points to check
12. JLL Valuation – matters arising – further involvement
13. Original sale contract, management agreement and any other outstanding
points
14. Points raised by Cllr Negus
15. Henbury Loop interaction
16. Nature conservation area – outside sale boundary?
17. Deep sea port proposals – impact of sale?
17
19
18
20
Appendix C
Due diligence reports
1. BCC Legal to contact FCS lawyers to identify any unforeseen aspects
BCC Legal officers have been in written communication with the lawyers for FCS.
The latter has historic familiarity with the FCS leasehold interest having been the
advisers from the time of the original port sale, and onwards. Communication has
confirmed the extent of BCC registered freehold title.
No unforeseen aspects have been raised by the FCS lawyers.
2. BCC Property + Legal – consider any issues on demise boundaries and
variation
BCC Legal and Property officers have reviewed freehold and leasehold title
documentation, and title to adjoining BCC owned land. BCC Legal and Property
officers have visited the property, and inspected with particular regard to the
physical boundaries.
No issues or reason to propose variation to the established boundaries have been
identified.
3. Shareholding documentation review - Could freehold sale impact on share
return?
Instructions were issued by BCC Legal to Clarke Willmott to advise on this aspect,
due to that firm having previously considered the same point. Clarke Willmott
have reviewed their previous advice and confirmed that a sale by the Council of
the freehold reversion to the various leases would not have a specific impact on
the Council’s shareholding in the Company.
4. Potential to receive payment by way of additional shares.
This opportunity was raised during the Call-in inquiry. Response has been in two
parts.
FCS has been approached with the request to confirm the basis of a share based
consideration being offered as an alternative to a cash consideration. FCS has
confirmed that they are unwilling to make a proposal for payment by increased
shareholding.
BCC Financial officers have considered the benefit of payment in shares. The
conclusion of the advice, because the shares are not generally tradeable nor do
they carry voting rights is that Council should in this case opt for a cash payment
as this would be the lower risk option and allow the Council to access value
immediately, and not put value at risk. The lack of voting rights reduces the
capability of the council to influence decision making at the Port of Bristol and in
turn increases risk for the Council.
5. Seabank Power Station – review arrangements on “rent” and confirm no
impact of sale
19
21
Arrangements relating to BCC income arising from the Seabank Power station
were made with a waiver which enables BCC to receive its profit share related to
revenue as rent, if it so elects. On sale of the freehold to FCS, the waiver will fall
away and the equal sum will thereafter be received as dividend payment under
the profit share which will continue.
6. Freeholder’s past consent on disposals for non-authorised uses, include in JLL
instruction
Under the current lease arrangement, use of the Port is restricted to certain use
classes. FCS have made clear that its offer is only applicable to sale of a
fundamentally unrestricted freehold interest. The Council would no longer have
the protection provided by those covenants. In these circumstances the Council
as planning authority will control use using established planning principles.
Alternative future uses could have an impact on the adjoining property of the
Council.
JLL has reviewed extreme scenarios for alternative future uses, to “stress test” the
price offered by FCS in comparison with those scenarios. This approach has
confirmed that given the amounts shown, the probability of this happening, and
the optimistic view on the amounts of land included in these stress tests that the
proposed purchase price adequately reflects the potential for such sums to be
received.
One consequence of the sale of the Port would be the extinguishment of a
number of second charges which the Council has the benefit of as a consequence
of granting consent for additional uses under the three existing leases.
In accordance with standard practice each lease contains a clause authorising
various industrial uses. In addition the Council is obliged to give consent for
additional uses. In certain limited circumstances the Council is entitled to receive
50% of the amount by which the value of the land is enhanced by such consent if
the Port subsequently disposes of the land for a capital sum.
This payment is secured by a legal charge in the Council’s favour over any
relevant land. In the years following the grant of the leases a number of variations
were agreed largely as a result of vacant land within the Blue lease being
developed. To date no payments have been received. The Council benefits from
a second charge meaning that it ranks behind any prior charge so the Council is
not guaranteed a payment.
Sale would mean that no further charges could be created therefore the Council
would not participate in either payments secured by the existing second charges
or enhanced value released by further development of land for uses not covered
by the existing user clauses in the current leases.
Thus far approximately 10-20 such interests have been created, however to date
no sums have been receivable by the freeholder due to values linked to actual
uses which are deemed to be alternative uses, not exceeding market value for the
permitted uses.
7. Community engagement by FCS
20
22
The Bristol Port Company has three main sources of support for community
activities:
a. Funding via its Quartet Community Funds
Quartet currently has over £322,000 under management in Bristol Port
funds; interest generated is available to use at the company’s discretion to
help good causes. The company adds to the fund around January each
year and donations from the many port tours provided for free are added to
the Quartet funds. It is the company’s policy to focus this funding on good
causes close to Avonmouth and Royal Portbury Docks and to keep the
application process very simple to enable even the smallest, least well
established groups to benefit without bureaucracy.
b. Financial donations direct from the company.
The Bristol Port Company makes many direct donations to causes locally,
across Bristol and further afield.
c. In-kind support from the company
Including giving employees' time to support projects, donation of materials
and providing other benefits such as not charging for utilities used by
charities operating on port land.
Total funds in period 2007-14 in excess of £400,000
8. Review Deloitte valuation report (2012) and consider any points of concern on
sale
BCC Property officers have reviewed the Deloitte valuation from 2012. There are
aspects in the advice in that report which are not accepted. Opinion of BCC
Property officers has been confirmed by cross-referring to contemporary advice
from JLL.
Deloitte did not clarify the status of payments received from Seabank Power
station and thus treated as core rent. This is incorrect as the income is only
treated as rent due to a side agreement which will fall away if the freehold is sold
to FCS, at which time the equal sum will be received through the dividend
arrangement. Thus this element is neutral in effect upon sale. This inaccuracy
distorted Deloitte’s assessment of the value of BCC’s current freehold interest.
Deloitte reported “The land has the ability to unlock development value in the
future and we recommend the Council retain the freehold on this land. The land is
not required for Port Operations.”
BCC Property officers have carefully examined the situation, with advice from
BCC Legal officers, and sought input from JLL. The Deloitte advice is not
accepted, nor considered to be appropriate to the current situation.
21
23
9. Impact of sale on BCC retained land – need for access rights, services rights
Summary advice from BCC Legal:
The Port is currently leased to First Corporate Shipping Ltd under three separate
leases and the Council has reserved rights in the leases for the benefit of its
remaining adjacent property to ensure the adjoining property is fully operational
and fit for purpose. The Council will be seeking to mirror the rights reserved by
the Leases in the freehold disposal resulting in no impact on the Council’s
remaining estate following sale of the freehold reversion from an operational
perspective. It is also the case that the Council will reserve any additional rights
considered necessary to protect the future aspirations for use of its adjoining land.
It will be a condition of the freehold disposal that the Council retains unfettered
rights of access, use and services for all adjoining property in its ownership
thereby endeavouring to secure the status quo that exists at the present time with
the lease arrangements.
10. Points raised by Cabinet members at 1 April 2014 meeting
Cllr Janke noted the fact that formal external valuation advice was being sought
and suggested that scrutiny members should be given an appropriate opportunity
to comment before the final decision was taken. This report will be considered by
Scrutiny Commission. However, the external valuation report will be an exempt
appendix to be considered by cabinet members but the valuation report will not be
reviewed by scrutiny members.
Cllr Hoyt asked if use of palm oil as fuel in a port power plant could be excluded.
FCS are willing to agree a restriction to exclude use of palm oil as fuel in a power
plant wholly or mainly in connection with the port operational business. Any
proposal beyond this would be subject to the Council’s decision making as
planning authority. Statutory duties as a port operator mean that FCS cannot
contract to exclude handling of legally acceptable goods and materials through the
port.
11. Harbour Revision Order – points to check
The Port of Bristol Harbour Revision Order 1993 - plan for “designated harbour”
has been reviewed by BCC Legal and Property officers. No issues arise that
would be affected by the sale of the freehold to FCS.
12. JLL Valuation – matters arising – further involvement
Valuation and property issues have been reviewed with JLL and specific advice
provided based on stress testing scenarios, and in connection with second
charges. These are reflected in their advice.
13. Original sale contract, management agreement and any other outstanding
points
These documents have been reviewed by BCC Legal and Property officers. No
outstanding issues remain that would be affected by the sale of the freehold to
FCS.
22
24
14. Points raised by Cllr Negus
Cllr Negus raised several points at an informal meeting concerning port
operations:
1. Loss of potential to use the port in connection with tidal power or
similar from the Bristol Channel. Response – no potential exists
under current lease arrangements beyond the potential any port
customer enjoys protected by statute. This is unchanged by sale of
the freehold.
2. Responsibility to dredge approaches to port and for tidal Avon below
entrance to Cumberland Basin locks. These responsibilities are
within the Harbour Revision Order, not the lease. This is unchanged
by sale of the freehold.
3. Obligations arising from the original sale contract. These have been
reviewed by BCC Legal officers. There are no outstanding
obligations beyond those now within the Harbour Revision Order, not
the lease. This is unchanged by sale of the freehold.
15. Henbury Loop interaction
Context
1.
Proposals are being advanced to introduce passenger train services to
the Henbury Loop, which is currently only used for freight train services to
Avonmouth Docks.
2.
Port of Bristol has raised its concerns that reopening the Henbury Loop
to passenger traffic would affect access to the Avonmouth Docks as the road
access is via a level crossing which would need to be closed for around a
quarter of the working day.
3.
The existing property arrangement where Bristol City Council is
freeholder and thus landlord of the Port of Bristol provides absolutely no
influence on this situation.
4.
Neither the Henbury Loop line nor the level crossing are part of the port
property. The change factor in this situation relates to passenger train
proposals not port or freight activities.
5.
Level crossings are a national issue for Network rail in terms of safety
and risk management. They have funding for a programme to address
replacement, albeit on a long term basis.
6.
Rail transportation is highly regulated which supports consultation and
management processes for network change.
Analysis
23
25
A.
The landlord – tenant relationship between the City Council and the Port
Company has no bearing at all on the rail transport proposals and their
management. There is no reason to seek to connect the freehold transfer to it.
B.
The price negotiated for the freehold transfer is considered to represent
the absolute limit achievable for the transaction. If an unrelated obligation is
imposed on the transaction, it may totally prevent the matter proceeding. If
not, the impact would be directly reflected in revised price meaning that the
true effect is for the City Council to commit to the related costs.
C.
It is not possible to predict the outcome of the Henbury Loop proposals
at this stage. The Port Company is engaging with Network Rail. The eventual
technical needs, and source of funding will develop through this process.
There is no benefit to be derived from attempting to lock in arrangements
which effectively oblige BCC to meet cost at this stage.
16. Nature conservation area – outside sale boundary?
There is a nature conservation area south of the Portbury Docks land. This
further land is owned freehold by BCC and subject to separate lease
arrangements to FCS. There is no proposal to transfer the freehold of this area to
FCS.
17. Deep sea port proposals – impact of sale?
FCS has obtained approvals to construct a Deep Sea Container Terminal (DSCT)
although it is not currently in the processes of implementing that construction
project. FCS had all necessary property interests to proceed with that project
under the current leasehold basis, and their position will not be changed by the
freehold being sold to them.
24
26
CABINET – 3 March 2015
Report title: Neighbourhood Partnerships devolved budgets for highways
maintenance
Wards affected: Citywide
Strategic Director: Barra Mac Ruairi, Strategic Director, Place
Report Author: Peter Mann, Service Director, Transport
To return the final decision-making responsibility for the annual carriageway surface
dressing budget and the annual footway resurfacing budget to Highways with effect
from 2015-16 onwards.
To explain why decision-making for highways maintenance work programmes
(carriageway surface dressing and the footway resurfacing) needs to return from
Neighbourhood Partnerships to the BCC Highways Team in order to provide more
cost effective use of diminishing maintenance funding and take full advantage of the
new asset management system being introduced, whilst still taking into account local
people’s priorities and aspirations.
b. Key details:
1.
The annual work programmes for the carriageway surface dressing and
footway resurfacing budgets are currently determined by the Neighbourhood
Partnerships.
2.
The purpose of the Council’s highway maintenance budgets is to prolong the
life of the asset and/or to replace the asset at the end of its useful life. To
achieve this, these budgets need to be allocated on a citywide basis to permit
strategic data-led decisions to be made. They also need to be spent in the
most efficient way possible to provide best value for money.
3.
The way that funding for highways maintenance is determined by central
government is changing with a greater emphasis being given to the condition of
local authority assets coupled with an expectation that local authorities will
follow national guidance and good practice. In addition to this, the level of
capital funding for 2015-16 is significantly less than in previous years.
4.
The new asset management approach set out in the report will be proactive in
seeking suggestions from the Neighbourhood Partnerships at the most
appropriate time and will mean that more and better information is provided to
the Partnerships once the maintenance work programmes have been set.
Overall, the level of meaningful involvement that each community has is
expected to increase whilst Highways are given the flexibility that they need to
set the budgets and ultimately decide how they are spent.
1
2
AGENDA ITEM 7
CABINET
3 March 2015
REPORT TITLE:
Neighbourhood Partnerships devolved budgets for
Highways maintenance
Ward(s) affected by this report: Citywide
Strategic Director:
Barra Mac Ruairi, Strategic Director, Place
Report author:
Peter Mann, Service Director, Transport
& e-mail address:
(0117) 922 2947
[email protected]
To explain why decision-making for highways maintenance work programmes
(carriageway surface dressing and the footway resurfacing) needs to return from
Neighbourhood Partnerships to the BCC Highways Team in order to provide more cost
effective use of diminishing maintenance funding and take full advantage of the new asset
management system being introduced, whilst still taking into account local people’s
priorities and aspirations.
To return the final decision-making responsibility for the annual carriageway
surface dressing budget and the annual footway resurfacing budget to Highways
with effect from 1st April 2015.
Background
1.
The highway network is the largest and most visible of our physical assets. It is
used daily by the majority of the travelling public for commuting, business, social and
leisure activities. It is fundamental to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of
local communities and to the prosperity of the city as a whole.
2.
At a regional level our economic prosperity relies on reliable movement of goods
and people around the highway network. At a local level the highway network helps to
shape the character and quality of the environment and makes an important contribution to
wider local authority priorities, including regeneration, social inclusion, community safety,
education and health.
3.
Like any physical asset, carriageways and footways require maintenance to counter
deterioration. Poorly maintained infrastructure creates problems including increased risk
of accidents, congestion and disruption due to the need for emergency works. It is vital
3
that footways are maintained properly to enable people to move around safely and easily.
Management of highways assets
4.
In 2011, the Department for Transport launched The Highways Maintenance
Efficiency Programme (HMEP) and an associated review into potholes. The initiative
aimed to investigate the subject not just from a technical engineering perspective but to
consider the wider issues, including the impact of long-term maintenance strategies,
decision-making arrangements and the processes of reporting, prioritising and repairing,
all of which are relevant to this report.
5.
The Review was published in 2012 and focused on three themes, as follows:
 Prevention is better than cure – intervening at the right time will reduce the
amount of potholes forming and prevent bigger problems later.
 Right first time – do it once and get it right, rather than face continuous bills.
Guidance, knowledge and workmanship are the enablers to do this.
 Clarity for the public – local highway authorities need to communicate to the
public what is being done and how.
6.
A highway asset management plan identifies the current assets and develops a
framework for asset management to enhance existing good practices and improve the
management of the network. The 1200km highway network in Bristol comprises a number
of diverse assets and all of these need managing.
7.
The Council is working towards the introduction of a Transport Asset Management
Plan (TAMP) which will be implemented before the 2015-16 financial year. This will
involve the collection and assessment of survey data relating to the assets that we have
and their condition. The new asset management system, which will also be in place by
April 2015, will use this data to produce information concerning the residual life of each
asset and will inform the decision-making process regarding what repairs need to be
undertaken and when this work needs to be done. It is vital that the Council ensures that
this information is put to best use.
8.
The way that funding for highways maintenance is determined by central
government is changing, with a greater emphasis being given to the condition of local
authority assets coupled with an expectation that local authorities will follow national
guidance and good practice. In addition to this, the level of capital funding for 2015-16 is
around 30% less than in previous years. This means that if the TAMP is not properly
used, funding for Bristol may decrease further in future years.
Devolution of highways budgets
9.
Since 2010-11, Neighbourhood Partnerships have been responsible for making the
final decisions needed to set the work programme for these budgets. With regard to the
carriageway surface dressing budget, Highways have produced a citywide work
programme for each Partnership to approve the works in their area. The footway
resurfacing budget is divided by the number of wards in the city and allocated to each
Partnership on a pro rata basis. Highways then provide a list of suggested streets for each
Partnership to approve.
10.
However, this has meant that Highways have been unable to ensure that the most
urgently needed maintenance works can be carried out without having to divert funds from
elsewhere. This has been a particular issue in relation to the footway resurfacing budget
4
because some schemes cost more to carry out than the total budget held by individual
Neighbourhood Partnerships. As a result of this, some significant footway resurfacing
works have had to be funded from other capital maintenance budgets.
Proposal
11.
It is proposed that decision making for highways maintenance budgets (carriageway
surface dressing and footways maintenance) is returned to BCC Highways in order to
allow officers to still maintain the quality of the highway infrastructure to their best ability
with a reducing overall maintenance budget, using the traffic asset management plan and
to comply with national guidance and safeguard as best as possible future budgets for
asset management.
12.
However, involving local residents and councillors in the work of the Highways
service is crucial to the success of the programme and this proposal commits to retaining a
working relationship with NPs so that NPs can influence the list of roads being considered
for work across the whole highways maintenance work programme. Information about
budgets, schedules and delivery will also openly be shared with NPs. Engagement
between highways and NPs will continue at the right time of year to influence the work
programme.
Community involvement proposal
13.
Initial consultation with each Neighbourhood Partnership took place in early 2014.
This indicated that whilst they were supportive of changing our approach in relation to the
carriageway surface dressing budget, there were mixed views about the footway
resurfacing budget. Whilst three Partnerships supported the proposal to return the
decision-making responsibility to Highways, others were keen to retain involvement in the
process.
14.
As a result of the initial feedback received, we have developed a detailed proposal
for improving the opportunities for the Neighbourhood Partnerships to influence the
decision-making process. This will provide them with the ability to input into the process at
an early stage and for their views to be considered as part of the new system, whilst
enabling Highways to make the final decision and set the work programme.
15.
The new process to be introduced in 2015-16 will involve a footway network survey
being undertaken every other year. The findings from this survey will be fed into the new
system alongside reported defects, ward members’ views and feedback from
Neighbourhood Partnerships. Highways will ensure that ward members and the
Partnerships are asked to provide feedback at an appropriate time to ensure that it is
included.
16.
Once this has taken place, each Neighbourhood Partnership will be provided with
clear information that explains whether their suggestions are included in the final citywide
work programme and if not, the reason for this. Each Partnership will be provided with
citywide condition information and a report showing how their local area is performing.
This will enable people from the local community to gain a greater understanding of how
maintenance decisions are made and will reassure them that their suggestions have been
listened to and considered.
17.
This proposal will enable members of the public to have considerably more
involvement in the process than is recommended in the 2012 HMEP report. Under the
5
theme of ‘Clarity for the public’, the HMEP report found that local highway authorities
should have “an effective public communications process that provides clarity and
transparency in their approach” which should include “a published policy and details of its
implementation”. It also recommended that public satisfaction with road footway and
cycleway condition is monitored annually.
18.
The new asset management approach set out in this report will be proactive in
seeking suggestions from the Neighbourhood Partnerships at the most appropriate time
and will mean that more and better information is provided to the Partnerships once the
maintenance work programmes have been set. Overall, the level of meaningful
involvement that each community has is expected to increase whilst Highways are given
the flexibility that they need to set the budgets and ultimately decide how they are spent.
a.
Neighbourhoods
b.
Consultation was carried out with the Neighbourhood Partnerships in early 2014.
This took place prior to the drawing up of a firm proposal for improving opportunities to
participate in the process before the final decisions are made.
Option 1: Do Nothing – If no change is made for the coming financial year, the benefits
resulting from the introduction of the new asset maintenance system will not be realised
and additional costs will result from the need to undertake response works to keep the
highway safe. Maintaining the status quo would also mean that other maintenance
budgets would be distorted in order to preserve the devolved spend.
Option 2: Make carriageway surface dressing work programme decisions centrally but
retain footway resurfacing decisions as devolved – This may be more acceptable to some
Neighbourhood Partnerships, but it would not address the financial and efficiency
problems which the devolution of any highways maintenance budgets presents. The
footway resurfacing budget is also the larger of the two budgets currently devolved and
would be affected more by the need to carry out response works if non-strategic decisions
are made.
FIGURE 1
No.
RISK
1
Some Neighbourhood
Partnerships may be
disappointed that they no longer
have the final decision on
maintenance work programmes
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
low
Probability
medium New community involvement process
will be introduced to ensure that local
concerns are considered and
feedback given on requested work
programme entries
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
low
low
Highways
6
FIGURE 2
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
1
Non-strategic decisions on
maintenance work programmes
would mean that best use of
reducing funds was not made
and that additional costs were
incurred in order to keep the
highway safe
high high
Implement recommendation
low
low
Highways
2
Funding would need to be found
from other maintenance budgets
to maintain previous levels of
devolved spend
high
Implement recommendation
low
low
Highways
high
decision-maker considers the need to promote equality for persons with the following
“protected characteristics”: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity,
race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. Each decision-maker must, therefore, have
due regard to the need to:
i) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited
under the Equality Act 2010.
characteristic and those do not share it. This involves having due regard, in particular,
to the need to:
- encourage persons who share a protected characteristic to participate in public life or
in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
iii) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic
and those who do not share it. This involves having due regard, in particular, to the
need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding.
The aim of the proposal is to improve maintenance of the highway asset so that it is
managed more efficiently, which will in turn improve the condition of our carriageways and
footways for all users of the highway network. This should provide a positive impact.
There are no direct environmental impacts arising from this proposal, which considers
decision-making responsibility rather than the maintenance programmes themselves.
Indirectly, there may be benefits through improved maintenance, such as better provision
for cycling and walking, and more efficient use of materials, but the extent of any benefit is
unknown and may not be significant.
7
There are no specific revenue implications to the proposal which aims to centralise
budgets for a more coordinated spend of available funds rather than spend more or less
money.
Advice given by
Date
Mike Allen, Finance Business Partner
6th November 2014
There are no capital implications.
Advice given by
Date
Mike Allen, Finance Business Partner
6th November 2014
If this recommendation is accepted then the Mayor’s scheme of delegation will need to
be amended to reflect the changes outlined in the report.
Officers will need to ensure that decisions are properly recorded in line with the officer
executive decision recording process.
Advice given by
Date
Shahzia Daya, Service Manager, Legal
7th November 2014
d. Human resources implications:
There are no Human Resources implications arising from the report.
Advice given by
Date
Mark Williams, People Business Partner
9th February 2015
Appendices:
None
Access to information (background papers):
None
8
Report title: Green Capital Hybrid Bus Trial
Wards affected: Citywide
Strategic Director: Barra Mac Ruairi, Place
Report Author: Alistair Cox, Strategic City Transport Manager
1.
To accept the award of £1.4m funding from DfT for the Green Capital
Hybrid Bus Trial and to enter into a grant agreement in relation to this.
2.
To delegate to the Strategic Director for Place to proceed with the
procurement of and entering into a contract with a bus operator partner,
to enable the implementation of this demonstration project as set out in
this report.
To accept the award of £1.4M from the Department for Transport (DfT) as announced
on 9th January 2015 by The Minster of State for Transport, Baroness Kramer, to run a
trial of using technology to get Hybrid Diesel/electric buses to run in zero-emissions
mode in areas of worst air quality.
b. Key details:
1.
Bristol City Council has been awarded £1.4m by DfT to allow it undertake a trial
of hybrid electric/diesel buses commencing during Green Capital year. The trial
will test in operation ‘geo-fencing’ technology, whereby a diesel-electric hybrid
can run in electric mode in specified areas, such as a city centre low emission
zone or air quality management area.
2.
The following is a summary of the project outline:
• Bristol City Council to lead a 2 year project to trial geo-fencing bus
technology in the city.
• DfT to provide a one-off grant of £1.4m to the council to cover the price
premium of the relevant vehicles over the equivalent new conventional diesel
vehicles.
• The diesel-electric hybrid vehicles acquired for this project will be capable of
switching automatically to zero emissions triggered by a "geo-fence" based
on the GPS location of the bus.
• The objective of the project is to test this new technology in a real operating
environment for 2 years from delivery into service.
• Geo-fences would be set to match as far as possible the areas of the city
with the worst air quality.
1
• The council and its partner will collect and evaluate operating data about the
performance of the vehicles, e.g. their reliability and environmental
performance.
• The council will undertake to provide performance and other data (subject to
any necessary data sharing requirements) to the Department for Transport
with the intention of promulgating the information as widely as possible.
• The council will secure a bus operator partner to purchase and operate the
vehicles. The council will ensure that its project partner is prepared to be
bound by the terms of the project in terms of operating the buses in service
and collecting/sharing data.
• The council will ensure that all legal requirements are met in securing their
preferred partner and providing funding for the project.
• Recognising the challenging delivery timescale, the council will work with its
operator partner to have the vehicles in service as early as possible in 2015.
2
AGENDA ITEM 8
CABINET
3 March 2015
REPORT TITLE:
Green Capital Hybrid Bus Trial
Ward(s) affected by this report: Citywide
Strategic Director:
Barra Mac Ruairi, Place
Report author:
Alistair Cox, Strategic City Transport Manager
& e-mail address:
0117 922 2357
[email protected]
To accept the award of £1.4M from the Department for Transport (DfT) as announced on 9th
January 2015 by The Minster of State for Transport, Baroness Kramer, to run a trial of using
technology to get Hybrid Diesel/electric buses to run in zero-emissions mode in areas of
worst air quality.
1.
To accept the award of £1.4m funding from DfT for the Green Capital Hybrid
Bus Trial and to enter into a grant agreement in relation to this.
2.
To delegate to the Strategic Director for Place to proceed with the procurement
of and entering into a contract with a bus operator partner, to enable the
implementation of this demonstration project as set out in this report.
The proposal:
1.
Bristol City Council has been awarded £1.4m by DfT to allow it undertake a trial of
hybrid electric/diesel buses commencing during Green Capital year. The trial will test
in operation ‘geo-fencing’ technology, whereby a diesel-electric hybrid can run in
electric mode in specified areas, such as a city centre low emission zone or air quality
management area.
2.
The following is a summary of the project outline:
• Bristol City Council to lead a 2 year project to trial geo-fencing bus technology in
the city.
• DfT to provide a one-off grant of £1.4m to the council to cover the price premium of
the relevant vehicles over the equivalent new conventional diesel vehicles.
• The diesel-electric hybrid vehicles acquired for this project will be capable of
switching automatically to zero emissions triggered by a "geo-fence" based on the
3
GPS location of the bus.
• The objective of the project is to test this new technology in a real operating
environment for 2 years from delivery into service.
• Geo-fences would be set to match as far as possible the areas of the city with the
worst air quality.
• The council and its partner will collect and evaluate operating data about the
performance of the vehicles, e.g. their reliability and environmental performance.
• The council will undertake to provide performance and other data (subject to any
necessary data sharing requirements) to the Department for Transport with the
intention of promulgating the information as widely as possible.
• The council will secure a bus operator partner to purchase and operate the
vehicles. The council will ensure that its project partner is prepared to be bound by
the terms of the project in terms of operating the buses in service and
collecting/sharing data.
• The council will ensure that all legal requirements are met in securing their
preferred partner and providing funding for the project.
• Recognising the challenging delivery timescale, the council will work with its
operator partner to have the vehicles in service as early as possible in 2015.
a.
Internal consultation has taken place with the Place Directorate.
b.
No consultation has been possible in the timescale available.
No other option has been considered – the offer from the Department for Transport
has been assessed and considered a viable option to recommend the Mayor to
accept.
4
FIGURE 1
No.
RISK
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
CURRENT
RISK
(After controls)
Impact
1
Procurement of a suitable
operator
High
Medium Operator grant process being
High
progressed at risk to allow appointment
to happen immediately should the
Mayor approve this report.
2
Operational issues with Hybrid
electric operation
High
Medium
Market investigation have been
undertaken to confirm that the trial is
feasible.
RISK OWNER
Medi
um
Probability
Low
Low
Peter
Woodhouse
Peter
Woodhouse
FIGURE 2
No.
RISK
1
Missed opportunity to undertake
technology trial that could inform
wider roll out of such vehicles in
the city to achieve more
significant air quality benefits
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
High
High
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
None – funding would not be accepted High
from government
Probability
High
- encourage persons who share a protected characteristic to participate in public life
or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately
low.
5
Guidance:
* Insert a note on how the public sector equality duties are relevant to the proposals
and how these duties have been taken into account in developing the proposals.
Where an equality impact assessment has been undertaken, summarise its findings
here, and provide a link to the full document, or include the equality impact
assessment as an appendix. Where no equality impact assessment has been
undertaken, give the reasons why this has not been carried out.
An equalities screening exercise has been undertaken and there are no new significant
equalities issues that have come to light from this report. During and following the
appointment of the operator we will review the screening report again whilst also taking into
consideration information and consultation findings collected from previous projects with
similar components in light of the proposed bus services for the trial and consider if there are
any actions or opportunities that need to be taken.
Advice given by
Date
Jane Hamill, Equalities Advisor
19th February 2015
The significant impacts of this proposal are:
 This pilot provides the opportunity to test the technology that could have significant
carbon and local air quality benefits if deployed at a wider scale. Consultation on the
“geo-fence zone” will take place with Air Quality officers.
 Life-cycle studies consistently show that the biggest impact of a road vehicle occurs
during its use, rather than manufacture and disposal. Therefore, initiatives to reduce
fuel consumption during use are likely to outweigh the negative impact of additional
manufacturing and disposal impacts, for example in relation to the need for batteries.
 Some negative impacts will occur through vehicle production, diesel-mode operation
of the buses, production of electricity, and the need to dispose of the buses at the end
of their service life.
The proposals include the following measures to mitigate the impacts:
 If a wider application of the electric or hybrid vehicles is to follow on from this project
then the scope of the project should be widened to consider the generation of the
electricity to ensure carbon benefits are maximised.
 Electric operation should be utilised as far as possible, to maximise air quality
benefits
 Diesel engine specification should be Euro VI if possible, which will reduce tailpipe
pollutants in comparison with previous Euro standards
The net effects of the proposals are positive
Advice given by
Date
Steve Ransom / Environmental Programme Manager
28th January 2015
6
Finance
The forecast revenue costs of this project are expected to be absorbed within the existing
Transport department Revenue budget.
Advice given by Tian Ze Hao
Date 29/01/2015
Finance Business Partner
There will be no capital cost implications.
Advice given by Tian Ze Hao
Finance Business Partner
Date 29/01/2015
Not Applicable
When procuring goods, works or services over a certain value, the Council must comply with
the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. Provided these are complied with, and a full
compliant procurement process is carried out, the risk of a successful procurement
challenge will be low.
It is proposed that the Council will accept a grant from the Department for Transport.
Whenever the state (e.g. DfT) gives resources (such as a grant) to another organisation
(including the Council), it needs to be considered whether that grant may give that
organisation (i.e. the Council) an unfair advantage. If the grant does give an unfair
advantage, it may constitute State aid, which is not permitted.
An unfair advantage will only be conferred if the Council is an “economic entity” (i.e. offering
goods and services on a given market). In some circumstances, the Council is defined as
an economic entity, however it is unlikely to be defined as an economic entity in these
circumstances as its activities in connection with this project are not commercial in nature.
Accordingly, the risk the grant will constitute State aid is low.
Advice given by
Date
Sinead Willis/Solicitor
29 January 2015
7
N/A
N/A
Appendices:
Appendix A – Eco-Assessment
None
8
Appendix A - Eco Impact Checklist
Title of report: Green Capital Hybrid Bus trial
Report author: Alistair Cox, Strategic City Transport Manager
Anticipated date of key decision 3rd March 2015
Summary of proposals:
To accept the award of £1.4M from the Department for Transport (DfT) as announced on
9th January 2015 by The Minster of State for Transport, Baroness Kramer, to run a trial of
using technology to get Hybrid Diesel/electric buses to run in zero-emissions mode in areas
of worst air quality.
Will the proposal impact Yes/ +ive
on...
No or
-ive
If Yes…
Emission of Climate
Changing Gases?
Yes +ve
Hybrid buses have
lower emissions
overall than
conventional diesel
buses.
-ve
Production of
electricity results in
emissions
Consumption of
Yes +ve
non-renewable resources?
Hybrid buses will
consume less fossil
fuel than
conventional buses
Briefly describe impact Briefly describe Mitigation
measures
Overall emissions are
lower; source of electricity
to be considered in any
future expansion of the
project
Bristol's resilience to the
No
effects of climate change?
-ve
Production, recycling or
disposal of waste
Yes -ve
The appearance of the
city?
No
Pollution to land, water, or
air?
Yes +ve
Manufacture of the
buses will consume
resources, but
resources would also
be required for new
conventional buses
Any extra resources (e.g.
batteries) are mitigated
through reduced
operational emissions,
and recycling at End of
Life
Buses will need to be Majority of materials are
disposed at the end recyclable
of their service life
Operation in electric
mode produces zero
tailpipe emissions,
which are detrimental
9
to local air quality
-ve
Wildlife and habitats?
Operation in diesel
mode produces
emissions
detrimental to local
air quality
Buses should utilise
electric capacity as far as
possible; diesel engine
specification should be
Euro VI if possible
No
Consulted with: Steve Ransom, Environmental Programme Manager
Andrew Edwards, Project Manager – Air Quality
Summary of impacts and Mitigation - to go into the main Cabinet/ Council Report
The significant impacts of this proposal are....
 This pilot provides the opportunity to test the technology that could have significant
carbon and local air quality benefits if deployed at a wider scale. Consultation on the
“geo-fence zone” will take place with Air Quality officers.
 Life-cycle studies consistently show that the biggest impact of a road vehicle occurs
during its use, rather than manufacture and disposal. Therefore, initiatives to reduce
fuel consumption during use are likely to outweigh the negative impact of additional
manufacturing and disposal impacts, for example in relation to the need for
batteries.
 Some negative impacts will occur through vehicle production, diesel-mode operation
of the buses, production of electricity, and the need to dispose of the buses at the
end of their service life.
The proposals include the following measures to mitigate the impacts ...
 If a wider application of the electric or hybrid vehicles is to follow on from this project
then the scope of the project should be widened to consider the generation of the
electricity to ensure carbon benefits are maximised.
 Electric operation should be utilised as far as possible, to maximise air quality
benefits
 Diesel engine specification should be Euro VI if possible, which will reduce tailpipe
pollutants in comparison with previous Euro standards
The net effects of the proposals are positive
Checklist completed by: Alistair Cox
Name:
Alistair Cox
Dept.:
Transport Service, Place Directorate
Extension:
22357
Date:
28th January 2015
Verified by
Energy Service
Steve Ransom
10
Report title: Quarter 3 Finance Report
Wards affected: All
Strategic Director: Max Wide
Report Author: Peter Gillett (Service Director – Finance)
1. That the Mayor and Cabinet notes the contents of the Report and identifies any issues
or areas that they would like Scrutiny to give particular attention to.
2. To approve the changes to the Capital Programme detailed at paragraph 20.
1. To provide a progress report on the Council’s overall financial performance against
revenue and capital budgets for the 2014/15 financial year that were approved by
Council on the 18th February 2014. The report focuses on significant variances to
meeting the budget in 2014/15 in order to take timely actions to deliver a balanced
position at year end.
Key details:
2. Key messages from the Quarter 3 Budget Monitoring:
a) Whilst pressures of £1.673m are currently forecast, this is an improvement of £2.7m
since the last quarter’s report. It is anticipated that management actions will
continue to improve the forecast position during the last quarter of the financial
year.
b) The significant areas of budget pressure remain in the People Directorate and are
largely related to increased demand (Adult Social Care Placements) or in the ability
to transfer costs to ring fenced budgets (Dedicated Schools Grant and Housing
Revenue Account). However, through the management actions taken during the
last quarter, the overall position has improved by £1.3m. These pressures are partly
offset by savings on capital financing budgets.
c) The net savings proposals agreed by Council in February 2014 totalled £26.2m and
have either been delivered or are on track to be delivered by the end of the year.
d) Capital spending in year is forecast to be £190.8m compared with an original
budget of £248.0m as spending has substantially been re-profiled to later years.
e) Treasury Management activity is within the approved Treasury Management
Strategy
f) Income collection performance is now on target with an improvement identified
during quarter three.
1
2
AGENDA ITEM 9
CABINET
3 March 2015
REPORT TITLE:
Quarter 3 Finance Report
Ward(s) affected by this report: All
Strategic Director:
Max Wide
Report Author:
Peter Gillett (Service Director - Finance)
& e-mail address:
0117-922 2007
[email protected]
To provide a progress report on the Council’s overall financial performance, including
against the approved revenue and capital budgets for the 2014/15 financial year that were
approved by Council on the 18th February 2014.
RECOMMENDATION for Mayor approval:
1. That Cabinet notes the contents of the Report and identifies any issues or areas that
they would like Scrutiny to give particular attention to.
2. To approve the changes to the Capital Programme detailed at paragraphs 20.
Background
1. The Report provides information and analysis on the Council’s
and use of resources to the end of the third quarter of 2014/15.
for 2014/15 on 18th February 2014. The report focuses on
meeting the budget in 2014/15 in order to take timely actions
position at year end.
financial performance
Council set its budget
forecast variances to
to deliver a balanced
2. Finance continues to support budget managers to monitor their budgets, with a focus
on those budgets assessed to be high risk and/or subject to volatility due to factors
such as changes in demand or activity. This has identified the areas where costs have
risen quicker than forecast and potential risk areas. The Finance teams continue to
work with budget managers to rationalise and improve the financial management
reporting arrangements to ensure that budgets are in the right place and align with
management responsibility and accountability.
3
A - Revenue Expenditure
3. The Council’s overall annual revenue spend is managed across a number of areas:
a. The general fund providing revenue funding for the majority of the Council’s
services:
b. The Housing Revenue Account, which is reported separately to the general
fund, and is managed within Neighbourhoods;
c. Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), which is ring-fenced for schools funding,
overseen by the Schools’ Forum, and managed within the People Directorate;
d. Public Health, a ring-fenced grant, which must be spent to support the delivery
of the Public Health Outcomes Framework, and is managed with
Neighbourhoods.
4. Each area represents a significant element of the Council’s overall revenue
expenditure. Further details of the current spend position against budget is provided in
the remainder of this section.
General Fund
5. The following table provides a summary of how each directorate is performing against
the general fund revenue budget for the 2014/15 financial year. Actions are in progress
to manage and mitigate the identified budget pressures and risks. Strategic Directors
have indicated their commitment to deliver services within approved budgets. However,
it is becoming increasingly difficult to respond and manage in year pressures as they
materialise, as year on year budget reductions continue.
6. The following forecasts are based on actual expenditure to the end of December 2014
and Budget Managers estimates of future spending for the rest of the financial year.
The overall reported position for the Council’s spend against its general fund services
has improved by £2.7m. The current forecast overspend represents 0.4% of the
Table 1
General Fund Revenue Budgets
Directorate
QTR3
Revised
Net
Budget
People – Direct Service Provision
Place
Neighbourhoods
Business Change
City Director
SUB TOTAL – SPENDING ON SERVICES
People – Non Service / grants
Other Budgets *
TOTAL
£m
216.086
26.164
56.930
65.662
3.731
368.573
(2.297)
10.360
376.636
QTR3
Variance
(Under)/
Over
Spend
£m
3.475
(1.544)
0.702
(0.110)
0.033
2.556
1.417
(2.300)
1.673
QTR2
Variance
(Under)/
Over
Spend
£m
4.715
(0.302)
0.301
0.479
0.000
5.193
1.510
(2.300)
4.403
*Other Budgets includes one off change programme funding, capital financing, un-apportioned central overheads and
contingencies.
4
7. The table below provides a summary of the budget variances identified in paragraph 2
for the general fund:
Table 2
Directorate
People – Direct
Service Provision
Variance Notes
(£m)
2.450 Adult Social Care
Adult Purchasing Residential and Nursing Care – growth in
demographic demand as more older people meet statutory
eligibility criteria and complexity of packages of care. At the
end of quarter 3, we were supporting, on average 980
adults in residential care compared to a budgeted average
of 895. There are spending pressures in Nursing Care as a
result of higher than budgeted placements costs, which are
on average 5% higher than budgeted. This equates to
additional budget pressures of £2.641m
Home Care & Direct Payments – an increase of 1,195 hours
home care per week which equates to an additional
£0.932m expenditure per annum and additional pressures
across direct payments as a result higher than budgeted
package costs.
The pressures in direct care spend are being offset against
savings in other areas, for example staffing budgets.
1.363 Children & Family Support
Children’s Service and Looked After Children (LAC) – there
has been an increase in the number of special guardianship
& residency orders from 320 in April 2013 to 399 in
December.
(0.338) There is now a small projected underspend across other
services in the directorate (Education & Housing Solutions),
which are helping to mitigate the pressures across social
care
People – Non
Service / Grants
1.417 A potential budget pressure arising from the
statutory & technical funding changes governing the use of
Dedicated Schools Grant for non-school related services,
which is currently being reviewed to mitigate the impact.
This also includes the latest forecast of the potential cost of
the Supreme Court Ruling and the change to the statutory
requirements on local authority assessments of deprivation
of liberty (DoLS).
Neighbourhoods
0.702 There is currently a forecast pressure in Environment &
Leisure and Neighbourhoods which primarily relates to
meeting income targets within these areas. A review of the
budget in these areas is currently underway.
City Director
0.033 There is a small projected overspend within Bristol Futures,
which is under review.
Total pressures
5.627
5
Offset by:
Business Change
(0.110) Business Change is forecasting a small underspend by the
end of the financial year. There are forecast pressures
across ICT, due to the increased use of ICT across the
organisation, which continues to be carefully monitored.
However, this is offset by forecast underspends, particularly
within HR services. Since the last QTR, the directorate has
taken mitigating actions to manage previously forecast
pressures against income budgets in Legal Services and
Policy, Strategy and Communications.
Place
(1.544) Place is currently forecasting an underspend at the end of
the year. This is mainly due to:
 An improved forecast in relation to Concessionary
Fares
 Unbudgeted rental income at 100 Temple St
 A forecast underspend against the now centralised
stationery budgets
 Income Surplus’s in Development Management &
Engineering Design
 Parking Services Income Surplus
Other Budgets
Overall position
Capital financing decisions and active treasury management
(2.300) activity indicate in year savings of circa £2.3m .
1.673
8. The major areas of identified pressures within the general fund are within the People
Directorate. However, management actions taken in the last quarter has led to an
improvement in the overall position of £1.3m. The main areas for planning and
mitigation:
a) Adult Social Care has implemented a significant transformation programme which
successfully resulted in savings and a reduction in its net budget of £20m between
2011/12 to 2013/14. The Strategic Director (People) and Service Director (Finance)
have initiated a major review of social care budgets, including benchmarking with
core cities and regional authorities to both manage spend pressures whilst also
planning for the meeting the statutory eligibility requirements of the Care Act and
growing ageing population in the city. This is the area of highest spend in all local
authorities and there are national concerns about the pressure on reducing overall
local authority budgets to meet growing demand and eligibility. This will inform
future financial planning for the Council.
b) Within Children’s Care and Support Services, the redesign of the social work
function and investment in early help are targeted at reducing the number of looked
after children in the medium to long term, but the directorate is reviewing spend to
stay within budget in 2014/15 whilst in transition, and manage the increased
demand of rising child population.
Officers have and are taking action and developing interventions that aim to reduce
these pressures overall by the year end, and the impact of these is reflected in the
forecasts reported in table 1. Other mitigating actions to control expenditure include:
6



Reviewing out of area funded nursing care packages;
Reviewing of care packages following the installation of home adaptation;
Review of high cost care packages and additional approval requirements for the
highest cost care packages
9. Where directorates have identified risks and pressures within budgets, these will be
taken into account when framing the revisions to and updating of the medium term
financial strategy. Finance will work with Service Directors to ensure that sustainable
savings options are identified to offset these pressures
Housing Revenue Account (HRA)
10. The following is a summary of the HRA budget position as at the end of Quarter 3.
Table 3
Housing Revenue
Account
Current
Forecast
Outturn
£m
Current
Variance
£m
Revised
Net
Budget
£m
89.965
(130.919)
(40.954)
(57.244)
(16.290)
45.007
(17.986)
27.021
28.222
1.201
17.358
(1.000)
16.358
15.676
(0.682)
9.055
(2.732)
6.323
6.294
(0.029)
Other
0.182
0.000
0.182
0.182
0.000
TOTALS
161.567
(152.637)
8.930
(6.870)
(15.800)
Strategy, Planning
& Governance
Responsive
Repairs
Planned
Programmes
Estate
Management
Gross
Exp
Gross
Income
£m
£m
11. There is currently a significant forecast underspend within the HRA of £15.8m. This is
higher than the forecast underspend of £13.987m reported at the end of Quarter 2.
This is the result of the following budget variances:





The removal of a planned revenue contribution to capital costs of £14.5m in this
financial year as work and therefore spend on the HRA Capital Programme for
2014/15 has been delayed to 2015/16, including the new Housing Management
System and the cladding programme.
Forecast underspend of £1m in the Landlord Business Development Unit due to
underspends against salary budgets;
Forecast underspend of £0.775m in Strategy, Planning & Governance due to
underspends against staffing budgets
A forecast underspend of £0.680m against gas servicing due to lower than
budgeted costs
In addition, there are forecast pressures against the responsive and planned
repairs programmes of £1.2m.
7
12. The increase in the underspend between quarter 2 and 3 is as a result in the forecast
underspends now being reported against the Landlord Business Development Unit and
Planned Programmes.
13. Any under or overspend at the year-end will increase or decrease the HRA Reserve
and therefore this does not impact on the General Fund.
Dedicated Schools’ Grant (DSG)
14. In 2014/15, the Council received £183.162m Dedicated Schools’ Grant, which is ringfenced and passported through to fund schools. Schools that have transferred to
academy status receive their funding directly from the Department of Education.
15. An underspend against the DSG of £2.670m has been identified in quarter 3 and
reported to the School’s Forum, which relates to early years and high needs provision.
16. In addition, there are balances carried forward from previous years relating to the DSG
and plans, agreed by the Schools’ Forum, are in place to spend these balances,
including:
a. £5m on one of PFI projects;
b. £3.4m for the capital costs of providing additional places for 2 year olds
c. £3m on early intervention actions
Public Health
17. In 2014/15 the Council received £29.122m Public Health Grant. This is a ring fenced
grant and must be spent to support the funding of these services and the delivery of
Public Health outcomes. The delivery of these outcomes, alongside spend, is reported
annually to the Department of Health. The division is now forecasting breakeven on
the basis that £938k will be carried forward in reserves (in addition to £1,232k from
prior year) for expenditure in the next Financial Year.
18. The underlying underspend trend in Public Health will be required to contribute toward
funding additional services that meet the Public Health Outcomes Framework, as part
of the Council’s approved three year financial plan.
B - Managing Savings
19. The savings included in the MTFS and agreed at Full Council on 18th February 2014
totalled £26m in 2014/15, increasing by £36m in each of the subsequent financial
years. These savings have been built into the budgets reported above. The plans to
deliver these savings are being monitored through the financial year to ensure their
delivery.
8
Table 4
Directorate
People
Neighbourhoods
Place
Business Change
Held corporately
Change Programme (net)
Totals
TOTAL
£’m
6.700
5.625
1.887
2.209
3.500
6.328
26.249
GREEN
£’m
3.708
4.852
1.418
2.209
0.400
6.328
18.915
AMBER
£’m
2.992
0.773
0.469
3.100
7.334
RED
£’m
0.000
Key
Green – Action plan in place and savings have been delivered or delivery assured
Amber – Action plan in place and delivery of saving against plan being monitored
Red – cashable savings not being delivered – mitigating actions to be identified to
achieve balanced outturn
20. The table indicates that 100% of the savings proposals have either been delivered or
are on target to be delivered by the end of the year. It is currently forecast that the
Change Programme will deliver net savings sooner than originally planned. Any surplus
in 2014/15 not required to offset overspending elsewhere will be carried forward to
minimise risk in future years.
C - Reserves
21. The balance on the general reserve will be reviewed annually in setting the budget and
in the context of the MTFS and the risks to which the Council is exposed. The balance
on the General Reserve is £20m with no planned utilisation in 2014/15. This
represents 1.6% of the Council’s gross budget (5% of the net budget) and has been set
with reference to an assessment of the risks to which the Council is exposed.
22. At the start of the financial year the Council had general fund earmarked reserves of
£67.7m. Some of these reserves will be spent during the year, others are set aside for
specific purposes to be incurred in future periods.
23. Where reserves are identified as no longer required for the purpose that they were
earmarked, they will be transferred to the General Reserve.
D - Capital Programme
24. Monitoring indicates that capital spending in 2014/15 will be £190.8m compared to the
latest revised budget of £192.0m.
25. The following table sets out a summary of the proposed capital programme changes
and forecast spending by Directorate.
9
Table 5
People
Place
Neighbourhoods
Business Change
City Director
HRA
Totals
Original
Budget
£m
85.390
68.790
3.330
16.210
17.190
57.050
247.960
Approved
Changes
£’m
13.331
-2.213
2.329
-0.746
-5.040
-23.300
-42.301
Proposed
Changes
£m
-7.511
-3.869
-1.711
0.251
-0.829
-13.669
Revised
Budget
2014/15
£m
64.548
62.708
3.948
15.715
12.150
32.921
191.990
Forecast
£m
64.148
62.209
3.948
15.464
12.150
32.921
190.840
26. The Capital Programme Board (CPB) has been established to oversee and improve
the coordination of the Capital Programme, ensuring that projects are delivered within
their allocation of funding and planned timescales. Responsible Officers will be
challenged on the projected variances by the CPB.
27. The actual capital spend to the end of quarter three is £99m (£104m to 23 rd January
2015) and historic trends indicate that capital spending increases towards the end of
the financial year.
28. The following variations to the Capital Programme were considered by the Capital
Programme Board and are recommended to Cabinet for approval:
Table 6
People
Schools’ Programme
- Re-profile spend on additional pupil places to future years due to
o Extend project for operational purposes
o Scheme changes
o Delays in acquiring sites and changes to schemes as a
result of changing circumstances of individual schools
included in the programme
Sub-total People
Place
- Re-profile spend on schemes to future years as set out below –
- Energy – Primarily the re-profile of provision of Green Deal grants
- Transport – re-scoping of works, extended consultation periods
and delays caused by planning and site acquisitions.
Sub-total Place
Neighbourhoods
- The investment in Parks has been disrupted due to the inclement
weather the region has suffered over recent months. Spend has
been re-profiled to future years.
Sub-total Neighbourhoods
£’m
(7.511)
(7.511)
(3.869)
(1.711)
10
Business Change
- Bristol Workplace Programme spend re-profile
Sub-total Business Change
HRA
- Re-profile spend on schemes to future years, primarily new build
and enabling works.
Sub-total HRA
0.251
0.251
(0.829)
TOTAL
(13.669)
29. The following adjustments to budget were considered by the Capital Programme Board
and are recommended to Cabinet for approval.
E – Managing Income
30. Collection performance for Local Taxation now remains broadly on target following an
improvement in council tax collection at the end of the current period. With regards to
sundry debt collection, the promptness of raising invoices appears to have improved
significantly with collection rates being maintained.
F - Treasury Management
31. No borrowing has been undertaken during 2014/15. Net debt (borrowing less
investment) rose from £178m to £222m during the period primarily due to certain grant
funding being received in advance and expensed during the year.
32. The Council has complied with all treasury management legislative and regulatory
requirements during the period and all transactions were in accordance with the
approved Treasury Management Strategy. A more comprehensive mid-year treasury
management report is included elsewhere on the Agenda.
Risk Assessment
33. As outlined in the Revenue Budget report, presented to Cabinet in February 2014, the
most substantial risks within the 2014/15 budget have been assessed and will be
closely monitored throughout the year. These were identified as:
-
-
the scale of overall reductions to all directorate budgets (£26m identified and
included in the approved budget)
the impact of current economic conditions on income budgets (e.g. local land
charges and commercial property estate) and expenditure budgets (e.g. benefits
and homelessness)
housing benefit changes
Care placements & budgets, both in terms of activity as a result of demographic
pressures and also unit costs
inflationary pressure on contract and energy costs
corporate budget pressures
changes to business rate income
11
a. Internal consultation:
Strategic Directors, Service Directors and the finance team.
b. External consultation:
Not applicable
No other options are considered prudent at the present time.
There are no proposals in this report which require either a statement as to the relevance
of public sector equality duties or an Equalities Impact Assessment.
Environmental checklist / eco impact assessment
Not applicable.
Finance
a. Financial (revenue) implications – Service Director - Finance:
As set out in the Report, the Council is currently forecasting an overspend. Failure to
take action to contain spending within budget and to manage and monitor expenditure
and income could result in a requirement to draw on reserves. The level of reserves is
limited and a one off resource that cannot be used as a long term sustainable strategy
for financial stability. Budget monitoring and management, of which this report forms
part of the control environment, is a mitigating process to ensure early identification of
pressures and action plans.
Budget risks and pressures have been identified, as outlined above, and are currently
being managed and closely monitored. Finance staff resources have been targeted to
ensure that support for budget monitoring is concentrated on areas of particularly high
risk.
Set out within the report.
Not applicable for this report
Not required for this report
Not applicable for this report
12
Report title: Proposed extension to The Mall, Cribbs Causeway – Bristol City
Wards affected: City wide
Strategic Director: Barra Mac Ruairi / Strategic Director Place
Report Author: Colin Chapman / Local Plan Team Manager
That the representation at Appendix 1 is submitted to South Gloucestershire Council
by Bristol City Council in respect of the planning application for an extension to The
Mall at Cribbs Causeway (ref: PT14/4894/O).
To advise the Cabinet of the planning application for a major extension to the Mall
shopping centre in South Gloucestershire and to agree the response of Bristol City
Council.
b. Key details:
1.
For the reasons set out in the proposed representation, officers consider that
the proposed extension to the out-of-centre Mall would be harmful to Bristol
because of the impact on Bristol city centre and the transport implications.
2.
The proposal is considered to be at odds with national and local planning
policies which establish a ‘town centre first’ approach to the location of retail
development and other town centre uses. No need for a development of this
type and scale at an out of centre location has been established in any local
plan. The proposal is considered likely to be harmful to the vitality and vitality of
Bristol city centre and to have a harmful impact on existing, committed and
planned private and public sector investment in the city centre.
3.
The transport implications of the proposal have not been properly assessed in
the information submitted with the planning application. There is potential for
significant adverse impacts on Bristol’s roads.
4.
Concerns about the impact of the proposals are also being expressed by other
local authorities concerning the potential impacts on the centres of Bath,
Weston-Super-Mare, Swindon, Taunton, Newport and settlements in the Forest
of Dean.
AGENDA ITEM 10
CABINET
3 March 2015
REPORT TITLE: Proposed extension to The Mall, Cribbs Causeway – Bristol City
Ward(s) affected by this report: City wide
Strategic Director:
Barra Mac Ruairi / Strategic Director Place
Report author:
Colin Chapman / Local Plan Team Manager
& e-mail address:
01173525868
[email protected]
To advise the Cabinet of the planning application for a major extension to the Mall shopping
centre in South Gloucestershire and to agree the response of Bristol City Council.
1.
That the representation at Appendix 1 is submitted to South Gloucestershire
Council by Bristol City Council in respect of the planning application for an
extension to The Mall at Cribbs Causeway (ref: PT14/4894/O).
The proposal:
1. An outline planning application has been submitted to South Gloucestershire for an
extension to The Mall at Cribbs Causeway (ref: PT14/4894/O). South Gloucestershire
Council has consulted Bristol City Council on the proposals. This report proposes that an
objection should be made.
2. The description of the development is:
“Alteration and extension of The Mall including the erection of new buildings for uses within
Use Classes A1-A5 (shops, financial & professional services, restaurants & cafes, drinking
establishments and hot food takeaway), D1 (nonresidential institutions) and D2 (assembly &
leisure), C1 (hotel), C3 (dwellings comprising apartments), provision of a new multi-storey
car park and alterations to existing entrances. Erection of a new bus station including uses
within Use Classes A1-A5. Provision of new public realm, including public space and
landscaped areas. Provision of new roads and pedestrian routes and cycle ways, including
a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over Merlin Road, and other ancillary works and
operations. Temporary works including provision of temporary bus station comprising works
to existing surface car parking areas and temporary contractor and car parking compounds
and associated facilities”.
Details of the application can be inspected via the South Gloucestershire Council web site at
http://developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/ - reference PT14/4894/O.
Documents accompanying the planning application include a planning and retail statement
and an environmental statement which includes a transport assessment.
The Assistant Mayor (Place) and senior Bristol City Council officers received a
pre-application briefing on the proposals from the applicants on 24 th October 2014.
3. The proposed extension would be located at the existing Mall, situated on Merlin Road
which leads directly to Junction 17 of the M5 motorway approximately half a mile away. The
Mall is on the edge of the urban area about 6 miles from Bristol city centre.
4. In summary, the proposals would comprise:








30,230 - 35,250m2 shops, including a new anchor department store
6,600 - 8,980 m2 services/restaurants and cafes
120 room hotel
4,000 – 7,620 m2 leisure
21,000 – 24,270 m2 other floorspace (service corridors, circulation space, plant rooms,
stairwells, ancillary accommodation such as WCs)
Multi-story car park – 1,500 replacement spaces
New bus station
620 m2 community facilities
Background
5. Proposals for the development of an out-of-centre shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway
first came under consideration in the 1980s and The Mall opened in 1998. The John Lewis
store relocated from its previous location on Horsefair in Bristol city centre when the Mall
opened. Since the Mall was opened a significant proportion of retail expenditure within
Bristol city centre’s catchment area has been diverted to that out-of-centre location.
Planning policy
6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a ‘town centre first’ approach to
planning for main town centre uses such as shops, restaurants, hotels and leisure. It
requires local plans to recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue
policies to support their viability and vitality, as well as defining a network and hierarchy of
centres. The NPPF confirms that existing out-of-centre developments, comprising or
including main town centre uses, do not constitute town centres.
7. The NPPF also sets out sequential and impact tests to be met for out-of-centre
development that does not accord with a local plan. If proposals do not meet the tests, then
permission should be refused.
8. The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy sets out a hierarchy of centres in that district.
The Core Strategy confirms the out-of-centre status of The Mall at Cribbs Causeway and it is
therefore not a centre in the hierarchy. Policy CS14 of the South Gloucestershire Core
Strategy directs retail development to centres in the hierarchy. It makes no provision for
major expansion of the Mall.
9. The Bristol Local Plan Core Strategy sets out a retail hierarchy with Bristol city centre at its
head. The Core Strategy says that Bristol’s role as a regional focus will be promoted and
strengthened. The Bristol Central Area Plan, which has recently been confirmed as sound
by a planning inspector, sets out proposals and policies for retail development in the city
centre, with a particular focus on the continued growth and regeneration of Bristol Shopping
Quarter (Broadmead, Cabot Circus and The Galleries).
Implications for Bristol
10. The application proposals would result in a huge scale development of main town centre
uses - over 50,000m2 - at an acknowledged out-of-centre location. The Mall would be
increased in size by about 50% greatly increasing the number of shops and services located
there, including the provision of a third anchor department store. It would result in the
creation of an out-of-centre shopping facility tantamount to a large town’s scale and range
within the catchment of Bristol city centre.
11. Appendix 1 of this report sets out a proposed representation for this Council to make on
the planning application. For the reasons set out in the proposed representation, officers
consider that the proposed extension to the Mall would be harmful to Bristol because of the
impact on Bristol city centre and the transport implications of the proposal. The key points
are:

The proposal is at odds with national and local planning policies which establish a ‘town
centre first’ approach to the location of retail development and other town centre uses.
No need for a development of this type and scale at an out of centre location has been
established in any local plan.

The proposals are not consistent with the sequential test in national planning policy –
they fail to adopt the ‘town centre first’ approach. Uses of the type proposed could readily
be located in Bristol city centre or in other centres within the large catchment area of the
Mall.

The Council’s retail consultant has set out the reasons why the applicants’ assessment
of retail impact is wholly inadequate such that the tests in national policy have not been
properly addressed (see Annex 1 of the proposed representation). The proposals would
divert expenditure from Bristol city centre. This would be likely to adversely affect its
vitality and viability. As the Bristol City Centre Retail Study 2013 has indicated, it is also
expected that such a large scale out-of-centre development would impact on the
potential for plan-led development in Bristol city centre. Investor confidence would be
harmed and development proposals would be put at risk.

The proposals are considered to be inconsistent with the National Planning Policy
Framework’s approach to promoting sustainable transport. The transport implications of
the proposal have not been properly assessed in the information submitted with the
planning application. There is potential for significant adverse impacts on Bristol’s roads.
It is also noted that the Highways Agency has raised concerns about the potential for
impact on the motorway network. Detailed consideration of transport issues is included
within Annex 2 of the proposed representation.
Implications for other areas
12. Objections to the proposals have been submitted by local authorities who raise concerns
about impacts of the application proposals on the centres of Bath, Weston-Super-Mare,
Taunton, Newport, Swindon and centres in Forest of Dean district. Commercial interests
have also made objections regarding the impact of the proposals on city and town centres.
These are available to view on the South Gloucestershire Council web site (see paragraph 2
above).
a.
Transport Development Management – see Annex 2 of proposed representation
b.
N/A
As the planning applications proposals are considered harmful to the interests of Bristol, no
other options to the recommendation in this report have been considered.
FIGURE 1
No.
RISK
1
None
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
Probability
N/A
N/A
n/a
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
N/A
N/A
FIGURE 2
No.
RISK
1
INHERENT
RISK
(Before controls)
Impact
If the City Council does not makes High
its views known South
Gloucestershire Council will not
be able to take them into account
in determining the planning
application
Probability
High
CURRENT
RISK
RISK OWNER
(After controls)
Impact
Probability
High
High
The recommendation of this report is that the Council submits representations on a planning
application in a neighbouring authority’s area. The decision on the application lies with that
authority. Therefore, no equality impact assessment is required regarding this Council’s
decision to make a representation.
The recommendation is not considered to have implications regarding the need to eliminate
discrimination, harassment, victimisation or any other conduct prohibited under the Equality
Act 2010 and does not have implications regarding the advancement of equality of
opportunity, fostering good relations, tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.
The recommendation of this report is that the Council submits comments on a planning
application in a neighbouring authority. The decision on the application lies with that
authority. Therefore, no eco impact assessment is required regarding this Council’s
decision.
The recommendation of the report is that the Council submits representations on the
planning application in the neighbouring local planning authority. Bristol City Council is not
the decision maker on the proposals. The submission of representations is not an action
which has financial, legal or human resource implications, as listed below.
Finance
Submitting comments on the planning application does not have any revenue implications.
Submitting comments on the planning application does not have any capital implications.
N/A
There are no legal implications arising from the submission of comments on the planning
application.
There are no land/property implications arising from the submission of comments on the
planning application.
There are no human resource implications arising from the submission of comments on the
planning application.
Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Planning application reference PT14/4894/O Proposed extension to The Mall,
Cribbs Causeway: Proposed representation of Bristol City Council
None.
S:\Reports\2011-12\Executives 2011-2012\Cabinet\general\decision making\cabinet report format.odt
Appendix 1
Planning application reference PT14/4894/O - Proposed extension to The Mall, Cribbs Causeway
Proposed Representation of Bristol City Council
1. Bristol City Council strongly objects to the application. South Gloucestershire Council is
requested to refuse to grant planning permission for the reasons explained below:
National Planning Policy Framework
2. National planning policy aims at ensuring the vitality of town centres (NPPF paragraphs 23
– 27). The NPPF is clear that existing out-of-centre development comprising or including
main town centre uses do not constitute town centres (NPPF Annex 2 – ‘Town Centre’).
The application proposals would result in a huge scale development of main town centre
uses at an out-of-centre location. This would clearly be at odds with the Government’s
‘town centre first’ policy, the importance of which has recently been reemphasised by
ministers (DCLG Planning Update Newsletter January 2015). As discussed below, the
proposals fail the sequential test set out in the NPPF and would have a significantly harmful
impact on existing centres.
3. The National Planning Policy Framework stresses a set of key principles which should
underpin both plan-making and decision taking (NPPF paragraph 17). One of those key
principles is that planning should be ‘genuinely plan-led’. The NPPF’s section on ensuring
the vitality of town centres says that planning policies should be positive, promote
competitive town centres environments and set out policies for the management and
growth of centres. The recent and up to date local plans for both South Gloucestershire
and Bristol set out this positive, centres-based approach.
4. The application proposals are entirely inconsistent with these plan-led approaches and
conflict with this key national principle. No identified needs for retail development of this
scale in this out-of-centre location have been established in the recently adopted South
Gloucestershire Core Strategy or any other local plan. The application proposals fail to be
plan-led and would act to undermine plan-led approaches to town centres.
Local Plan policy
5. The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Policy CS14 sets out a hierarchy of centres and
directs retail development to those centres. The Mall is not included in the hierarchy and is
identified as being out-of-centre. The application proposals are contrary to the provisions
of policy CS14.
Planning policy history
6. The applicants have suggested in their planning and retail statement that key decisions
regarding the Mall have been ‘kicked into the long grass’ in successive policy documents.
South Gloucestershire Council is requested to disregard the comments as they are
incorrect. The correct position is that national policy takes a town centre first approach and
at each stage, following independent examination, strategic expansion of the Mall at Cribbs
Causeway has not been supported:

The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) is clear that out-of-centre
developments are not town centres. It requires a policy context to be established for
ensuring the vitality of town centres, with town centres recognised as the hearts of
their communities. National policy does not indicate that policies should be directed
towards the expansion of out-of-centre facilities;

Since the former Regional Planning Guidance in 2001, strategic and local planning
policies have determined and reconfirmed that strategic expansion of the Mall at
Cribbs Causeway should not take place. The approach to the Mall was considered
during the preparation of the former draft Regional Strategy which was intended to
become part of the development plan. That document stated;
‘The strategic extension of the existing major shopping centres of Cribbs Causeway and
Clarks Village will not be supported’ (Draft revised RSS for the South West July 2008);

Strategic expansion of the Mall was proposed again during the preparation of the South
Gloucestershire Core Strategy and was rejected by the planning inspector who
indicated that the scheme would be ‘at odds with the NPPF’. The South Gloucestershire
Core Strategy as adopted rightly directs retail development to town centres and
confirms the out-of-centre status of The Mall.
7. There is no policy delay or vacuum regarding the Mall. The approach to be taken has been
considered and confirmed in all relevant documents. The future process for development
plan preparation is indicated in the West of England Duty to Cooperate Schedule and
provides the appropriate context for any plan-led approaches to the Mall.
8. Under the existing, plan-led approach it is clear that retail development should be directed
to the city, town and district centres serving the communities in South Gloucestershire,
Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset and adjoining local authorities. This
is the development plan context in which to consider the current application. To permit
such a huge expansion of retail and other main town centre uses at an out-of-centre
location would turn national and local policy on its head.
Sequential test
9. National and local planning policy requires that a sequential test is applied to proposals for
main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre. The test requires applications to
be located in town centres and only if suitable sites are not available should out-of-centre
sites be considered. Applicants are expected to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as
format and scale (NPPF paragraph 24).
10. The application proposals fail the sequential test. The applicants have not demonstrated
the necessary flexibility in terms of scale or format. The proposals vastly exceed any need
for main town centre uses identified in local plans. There is no requirement for
development of main town centre uses of this scale in a single location. It is, therefore,
inflexible to seek to apply the sequential test to uses at the scale proposed in the planning
application.
11. In terms of format, there is no requirement for the shops and services proposed to all be
located in a single building at a single out-of-centre location. The shops and services
proposed would be expected to be seen in retail premises on any main high street. They
could readily be located within the city, town and district centres throughout the extensive
area from which the Mall draws its primarily car-borne shoppers. For example, Bristol city
centre contains existing retail and service premises awaiting occupiers and there are
substantial areas allocated for retail development.
12. Sequentially appropriate locations should be considered in Bristol city centre, the centres
of Bath, Weston-Super-Mare, Newport, Chepstow, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Swindon,
Taunton and Bridgwater as well as within centres in the identified retail hierarchy in South
Gloucestershire. This has not been properly and flexibly undertaken with the result that
the sequential test has not been passed. The National Planning Policy Framework makes
quite clear that proposals for out-of-centre retailing which fail to satisfy the sequential test
should be refused (NPPF paragraph 27).
Impact on centres
13. Bristol City Council has reviewed the retail impact assessment submitted with the planning
application. It is considered inadequate and is a wholly unreliable assessment which
underestimates the impacts of the proposal on other centres. The assessment cannot
provide a robust basis on which to consider the impacts on Bristol city centre. The
deficiencies in the study are identified in the independent report appended to this
representation (Annex 1).
14. It is clear from available evidence that the application proposals would have a significantly
harmful impact on Bristol city centre. The proposals would divert trade from Bristol city
centre which would be harmful to its vitality and viability; the impact on pedestrian flows
would risk retailers withdrawing from the city centre. The application proposals would also
significantly impact on investor confidence and act as a deterrent to investment in the city
centre. Evidence suggests that proposals facilitated by the city’s local plan would not
proceed in the event of such a huge expansion of out-of-centre retailing being permitted.
15. These adverse impacts on Bristol city centre are an extremely important consideration and
are of strategic significance. Bristol city centre is a multi-role centre serving the entire built
up area of Bristol and a wide area beyond. It serves the residents of South Gloucestershire
as well as Bristol. Indeed, a large proportion of the population of South Gloucestershire is
located closer to Bristol city centre than to the Mall at Cribbs Causeway and public
transport services focus on the city centre. Bristol city centre’s role and status is clear in
the adopted development plan and it can be regarded as an important heart for the
community of the Bristol area.
16. Bristol Shopping Quarter, the primary retail district of the city centre, has been subject of
significant public and private sector investment in recent years. The Cabot Circus
development opened in 2008 following a £500 million investment. It provided a step
change in the range and quality of retail and entertainment provision in the city centre.
The Galleries shopping centre has recently been the subject of over £5 million of
modernisation and improvement. The Broadmead Business Improvement District has
delivered significant improvements to the public realm. The new bus and coach station at
Marlborough Street has enhanced public transport access and the proposed MetroBus will
further enhance accessibility.
17. Despite these recent improvements there remain weakness and vulnerabilities which
impact on Bristol Shopping Quarter’s health, vitality and viability. The city centre has fallen
in relative retail rankings recently, despite the positive influence of Cabot Circus. The
remaining post war building stock requires on-going regeneration. There are still significant
levels of vacancy and there is relatively limited provision of food, drink and leisure uses in
Bristol Shopping Quarter. Further investment and improvements are required to address
these issues and ensure Bristol Shopping Quarter continues to provide a strong retail
environment which serves the needs of the city’s residents and those of South
Gloucestershire and surrounding areas.
18. The Bristol Central Area Plan1 addresses how investment and improvement will be
achieved by setting out a plan-led retail strategy for the city centre and by allocating
specific sites for new development. It also provides a policy context to encourage greater
diversity of uses, such as food, drink and leisure in Bristol Shopping Quarter to support its
primary retail function.
19. The application proposals would bring the scale of the retail and service provision at the
Mall closer to that provided in the city centre. It is, therefore, inevitable that expenditure
would be substantially diverted from Bristol city centre as the evidence indicates. This will
act to undermine the plan-led approaches referred to above. It will significantly impact on
city centre vitality putting at risk the investment which has already been made. As evidence
suggests, this is also likely to discourage the necessary planned investment required to
maintain and enhance the city centre’s role. This would be detrimental to the continued
regeneration of Bristol city centre and contrary to the stated objectives of the Bristol Core
Strategy, the Bristol Central Area Plan and national planning policy.
20. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that proposals which are likely to have a
significant adverse impact should be refused (NPPF paragraph 27).
Economic issues
21. The applicants have suggested that the proposals have a role in social and physical
regeneration and would support the continuing health of the Mall. They suggest that the
Mall would experience relative decline in the longer term in a no development scenario.
22. There is no evidence to suggest that the Mall would fail to prosper in the absence of the
huge extension proposed. In any case, Government policy does not aim to secure the
position of out-of-centre retailing. Its focus is on ensuring the vitality of town centres. The
Mall is not a town centre and the application proposals would be harmful to the
regeneration and prosperity of those city and town centres which are recognised through
national and local planning policy as being the hearts of their communities.
1
Following receipt of the Inspector’s report, the Bristol Central Area Plan is due to be adopted as part of the
development plan on 17 March 2015.
23. The applicants also suggest that the proposed development would be an economic benefit
to the region. Having regard to national and local planning policy, South Gloucestershire
Council is requested to place greater weight in its decision on the harm that would arise to
planned investment and development in established town centres. The applicants’
assessment has focussed on the immediate employment and development impacts of the
extension. This approach fails to take account of the deflection of investment, the harmful
impacts on existing centres and the inconsistency with national and local policy.
24. The town centres providing higher order shopping functions and serving as the hearts of
their communities in the West of England are Bristol city centre, Bath city centre and
Weston-Super-Mare town centre, with supporting services provided by the numerous
more local centres shown in the retail hierarchies of the local plans for each area. It is more
beneficial for the residents and business of the region for investment to continue to be
focussed on those areas as provided for in each Council’s local plans.
25. South Gloucestershire Council is also requested to have regard to the comments from local
authorities outside the West of England regarding the impacts on town and city centres in
those areas.
New development near the Mall
26. The applicants suggest that the proposed development helps to provide for the needs of
the new communities which will be developed near The Mall.
27. The CPNN developments were included in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy without
any requirement for a major expansion of comparison retailing and leisure floorspace in
the vicinity. The planning policy for the New Neighbourhood includes provision for local
shopping provision and facilities to serve the needs of the new communities; these are
being included within planning applications currently under consideration.
28. In terms of comparison shopping, the proposed extension to the Mall would create
shopping provision which would absorb expenditure far in excess of that likely to be
generated by the local increase in population (see paragraphs 10 to 12 of the report in
Appendix 1). It should also be noted that the new communities lie well within the
catchment of Bristol city centre and will be well connected to the city centre by public
transport services.
29. The City Council has no objection to the proposals in the application to create better cycle
and pedestrian routes to surrounding areas. These are welcome. However, there is no
justification for a strategic scale extension to the Mall in order to meet comparison
shopping needs of the new communities whose residents will account for a small fraction
of the population within the Mall’s acknowledged extensive catchment.
Transport impacts
30. The National Planning Policy Framework says in its section on ‘Promoting sustainable
transport’ that encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion (NPPF paragraph 30). It also identifies as
a core principle the need for planning to actively manage patterns of growth to make the
fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant
development in locations which are or can be made sustainable (NPPF paragraph 17).
31. The application proposals are entirely at odds with these important aspects of Government
planning policy. They would result in the unplanned provision of a very large scale
development of main town centre uses served by 7,000 free car parking spaces at the
fringe of the urban area, less than a mile from junction 17 of the M5. The proposed
extension would inevitably generate a substantial increase in car based trips to and from
the site, as the information submitted with the application clearly shows.
32. The evidence submitted with the application indicates that around 90% of the users of the
Mall travel to the facility by car. It has not been demonstrated that the proposals would
significantly change this proportion. The proposed links to residential areas, though
welcome, are of very limited significance in terms of securing a significant change in modal
share as residents in the locality will only represent a small fraction of Mall users. The
improvements to the bus station, though welcome, have not been demonstrated to result
in a material improvement in sustainable transport usage. It is not clear whether significant
modal shift is achievable having regard to the substantial catchment area from which the
Mall’s customers are drawn.
33. Having regard to the transport implications of the planned development in Cribbs
Patchway New Neighbourhood, the City Council is very concerned about the additional
impacts on Bristol’s highway network arising from the application proposals which are not
provided for in the local plan. The transport assessment accompanying the application
does not adequately assess the impacts the proposed development would have in terms of
congestion, in particular the effects on the A4018 and the B4056. It is a significant concern
that the transport assessment does not consider transport demand at key peak periods of
seasonal usage or on Saturdays. The report appended to this representation explains these
concerns in detail (Annex 2).
34. The City Council also notes with concern the comments of the Highways Agency regarding
the impact on the motorway network, set out in the comments accompanying the
Agency’s holding direction. The City Council is very concerned about any proposals which
would impact adversely on the operation of the junction/motorway and the consequent
impacts on the local highway network. The junction is there to provide access to the
motorway network to wide areas of Bristol. It is considered that any adverse impacts on
the junction would be harmful to the economic well-being of the city and detrimental to
residents and businesses over a wide area.
Residential development
35. The planning application proposes 150 residential units. The City Council has no objection
to this part of the proposals.
Concluding comments
36. The application proposals would create an unsustainable form of development which
would do significant harm. The ‘town centre first’ approach in national and local planning
policy is directed towards ensuring the vitality of those places which form the hearts of
their communities. The proposal for a huge expansion of main town centre uses in an
out-of-centre location would turn national and local policy on its head. It clearly fails the
sequential test.
37. The application proposals would significantly harm Bristol city centre both in terms of the
impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment and in terms of
impact on its vitality and viability. It therefore fails the impact test.
38. The proposals are likely to have a harmful impact on Bristol in terms of traffic generated.
The City Council is also greatly concerned about the potential impact on the motorway
junction and the implications this has for the city as a whole.
39. South Gloucestershire Council is therefore requested to refuse to grant planning
permission for the proposal which is contrary to the development plan, contrary to
national policy, unsustainable and likely to cause significant harm to Bristol city centre. As
the proposals are contrary to the development plan, in accordance with section 38(6) of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, planning permission should not be granted
there being no material considerations which would indicate otherwise.
ANNEX 1
REPORT ON RETAIL IMPACT
Proposed extension of The Mall at Cribbs Causeway
REPORT ON THE APPLICANTS’
‘PLANNING AND RETAIL STATEMENT’
For
Bristol City Council
February 2015
Jonathan Baldock BSc (Est. Man.) MSc FRICS MRTPI
Town Centres & Retail Planning Consultant
INTRODUCTION
1.
The planning application for this proposed development was supported by a ‘Planning and Retail
Statement’ dated December 2014, prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP). I have reviewed
the ‘Planning and Retail Statement’, focusing particularly on its treatment of the impact test and
sequential tests in the Framework.
2.
I have assessed whether the retail impact forecasts by NLP are soundly based and realistic, and
whether they reliably demonstrate that the proposed retail development could pass the impact tests in
the Framework. I have also assessed whether or not the sequential test has in principle been properly
applied.
3.
In undertaking my review, I have had regard to the Bristol City Centre Retail Study, DTZ, May 2013
2
(the Retail Study). I have also had regard to the deposit draft Bristol Central Area Plan (BCAP), which
was subject to an EIP in October 2014. The BCAP includes policies aimed at the regeneration of the
Bristol Shopping Quarter, principally by means of a major retail development, a site for which is identified
and allocated for this purpose.
4.
After this Introduction, I comment briefly on forecast retail capacity in Greater Bristol in relation to the
proposed extension of The Mall. I then review NLP’s retail impact forecasts, and identify a number of
serious flaws which together mean that the impact assessment in the ‘Planning and Retail Statement’ is
wholly unreliable. I next comment briefly and in outline on the impacts of the proposed food and
beverage uses, and leisure uses. This is followed by my opinion on how the sequential test has been
applied by NLP.
RETAIL CAPACITY TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
5.
In the ‘Planning and Retail Statement’, NLP refer to retail capacity forecasts for South
Gloucestershire commissioned by SGDC, and claim that these support the scale of new retail floorspace
now proposed at The Mall.
6.
The most recent forecasts of future retail capacity in South Gloucestershire are those by Roger Tym
& Partners (RTP) set out in their ‘South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study Update 2011’,
commissioned by SGDC as part of the evidence base for the development plan. This study updates the
retail capacity forecasts in RTP’s ‘Town Centres and Retail Study’, April 2010, also commissioned by
SGDC. However the 2011 update is based on the same household interview survey of shopping
patterns undertaken by RTP in 2009. As in most such retail capacity forecasting, the results of that
survey are critical to the resulting forecasts. If the survey is unsound or its results are incorrectly
interpreted and applied, the retail capacity forecasts based upon it will be unreliable.
7.
RTP’s 2009 household interview survey had a number of limitations and defects, the most important
of which are as follows:
2
As a retained Consultant to DTZ, I assisted that company to prepare that study. However for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that in
advising the Council on this proposed development, I have not worked and will not be working with or for DTZ. My report and subsequent
advice is therefore wholly independent. However I have drawn upon the work of DTZ in that company’s previous advice to the Council, so
as to ensure consistency of evidence and advice.

It covered an area only modestly larger than South Gloucestershire, so did not measure the full
catchment area of the many retail facilities at Cribbs Causeway.

The detailed sampling specification and survey results are not included in the report, so it is not
possible to know whether the sample included age quotas or weighting of the results by age band,
to ensure that it was representative of the age distribution of the population as a whole. However
it is highly likely that (in common with most such surveys in 2009) it was merely a random sample
of telephone subscribers; and in consequence the results were substantially biased towards the
older age groups, particularly those aged 65+.

The survey asked questions about only 6 sub-categories of comparison goods. This is a crude
approach leading to unreliable results. Thus it lumped together furniture and floor-coverings with
household textiles and soft furnishings; and domestic appliances with audio-visual equipment;
whereas many surveys have shown that the components of each of these pairs have somewhat
different shopping patterns. The survey also did not include a question about shopping habits for
chemists’, medical and beauty products, but lumped these goods in with ‘specialist items such as
jewellery, photographic goods, musical instruments or sports equipment’. Again, many surveys
have shown that chemists’ medical and beauty products have the most localised patterns of
shopping of all comparison goods. As they account for a substantial proportion of comparison
goods expenditure, this omission means that the shopping patterns indicated by the survey
results are unreliable.
There are other weaknesses in RTP’s updated retail capacity forecasts, including:
8.

It adopts national average forecast rates of growth in per capita expenditure, rather than forecasts
specific to the study area.

It makes too low a deduction for expenditure on Special Forms of Trading (14.7% from 2016
onwards, compared with 15.0% in 2016 rising to 17.0% in 2021 and to 18.0% in 2026 in the Retail
Study).

The household survey results appear to have been applied uncritically without any corrections to
re-balance the forecasts. This produces some unrealistic results, for example RTP estimate that
The Mall at Cribbs Causeway attracted only £132.3m (2008 prices) of comparison goods
expenditure from the study area in 2011, compared with £205.6m attracted by the Cribbs
Causeway Retail Park. To be fair, RTP do state that the survey results make distinguishing
between these two locations difficult; but this example does cast doubt on how the survey results
have been applied.
9.
The foregoing is not a detailed review and critique of RTP’s updated retail capacity forecasts.
However it suggests that the forecasts should be treated with some caution, as they are clearly not
adequate to justify the proposed Mall extension. Indeed as RTP comment, ‘this study is not intended to
assess the need for growth at Cribbs Causeway’ (paragraph 3.3). NLP’s reference to RTP’s forecasts
as supporting the proposed Mall extension, are therefore not correct. New retail capacity forecasts for
Greater Bristol, including the northern part within South Gloucestershire, will be needed; if the next
iteration of the South Gloucestershire development plan is to address the future of The Mall in the
correct manner as part of the development plan process, rather than via the current outline planning
application.
10.
NLP state that the purpose of the proposed extension is ‘to provide for the future needs of its existing
customers and the growing surrounding communities of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood
(‘CPNN’)’ (paragraph 2.26). However CPNN (including Charlton Hayes) is expected to comprise up to
about 6,775 new dwellings. Assuming average occupancy of 2.3 persons per dwelling, and NLP’s
average catchment area comparison goods expenditure of £3,760 per capita in 2021, this new
population would generate total comparison goods expenditure of about £58.6m in 2021. At NLP’s and
the Retail Study’s assumed sales density for new comparison goods floorspace (£7,171 per sq m net),
this would support only about 8,170 sq m net comparison goods floorspace in 2021.
11.
Of course, not all of this additional expenditure could or should realistically be provided in the form of
an extension to The Mall, as some of this expenditure would flow to Bristol City Centre, superstores,
retail parks and smaller centres. However even if all of it was judged to provide support for extension of
The Mall, it would justify a far smaller extension than the 24,278 sq m net stated by NLP as being the
comparison goods content of the proposed extension. It is therefore clear that only a small proportion of
the retail floorspace in the proposed extension (an absolute maximum of one third) is to serve the new
population of the CPNN. The great majority is intended to strengthen The Mall’s regional attractiveness,
in competition with Bristol City Centre, and other sub-regional centres such as Bath,
Weston-Super-Mare, Newport, Gloucester, Cheltenham and Swindon.
12.
In any event, the ‘strategic’ comparison goods shopping needs of the new population of the CPNN
would already be adequately catered for by The Mall and Cribbs Retail Park and superstores, by Bristol
Centre, and by other centres and retail parks; and/or by major new retail development in the Bristol
Shopping Quarter in accordance with the BCAP. More day-to-day comparison goods shopping needs
could be met in a more sustainable way by providing new neighbourhood centres embedded in the new
housing areas, and including some local comparison goods shopping facilities. The comparison goods
shopping needs of the CPNN do not therefore justify the scale of the proposed extension to The Mall.
13.
If the extension was permitted, The Mall as extended (but without taking account of the existing
superstores and retail park at Cribbs Causeway) would be broadly equivalent in scale to the town centre
of a typical free-standing town of similar size to Swindon, Crawley, or Ipswich. It would require a total
support population at least as great as that of the built up area of Plymouth, for example. When the
superstores and Cribbs Causeway Retail Park are also taken into account, the Cribbs Causeway area
as a whole with The Mall extended, would be broadly equivalent to the town centre of a substantially
larger town; and would require a substantially larger support population.
14.
The Retail Study indicates that The Mall as existing has comparison goods floorspace estimated as
46,964 sq m net; whilst that in Bristol City Centre is estimated as 111,132 sq m net. With the proposed
3
extension, the comparison goods floorspace at The Mall would increase to about 75,900 sq m net .
Thus it would rise from about 42% of City Centre comparison goods floorspace to about 68%. When the
comparison goods floorspace in the superstores and retail park at Cribbs Causeway is also included, the
total comparison goods floorspace at Cribbs Causeway as a whole would be similar to or greater than
that in Bristol City Centre, if the proposed extension was permitted. Also, The Mall as proposed to be
extended (even without the retail park and superstores) would have almost as much comparison goods
floorspace as in Bath City Centre (about 95%).
3
Based on my estimate below that the proposed extension would comprise comparison goods floorspace of about 25,935 sq m net.
15.
These broad comparisons demonstrate the very large scale of The Mall and the proposed extension,
and the out-of-centre Cribbs Causeway retail facilities as a whole. They indicate that The Mall and
Cribbs Causeway as a whole are already a very major competitor for Bristol City Centre, and would
become an even stronger competitor if the proposed extension was permitted.
RETAIL IMPACT
16.
In this section, I set out the results of my review of the retail impact forecasts in Section 5 and
Appendices 1 and 2 of the ‘Planning and Retail Statement’. Where I have not commented on aspects of
NLP’s report, it cannot necessarily be taken to mean that I agree with NLP.
17.
4
5
NLP’s comparison goods impact assessment is set out in Tables 1 to 13 in their Appendix 2. This
follows a broadly conventional approach, of identifying the likely catchment area of the proposed
development, estimating current and forecasting future sales in the existing town centres and retail
parks potentially likely to suffer impacts, forecasting future sales in the proposed Mall extension, and
from where these would come in terms of trade diversions from existing centres and stores, and hence
forecasting retail impacts. Along the way, an interim step is introduced of forecasting the likely retail
impacts from committed developments in South Gloucestershire (but not of such developments in any
towns elsewhere in or outside the study area) and ‘allocations’ for new retail floorspace in South
Gloucestershire and Bristol City Centre. The forecasts are therefore of cumulative impact of (some)
committed developments and forecast ‘allocations’, plus the impact from the proposed Mall extension.
18.
The assessment is based on the catchment area for Bristol City Centre defined in the Retail Study,
plus an additional catchment zone to the north and one to the south. However it updates some of the
data inputs to the Retail Study, such as population and per capita expenditure. In addition, NLP has
undertaken (in September 2014) a new household interview survey of shopping patterns in this
extended catchment area, as the basis for estimating the market shares of available comparison goods
expenditure currently attracted by the existing town centres, etc; and hence of calculating the base year
sales in each location and forecasting future sales.
19.
In preparing the forecasts, NLP has assumed a ‘design year’ for impact testing of 2021. I would
expect the proposed Mall extension, if permitted, to open by autumn 2019; so use of 2021 as the design
year is compatible with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). NLP has also prepared impact forecasts
for the ‘horizon year’ of 2026. This date is not supported by the PPG, and so these forecasts are
irrelevant and should be disregarded.
20.
The overall method used by NLP is in principle broadly sound. However, the reliability of the impacts
which it forecasts is only as sound as the data inputs and assumptions on which it is based. In this case
NLP’s assessment has a number of flaws, the most important of which are set out below. These are
described in the order in which the impact assessment progresses, rather than in any order of
importance. I comment on their relative importance towards the end of this section.
4
NLP has assumed that the proposed Mall extension will sell only comparison goods. I consider this is realistic, as it provides a worst case
assessment in relation to the volume of comparison goods sales.
5
NLP’s assessment is in 2012 prices, whereas the retail capacity forecasts in the Retail Study are in 2011 prices. However there as there
is only an extremely small difference between 2011 and 2012 prices for comparison goods, both I and NLP have compared monetary
figures in the Retail Study directly with those in NLP’s assessments without price adjustment. The differences due to the different price
basis are extremely marginal.
21.
First, the growth in per capita expenditure on comparison goods in the catchment area appears to be
based on Experian’s national average projections; rather than forecasts specific to the catchment area
as in the Retail Study. Because the local economy is slightly more prosperous than the national
average, this means that NLP may have underestimated recent and future growth in comparison goods
expenditure in the catchment area. However the differences between NLP’s forecast expenditure
growth and that locally forecast in the Retail Study (albeit in November 2012) are not great, so the
underestimation by NLP is modest.
22.
Second, NLP has applied a deduction from expenditure to account for Special Forms of Trading,
which is slightly below the deduction made in the Retail Study (15.9%, compared with 17.0%). I
consider that 17.0% is more realistic, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 in the Retail
Study. It is approximately mid-way between forecasts by Verdict Research and Pitney Bowes/Oxford
Economics. NLP’s lesser deduction increases available catchment area expenditure and hence
reduces retail impact.
23.
Third, inflowing visitor expenditure from outside the catchment area has been substantially double
counted by NLP, at least for Bristol City Centre and The Mall. They have adopted for their 14 zone
catchment area the same inflow percentage uplift for Bristol City Centre, +2.5%, assumed in the Retail
Study for DTZ’s smaller 12 zone catchment area. Of course much of the +2.5% inflow to the 12 zone
catchment area is likely to come from the additional zones 13 and 14; so to assume the same inflow
uplift for the 14 zones is to double count much of the inflow. This is confirmed by NLP’s Table 5, which
shows inflow to Bristol City Centre of £24.06m in 2014, compared with the inflow assumed in the Retail
Study (interpolated for 2014) of £19.62m. This indicates that about +2% of NLP’s assumed +2.5%
inflow is double counted, and a more realistic inflow to the 14 zone catchment area would be +0.5% for
Bristol City Centre. As a result, NLP has over-estimated base year and design year sales in Bristol City
Centre, and hence under-estimated retail impacts.
24.
In the case of The Mall, NLP have again assumed an inflow uplift of +2.5% from their 14 zone
catchment area; whereas the Retail Study assumed only +1.0% for the 12 zone catchment area. The
latter is more likely to be realistic than the former (which is the same as NLP assume for the city centre)
because the city centre’s overall market share and sales is substantially greater than that of The Mall.
6
Thus if +2.5% inflow to the 12 zone catchment area is realistic for the city centre, a substantially lower
inflow would be highly likely to The Mall. NLP’s assumed inflow in 2014, £15.33m, for their 14 zone
catchment area greatly exceeds the Retail Study’s assumed inflow from the smaller 12 zone catchment
area of £3.67m (interpolated). Again, this means that NLP have over-estimated base year and design
year sales in The Mall, and hence under-estimated retail impacts.
25.
The closer to the edge of the catchment area a centre is located, the greater the expenditure inflow
uplift which should be allowed. Thus NLP has allowed for larger inflows for the more peripheral centres
(e.g. Bath +11.1%, Chippenham +17.7%, Stroud +11.1%, Newport +43.0%). In principle this is realistic.
However no evidence is presented to support these assumed inflow uplifts, some of which are
substantial. It would have been desirable for NLP to have provided some independently sourced
evidence of base year sales in these more peripheral centres, for example calculations based on retail
floorspace and typical sales densities, or estimates taken from retail studies commissioned by the
relevant local planning authorities. This has not apparently been done; but it means that NLP’s sales
6
Bristol City Centre is currently a larger and more attractive centre than The Mall – albeit a centre which is vulnerable in parts to increased
out-of-centre competition.
estimates and impact forecasts for centres outside Greater Bristol, such as Bath, Weston-super-Mare,
Chippenham, Gloucester, etc, must be treated with considerable caution.
26.
Fourth, NLP’s household interview survey of shopping patterns is based on a sample of respondents
which is substantially biased towards those aged 65 and over. DTZ’s household interview survey was
based on age-related quota sampling, and age-weighting of the results, to ensure that the final sample
was broadly representative of the age distribution of the adult population; whereas NLP’s survey
appears to have been based on random sampling and no age-weighting. Experience has shown that
this latter sampling method results in older age-biased respondents. The comparison between the two
samples in terms of the age of the respondents is as follows:
Age band of respondents
DTZ Survey*
NLP Survey
18 to 34
25.9%
6.3%
35 to 44
19.7%
10.2%
45 to 54
18.1%
19.9%
55 to 65
14.7%
16.1%
65+
21.7%
43.4%
* After age-weighting as described in the Retail Study.
This casts considerable doubt on the validity of NLP’s survey results, and means that DTZ’s survey
results, despite being about 2 years older, are likely to be more reliable.
27.
7
Fifth, NLP’s survey results do not distinguish between use of The Mall and use of Cribbs Causeway
Retail Park and free-standing superstores. They merely record use of ‘Cribbs Causeway, Bristol’ as an
answer to the comparison goods questions. This means that NLP’s division of the survey-indicated
market shares for Cribbs Causeway as a whole, between The Mall and the Retail Park and other stores,
is a matter of assumption, apparently unsupported by any evidence.
28.
Sixth, it is not clear how the results from each of the first and second preference questions for each
comparison goods category have been combined to indicate average market shares for those
categories. Thus NLP’s household survey shows first and second most used shopping destinations for
each of 9 sub-categories of comparison goods. These have been combined in an unspecified way to
provide average market shares for each goods category in the summary table on page 135. These
average market shares for each goods category have been further combined, also in an unspecified
way, to produce the overall market shares for all comparison goods set out in Table 4 in Appendix 2.
Table 4 is therefore the product of a ‘black box’, the mechanism in which has not been revealed – only
the inputs in the form of the raw survey data (which was not included in the ‘Planning and Retail
Statement’ but provided on request), and the outputs in the form of the market shares for all comparison
goods in Table 4. This makes it impossible to verify whether the market shares in Table 4 realistically
flow from the raw survey data.
29.
Analysis of the inputs and outputs to the ‘black box’ suggest that NLP may have weighted the first
and second answers for each goods category 75/25 respectively (without providing any evidence to
support that weighting); and then weighted the resulting average for each goods category according to
the proportion of expenditure on it, to provide the overall market shares for all comparison goods. It also
suggests that before doing these weightings, NLP may have rebased the survey results to remove the
7
The difference in sample size between the two surveys is not very material; as for Zones 1 to 12, DTZ used a sample of 1,500; whereas
for the same 12 zones, NLP used a sample of 1,692.
respondents who said ‘internet/mail order’, ‘don’t do this type of shopping’, ‘don’t know’ and ‘no answer’,
from the raw survey data. However as none of this is stated by NLP or clear from comparison between
the raw survey data and Table 4, I therefore have to reserve my position on the realism of the method of
calculating the market shares indicated in Table 4, pending clarification from NLP.
30.
Seventh, the results from their household interview survey appear to have been applied uncritically
by NLP in calculating base year sales (and projected design year sales) in each shopping destination. It
does not appear as though any market share corrections have been applied, the need for which is
described in paragraphs 4.20 to 4.26 of the Retail Study. The resulting base year sales estimates by
NLP show that this is erroneous. Thus for Bristol City Centre, NLP estimates (in Table 5) sales in 2014
of £962.58m. However the city centre has a total net comparison goods sales area of about 111,132 sq
m net, estimated from Experian Goad data. Thus NLP’s sales estimate indicates an average
comparison goods sales density of £8,662 per sq m net. This is unrealistically high. There are very few
multiple comparison goods retailers which have ‘benchmark’ company average sales densities as high
as this; and most independent retailers (of which there are many in the city centre) trade at well below
that level. NLP do not appear to have checked their forecast sales against existing floorspace and
‘benchmark’ sales densities, with the result that their sales estimate for the city centre is substantially too
high. The Retail Study indicates city centre comparison goods sales of about £804m (interpolated) in
2014, after necessary corrections to the market shares indicated by DTZ’s household interview survey.
31.
The same is true of NLP’s sales estimate for The Mall. They estimate sales of £616.36m in 2014.
However the net comparison goods sales area in The Mall is estimated from Experian Goad data as
46,964 sq m net. Thus NLP’s sales estimate indicates an average sales density of £13,124 per sq m
net. This is far above any realistic estimate based on multiple retailers’ ‘benchmark’ company average
sales densities, and is therefore clearly unrealistically high. The Retail Study, after applying necessary
market share corrections, indicates comparison goods sales in The Mall of about £370m (interpolated)
in 2014.
32.
That NLP’s estimated sales in The Mall as existing are far too high is shown by comparing its forecast
sales density in 2021 with no new developments (£15,778 per sq m net), with the sales density assumed
for the proposed extension in 2021 (£6,354 per sq m net). It is very unlikely that the proposed extension
would have a sales density which is substantially less than that of the shopping centre to which it would
be attached, as the purpose of the extension is to make the enlarged centre as a whole more attractive
and prosperous. If the sales in the extension were so much lower, this would not be achieved. The two
estimates are therefore clearly incompatible. This means that either the extension would have sales of
around two and a half times the level estimated by NLP (in which case it would have far greater impacts
on Bristol City Centre and other town centres then they have forecast), or – much more likely – the sales
estimated for The Mall as existing are far too high.
33.
I have not been able to check the sales estimates for other shopping destinations in the same way,
owing to the lack of readily available floorspace data for them. However I consider it likely that NLP has
similarly over-estimated sales in the larger centres. Thus for example NLP’s 2014 sales estimates for
8
some of the retail parks, particularly Cribbs Causeway Retail Park and other stores (£512.14m) , also
appear to be far too high; and should be checked against the retailers’ ‘benchmark’ sales densities. The
corollary is that NLP have probably under-estimated sales in the smaller centres.
8
Perhaps because of the fifth flaw identified, in the case of Cribbs Causeway Retail Park and stores.
34.
NLP’s excessive estimates of base year and projected design year sales in Bristol City Centre mean
that they have substantially under-estimated the retail impacts on the city centre from The Mall
extension.
35.
Eighth, NLP has treated the retail capacity forecasts for South Gloucestershire and for Bristol City
Centre in the respective retail studies for each, as ‘allocations’, which (together with the very few
committed developments in South Gloucestershire) would be implemented before The Mall extension.
This is wholly artificial and completely unrealistic.
36.
The retail capacity forecasts are merely forecasts based on the assumptions stated. They are
imperfect (as acknowledged in the case of Bristol City Centre in the Retail Study), and subject to periodic
update and change. In the case of the city centre, they have not been incorporated in the BCAP as
‘allocations’ which must or will be achieved; and the policies and site allocations in the BCAP do not
depend on any particular retail capacity forecast.
37.
The retail capacity forecast under Scenario 1 in the Retail Study could not be developed in Bristol
City Centre if a major extension of The Mall was to be permitted and implemented beforehand. This is
because of the limited demand from the necessary ‘anchor’ and other multiple retailers. This is made
clear in the Retail Study, which stated that the two developments would be direct alternatives to each
other. Major retail development in the Bristol Shopping Quarter would take somewhat longer to bring to
fruition than major extension of The Mall (because of the greater constraints in the city centre); so the
latter would inevitably prevent the former from being implemented, by creaming off available retailer
demand and retail expenditure.
38.
Ninth, NLP has under-estimated the likely net retail sales area in the proposed Mall extension, and
the likely sales density for the proposed ‘anchor’ store; with the result that they have under-estimated
comparison goods sales in the proposed extension, and its retail impact. NLP has assumed a net to
gross ratio for the ‘anchor’ store of 70%, whereas I consider that a minimum of 75% would be more likely
for a department store (and probably higher for a variety store). For the other comparison goods shops,
NLP has assumed a net to gross ratio of 75%, whereas I consider that 80% would be more realistic.
Modern retailers rely increasingly on ‘just in time’ deliveries, and move most stock straight from delivery
lorries onto the shop floor without storing it first. This means that they don’t have large stockrooms on
site. Neither do they have large offices or staff rooms. I therefore estimate that the net retail sales area
is more likely to be about 25,935 sq m, rather than the 24,278 sq m assumed by NLP.
39.
NLP has assumed a sales density for the ‘anchor’ store of £4,750 per sq m net. This would be too
low for Primark, Selfridges and Next, albeit slightly high for Fenwicks. In the absence of a named retailer
therefore, I consider that a more realistic assumption would be £5,000 per sq m net. Combining this with
the increased net retail sales area indicates likely sales of about £166.9m in 2021, rather than the
9
£154.27m assumed by NLP . This would result in greater retail impacts than NLP has forecast.
40.
Tenth, NLP’s trade diversion assumptions are unrealistic. NLP assume the Bristol City Centre
‘allocations’ would divert trade from the existing city centre; whereas the purpose of major retail
development in the Bristol Shopping Quarter is to make the city centre as a whole more attractive and
prosperous. They also assume that the proposed Mall extension would divert trade from The Mall as
9
In their ‘South Gloucestershire Town Centres and Retail Study Update 2011’ (Appendix 4 Table 2), Roger Tym & Partners considered
that an extension of The Mall would achieve a comparison goods sales density of £10,471 per sq m net in 2008 prices, equivalent to
£10,358 per sq m net in NLP’s 2012 prices. This is substantially above NLP’s overall estimate of £6,354 per sq m net (and above my
overall estimate of £6,435 per sq m net). Whilst RTP’s estimate is too high, it supports my opinion that NLP’s estimate is too low.
existing, and from Cribbs Causeway Retail Park and stores; whereas again the purpose of the extension
is to make The Mall as a whole, and Cribbs Causeway in general, more attractive to shoppers and more
prosperous. The reality is that the proposed Mall extension (being an extension of an out-of-centre
regional shopping centre) would impact mainly on its sub-regional competitors, particularly Bristol City
Centre, Bath, and other large centres within and close to its catchment area.
41.
Clearly, because the ‘allocations’ in Bristol City Centre could not be implemented by 2021 if the Mall
extension went ahead first (as DTZ advised), the impact of the latter should be assessed on its own
without the prior impact. This would be likely to show a greater trade diversion from Bristol City Centre
and thus more concentrated impact on it than forecast by NLP (particularly if the other flaws in the
assessment described above were also corrected).
42.
Eleventh, whilst NLP has estimated the impacts on centres outside South Gloucestershire and
Bristol, that assessment did not take account of any committed developments in those areas. As a
result, it is likely to have under-estimated the impacts on those centres cumulatively with any committed
developments. NLP has also not assessed the vitality and viability of those centres and the significance
of the forecast impacts, for example on the centres of Bath, Weston-super-Mare, Taunton, Newport,
Gloucester, Cheltenham, Chippenham, Swindon, and elsewhere. Being an out-of-centre regional
shopping centre, major retail expansion of The Mall would be likely to have significant impacts on some
of these centres. The wide extent of The Mall’s catchment area shown in the map on page 32 strongly
suggests that this would be likely; as its catchment area is highly likely to overlap with those of some of
these other centres.
43.
Of these flaws in NLP’s assessment, the most serious are the seventh, eighth and tenth. It is not
possible to say how serious is the sixth flaw, pending clarification of the contents of the ‘black box’.
However the results described in the seventh flaw suggest that the mechanism within the ‘black box’ is
incorrect. The fourth and fifth flaws mean that the results of NLP’s household interview survey cannot be
treated as fully reliable. The inherent older age bias in the sample may be one reason why the base year
sales estimates for Bristol City Centre and The Mall are too high. The first, second, third and ninth flaws
are significant, but are straightforward to correct. Correcting the first flaw may partly cancel out the
effects of the necessary corrections to the second and third flaws. The eleventh flaw is a serious
omission from NLP’s assessment, which means that it has not adequately addressed the impact test in
the Framework.
44.
Overall, I conclude that NLP’s quantitative impact assessment is incomplete and wholly unreliable. It
does not realistically demonstrate that the proposed major retail extension of The Mall would pass the
impact tests in the Framework. On page 32 of the ‘Planning and Retail Statement’, NLP present
catchment area plans for The Mall and Bristol City Centre. These show the way in which their catchment
areas overlap. However they also show the extent to which The Mall as already existing has eaten into
Bristol City Centre’s natural catchment area in north Bristol and beyond, and diverted trade away from
the city centre. If The Mall had not been developed, the city centre’s catchment area would have
extended further to the north. A major retail extension of The Mall (which could be developed before a
major new retail development in Bristol Shopping Quarter) would increase this effect, and further divert
substantial trade away from the city centre. The precise degree of that adverse impact has yet to be
determined reliably. However it is likely to mean that the proposed extension would fail the impact tests
set out in the Framework.
45.
th
Bristol City Centre now ranks 15 in the 2013 Venuescore national ranking of centres, down from its
th
ranking of 12 in 2010, indicated in the Retail Study. It is now behind Glasgow, Manchester,
Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, London West End – Oxford Street, Nottingham, Brighton, Cardiff,
Edinburgh, Newcastle upon Tyne, Aberdeen, Norwich and Reading. This demonstrates the lack of
improvement in the shopping offer of the city centre since 2010 compared with other centres, some of
which have risen in the rankings to overtake Bristol City Centre.
46.
Comparison between cities and their principal retail centres in terms of catchment populations can
only be approximate, because of differences in local geography, data limitations and the presence or
absence of competing shopping facilities. However ONS data from the 2011 census for ‘built-up areas’
th
(i.e. not limited by local authority boundaries), shows that excluding London, Bristol had the 10 largest
built-up area population in the UK. Its built-up area population was less than those of Greater
Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Glasgow, Liverpool, South Hampshire, Tyneside,
Nottingham and Sheffield. However it was greater than those of Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Aberdeen,
Norwich and Reading; all of which have town or city centres ranked higher than Bristol City Centre by
Venuescore in 2013. Thus Bristol City Centre is currently ‘punching below its weight’ in retail terms,
partly because of the strong competition from The Mall and other out-of-centre retailing at Cribbs
Causeway. Interestingly Sheffield City Centre is also under-performing relative to its built-up area
population, because of competition from the out-of-centre Meadowhall regional shopping centre. This
underlines the need for further redevelopment and regeneration in the Bristol Shopping Quarter, and for
strict restraint on expansion of The Mall at Cribbs Causeway, as indicated in the Retail Study.
47.
I note that NLP has simply not considered the qualitative impact of the proposed Mall extension on
the prospects for major retail redevelopment in the Bristol Shopping Quarter. Instead, they have
wrongly assumed that this would go ahead first, as an ‘allocated’ development in the BCAP. However
the Retail Study is very clear that this could not happen.
48.
The Retail Study concluded (paragraph 9.6), ‘Our research has shown that there is now and will be in
the next few years only limited demand from the prime national multiple retailers which are essential
‘anchors’ to any substantial new retail development. These are department and variety stores and large
space-using fashion, homewares and lifestyle stores. This means that irrespective of our
expenditure-based retail capacity forecasts, new prime retail development will only be achievable on a
scale which is supportable by such retailer demand. If the retailers potentially interested in moving to or
expanding in Bristol are accommodated in an early extension to The Mall at Cribbs Causeway, they will
not locate in Bristol City Centre later on when sites there can be offered to the market; and the
opportunity to regenerate Broadmead in accordance with the sequential approach and the Council’s
strategy would be lost. The Mall would gain market share and Bristol City Centre would lose it,
perpetuating the currently somewhat poor conditions at Broadmead. Thus the commercial reality is that
substantial extension The Mall would be an alternative to further regeneration of the Bristol Shopping
Quarter as described above; and would effectively prevent it going ahead for many more years.’ It is
therefore clear that if the proposed extension of the Mall is permitted, a scheme in the Bristol Shopping
Quarter could not proceed at the same time. This means that the proposed development would fail the
test of impact on planned investment in Bristol City Centre, set out in the Framework.
IMPACT OF NON-RETAIL USES
49.
The ‘Planning and Retail Statement includes a quantitative assessment of the impact of the
proposed A3 to A5 uses. The assessment follows a similar approach to that of the retail impact
assessment, based on the results of NLP’s household interview survey. This means that it suffers from
the fourth flaw identified above. It may also suffer from the fifth and seventh flaws; but as there are no
independent quantitative forecasts of expenditure capacity to support additional A3 to A5 uses, the
extent of this is uncertain. There may also be other flaws in the data and assumptions, which would
emerge from further review.
50.
It is clear that most large town centres have experienced substantial growth in A3 to A5 uses over
many years. Such uses help to widen the reasons for people to visit a centre, increase their dwell time,
and hence bring symbiotic benefits for the retail shops. They also have the advantage that in an age of
increasing online shopping, they provide a service which cannot be purchased over the internet. Food
and beverage uses have therefore become increasingly important to the vitality and viability of town
centres, and will be likely to remain so as internet shopping continues to increase. Impact on the food
and beverage outlets in Bristol City Centre and other centres is therefore an important consideration. As
with retailing, such expenditure attracted to The Mall is expenditure lost to Bristol City Centre (in
particular) and other centres in the sub-region. Such impacts are likely to be as significant as the
impacts on retail uses, and should be taken into account in applying the impact tests. The proposed
additional food and beverage uses at The Mall would reduce the potential to include such uses with
major new retail development (or at other locations) in the Bristol Shopping Quarter, and therefore make
it more difficult to achieve such a development in accordance with the BCAP. This means that the
proposed food and beverage uses would be unlikely to pass the impact test in the Framework.
51.
The proposed development also includes a substantial amount of Class D2 commercial leisure uses, of
up to 7,620 sq m GIA. It is not clear what these might comprise. However (added to the substantial
leisure attractions at the existing Cribbs Leisure Park, and to the existing and proposed A3 to A5 uses at
The Mall) they would make the Cribbs Causeway area a significantly more attractive destination for
leisure visits; and thus more of a multi-purpose destination competing more strongly with Bristol City
Centre (and other multi-purpose centres such as Bath and Gloucester city centres). At least some of the
proposed D2 leisure facilities could equally well be located in Bristol City Centre, for example as part of
retail-led regeneration of the Bristol Shopping Quarter (where they would help to add value and improve
development viability). NLP’s statement that ‘the leisure floorspace proposed will provide ancillary
facilities that will serve existing customers at The Mall and Cribbs Causeway, rather than provide a new
destination in their own right’ (paragraph 6.25) confirms that these uses would make The Mall more of a
multi-purpose destination. However NLP’s report does not address the issue of combined impact with
the other uses, or impact on the potential leisure components of new town centre development in the
Bristol Shopping Quarter planned in the BCAP. It cannot therefore be concluded that the leisure
components of the proposed development pass the impact tests in the Framework.
THE SEQUENTIAL TEST
52.
The Framework clearly states that in applying the sequential test, local planning authorities ‘should
require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre
locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be
considered….Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as
format and scale’ (paragraph 24). In this case, NLP has argued that the purpose of the proposal is to
enable The Mall to meet a particular need in South Gloucestershire and North Bristol, and that ‘in order
to meet the identified need, the proposed development must be linked to the existing retail/leisure
destination at Cribbs Causeway’ (paragraph 8.19). However such an interpretation of ‘need’ would be
fundamentally at odds with the government policy quoted that such new developments of town centre
10
uses should be located in town centres first, as the highest priority location, if at all possible . I consider
that this issue is the key to how the sequential test should be applied in this case. It does not appear as
though sufficient flexibility as to location (in particular – which is fundamental to the consideration of
sequentially preferable locations) has been applied in formulating the proposal.
53.
The maps on page 32 of NLP’s report, and the results of DTZ’s household interview survey
demonstrate the substantial overlap between the catchment areas of Bristol City Centre and The Mall.
They show that the city centre is already serving north Bristol and South Gloucestershire, albeit in some
parts not to the same degree as is The Mall. It is therefore clear that an improved city centre could
substantially meet the ‘identified need’ to serve the growing population of this area (in which most of the
population growth will be in ‘Greater Bristol’ south of the M4 motorway, and therefore within or close to
the city centre’s core catchment area); and that expansion of The Mall is not the only way to do so.
Providing major new retail and food and beverage development in the Bristol Shopping Quarter would
make that area and the city centre as a whole more attractive to existing and new shoppers from North
Bristol and South Gloucestershire, and expand the service which it provides to them. It is therefore not
a foregone conclusion (as NLP claim) that the proposed development passes the sequential test simply
because it is an expansion of an existing out-of-centre shopping centre currently serving a particular
catchment area.
54.
NLP then go on to consider sites in Bristol City Centre and the centres in South Gloucestershire.
However I note that they have not considered in any detail sites in any other surrounding town centres of
sub-regional importance where it could serve the sub-regional catchment (for example Gloucester,
where a new city centre development is planned, or Swindon where a substantial site for a planned town
centre development has been identified). This is a significant omission.
55.
In assessing sites in Bristol City Centre, NLP have considered only the BCAP allocated sites KS02
and KS03; and have assessed each in isolation. They have concluded that neither is large enough to
accommodate ‘the proposed development’. However this is unproven, as no design studies of either of
these sites have yet been undertaken. Further, NLP has not considered the possibility of both sites
being developed approximately in parallel, such that together they could accommodate ‘the proposed
development’, albeit on split sites. This is a serious omission from the assessment, which invalidates its
conclusions.
56.
In relation to availability of sites KS02 and KS03, NLP conclude that neither site is currently available,
or could meet the developer’s requirement for a start on site in early 2017. However there does not
appear to be any good reason why the development has to be started by that date. Inevitably city centre
development takes longer than out-of-centre development on a site in a single ownership and under the
full control of the developer. I consider that there is a realistic prospect that construction on at least site
HS02 could start in 2017 or 2018 – if the threat of the proposed major extension of The Mall is removed.
In any event, even a start of construction in 2019 would be sufficient to enable the city centre
10
The government’s policy of Town Centres First was recently re-emphasised to local authorities by Ministers in the DCLG ‘Planning
Update Newsletter’ dated January 2015.
development to accommodate the capacity forecast in the Retail Study at 2021. I therefore consider that
NLP’s conclusion that the city centre sites are not available at an early enough date is unsound. A
developer is already starting to prepare development proposals for site KS02; but it is unlikely that these
would be progressed in the short to medium term if planning permission was to be granted for the
proposed major retail extension of The Mall.
Jonathan Baldock BSc MSc FRICS MRTPI
Town Centres & Retail Planning Consultant
20 February 2015
ANNEX 2
Bristol City Council Strategic Transport
Transport Development Management
Application Response
Response:
Initial Response
Recommendation:
Objection
The above application has been submitted to South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) as an outline
submission with all matters reserved. These comments comprise Transport Development
Management (TDM)’s analysis of the submitted Transport Assessment (TA) with specific regard
to the impact of the proposal on Bristol’s highway network. As such, this report does not analyse
in detail the issues of access, layout and internal circulation. However, it is recognised within this
analysis that the scale and location of impact on BCC’s network is directly influenced by the
positioning of accesses, the level of parking provision and the level of mitigation and sustainable
travel alternatives proposed as part of the development.
Background
The provision of 35,000sqm of additional retail floorspace at The Mall was previously submitted
to the Planning Inspectorate for approval as part of SGC’s Core Strategy examination in 2013. In
his report dated 15th November of that year, the Inspector concludes in paragraph 180 that:
“it is essential the implications of expanding a major out-of-centre location are
understood before decisions are taken as to its longer-term role, either in meeting
local needs or those of the wider area. The evidence in this respect is incomplete and
the proposal at best premature. The scheme would be at odds with the NPPF which in
pursuing sustainability principles promotes a town centre first approach aimed at
promoting and safeguarding traditional centres.”
In relation to this requirement, BCC is entitled to be made fully aware of the implications of this
proposal on Bristol’s highway and movement networks, particularly in terms of the assessment
of draw from the surrounding area, but also in relation to the implications this has for
congestion, safety, the operation of public transport and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
This is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines and the duty
of neighbouring planning authorities to co-operate on such matters and also follows
requirements set out by BCC to the applicant in a transport issues scoping meeting of 17th
October 2014 which was also attended by highway representatives from SGC and the Highways
Agency (HA).
TA Structure
The submitted TA forms Appendix D1 of the Environmental Statement. The TA is organised into
the following sections:
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Accessibility
Development Proposals
Relevant Transport Policy
Multi-modal Trip Generation
Effect on Public Transport Services
Traffic Effects on the Highway Network
Effect on the Strategic Highway Network
Construction and Phasing
Summary and Conclusions
In order to inform the above sections, the TA is accompanied by the following appendices:
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
CPNN Framework Plan;
Appendix H
Parking Areas/Survey plans;Appendix I
Car Park Surveys, Jul-14; Appendix J
Accident Data;
Appendix K
Bus Route Map;
Appendix L
The Mall Travel Plan;
Appendix M
Store Extensions Study;
Appendix N
Report on Lakeside Extension;
Bandwidth Plots;
Atkins Modelling Scoping;
Flow Diagram 2021;
2021 Junction Assessments;
Flow Diagrams 2031;
2031 Junction Assessments;
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This section of the submitted TA provides the rationale behind the proposals, including
the intention to bring The Mall into line with current retailers’ requirements whilst
attempting to integrate the site better with existing and future neighbouring residential
areas, including the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN). In addition to the
above, the proposal intends to improve on-site facilities for public transport so that the
level of sustainable travel to and from the site can be maximised.
1.2
In terms of analysis, the TA has utilised SGC’s Core Strategy Model (CSM) to understand
the impacts of the development on the surrounding transport network and mitigation is
proposed where it is considered those impacts are of a material nature.
2.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Planning Context
2.1
The TA confirms the current extents of The Mall to comprise a total of 92,000sqm gross
internal floorspace of which 77,000sqm is defined as comparison goods, accompanied
by 6,670 car parking spaces within surface and covered car parks. Standard opening
times are confirmed as 09:30-21:00 from Monday-Friday, 09:00-20:00 on a Saturday
and 11:00-17:00 on a Sunday. Access is currently taken from four locations, including
two roundabout junctions on Merlin Road, a further roundabout access from Lysander
Road and via Highwood Lane to the east.
Local Highway Network
2.2
Consideration of impact assessment within the TA is included later in this report,
although it is notable that the Transport Consultant has failed to recognise the Local
Highway Network in this area to include BCC’s network. TDM therefore expresses serious
concerns that the applicant has failed to consider the A4018 any further south from this
location or indeed other corridors within Bristol upon which it may impact including as a
minimum the B4056 Southmead Road and A38 Gloucester Road. This was
communicated to the applicant at the pre-application stage at a meeting of 17 October
and further communicated by SGC who in turn provided a scoping diagram including the
locations on the highway network that were of interest to the three highway authorities.
Existing Mall Traffic Generation
2.3
Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) surveys were undertaken at each of the four entrances to
the Mall during early July 2014. The TA considers this time of year to be typical in terms
of the level of activity occurring at the site. TDM request some evidence in support of this
assumption in comparison with other weeks / months. The surveys above indicate the
busiest day recorded to be Saturday (37,546 daily two-way movements, peak hour
14:00-15:00 – 3,867 two-way movements), with the busiest weekday experienced being
Thursday (33,216 movements). In relation to the traditional highway peak hours, the
highest recorded weekday peak hour flows occurred on a Friday, with the morning peak
hour (08:00-09:00) generating 698 two-way movements and the evening peak hour
(17:00-18:00) generating 2,518 two-way movements. It is however noted that these
flows are not the highest weekday hourly flow. This occurs between 12:00 and 13:00 on
a Thursday (3,453 two-way movements). It is also noted that the busiest hour recorded
over the whole week occurred on a Sunday between 12:00 and 13:00 (4,654 two-way
trips), and this would appear attributable to be attributed to the condensed hours of
trading on this day of the week.
Existing Customer Mode Share / Postcode Information
2.4
This data was requested by TDM at the pre-application highways / transport meeting of
17 October 2014. Whilst BCC note that some retail visitor mode share information is
provided later in the report, this needs to appear in the Existing Conditions chapter of the
TA, along with the geographical draw of visitors to the site if reliable forecasts are to be
made about the impact of the site in future years.
Existing Mall Parking Accumulation
2.5
Table 2.3 of the TA provides a summary of the parking accumulation at the site, also
during July 2014. During the weekdays surveyed, the busiest period was recorded to be
between 13:00 and 14:00 on a Sunday (4,346 vehicles parked) compared to the highest
Saturday accumulation during the same hour of 3,690 vehicles and a highest weekday
accumulation of 3,596 between 12:00 and 13:00 on a Tuesday. Given the total number
of parking spaces available (6,670), this indicates that when the car park was at its
busiest, there were still 2,324 empty spaces.
2.6
In common with the request made in paragraph 2.5, this has not been considered in the
context of the time of year surveyed and further data is required to understand how this
demand alters over the course of the year to allow for robust forecasting to be made,
particularly in the lead up to the Christmas period and also the school summer holidays,
during which increased levels of attraction experienced go considerably beyond the
traditional term-time peak hours of demand. This was requested and minuted during
pre-application discussions with the applicant’s consultant and requires to be
addressed.
Accident data
2.7
Paragraphs 2.32 – 2.42 of the TA provide an assessment of accident records for the M5
junction 17, Lysander Road, Merlin Road and the A4018 Cribbs Causeway. No
assessment has been provided of Bristol’s highway network and this requires to be
revisited.
3.0
ACCESSIBILITY
3.1
This section of the TA provides an assessment of the current accessibility of The Mall in
relation to the walking, cycling and public transport connections which connect to the
site.
Walking and Cycling
3.2
Whilst the application site is not located within the Bristol, BCC has a direct interest in this
matter. The reason for this is that any failure to provide high quality and safe alternatives
to car travel in this location is likely to increase the level of vehicular traffic generated by
the proposals and in so: a) maximise the number of car trips that are generated by the
development; b) in doing do cause previously avoidable delay to public transport
services, impacting the urban area as a whole; and of most concern: c) increase a form of
development that is overly reliant on the private car whilst failing to provide for active
travel amongst existing and new local communities to the detriment of all of the above.
3.3
Despite the recognition that walking is the most important mode of travel at a local level
for journeys within 2km, the conclusion that “the pedestrian environment in the vicinity
of the proposed development is good” is vastly optimistic and entirely inaccurate. This is
evident from Appendix C of the previous Travel Plan which is submitted as Appendix F to
the TA, where a plan of walking and cycling routes confirms the need for pedestrians to
‘take care crossing’ at numerous uncontrolled crossing locations to access The Mall.
3.4
The footways in this vicinity for the most part run alongside dual-carriageway roads
carrying a high volume of fast-moving traffic, taking pedestrians on a circuitous and
inhospitable long-way round to reach whichever destination they are attempting to
access. With the exception of the current tunnel under Merlin Road to reach the Leisure
Park, safe crossings of the dual carriageway or the roads leading to The Mall are absent
from all junctions that serve the site and lead pedestrians into precarious situations,
absent of traffic control and often on approaches to and exits from major roundabouts
where motorists are concentrating on exiting the junction and accelerating. Even where
signal control is provided (as at the Merlin Road / Lysander Road roundabout), there are
no crossing facilities for pedestrians other than footway dropped-kerbs which stop
abruptly at the junction approach, expecting pedestrians and cyclists to cross up to three
lanes of traffic, which often means walking between the bonnets and boots of vehicles,
unsighted from motorists in adjacent lanes. This is not acceptable in terms of current
policy and highway design criteria and the applicant has suggested no mitigation in this
location.
3.5
Whilst TDM note that the development proposes a traffic-free bridge to address some of
these issues, the site should be demonstrated to be accessible by high quality links from
all directions. In relation to access to the site from further afield, and in particular cyclists,
whilst those on a bicycle are able to use the footways that do exist, these footways will
not be of suitable width to accommodate the increase in walking and cycling that is
expected and relied upon by both CPNN and this proposal and is likely to result in
conflict. Given that the TA recognises a reasonable cycling distance to be 5km, it is
therefore of significant failing of the TA not to recognise the constraints to active travel
that is apparent along other routes which are adjacent, including Hayes Way, along which
provision of footway or cyclist provision is entirely absent.
Public Transport
3.6
A summary of the bus services that serve The Mall is provided in the TA although this site
being the largest bus interchange in South Gloucestershire is not the major influencer of
travel patterns that the TA describes given the low public transport patronage generated
by The Mall in comparison with other major retail centres in the BCC / SGC area which are
more accessible and offer more frequent and fast connectivity to the wider urban and
regional area. This matter is in the process of being partially addressed as part of the
MetroBus North Fringe – Hengrove Package (NFHP). However, this scheme will only
provide linkage to central and south Bristol. The need to improve public transport offer at
The Mall cannot be overlooked and BCC note the applicant’s intention to reconfigure
public transport access to this site in view of the current poor facilities which do very little
to encourage bus use. The applicant’s suggested remedy to this current constraint is
considered later in this report.
3.7
In relation to rail, the nearest existing station to the site is Patchway, which is some
3.7km or approximately 45 minutes-walk from the site. However, even if the nature and
quality of the pedestrian / cycle route from this station is vastly improved and/or
new/existing bus routes are timetabled to coincide with train arrivals, TDM officers do
not consider rail access from either Patchway or Bristol Parkway to provide a realistic
regular alternative to car use, given the additional potential delay that is caused by
adding a second mode/leg to the journey.
4.0
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
4.1
This section of the TA confirms the land uses and floorspaces sought by the application
and confirms that it is not intended for the morning opening hours of the site to alter
from the existing. However, it is likely as a result of the additional leisure uses that
closing times will change, although the TA confirms that these details are not at present
known and therefore is silent on this issue.
Access
4.2
In terms of access, no additional vehicular access points are proposed and no additional
works are proposed at the main site access roundabout junctions from Merlin Road. This
is of concern given the poor pedestrian linkage in the vicinity of the site, as highlighted
earlier in section 3 of this report. Regardless of whether it is demonstrable that the
current site access junctions may be able to accommodate the additional traffic
demands, BCC would advise SGC that these accesses will be required to provide high
quality and safe linkage for pedestrians and cyclists from all directions, notwithstanding
the provision of a pedestrian / cycle bridge elsewhere.
4.3
In relation to internal layout, the TA confirms the proposal to build over existing car
parking using a multi-decked structure to retain the 7,000 car parking spaces that are
currently provided on-site. The TA confirms that this should not alter the existing
proportions of departure / arrival traffic using each access junction. In relation to parking
numbers, further information is provided later in the TA and in this document.
Pedestrian and cycle linkage
4.4
In keeping with the requirements set out in paragraph 4.2 above, the reference to
improvements to pedestrian and cycle access provided in sections 4.5 – 4.7 provide little
specific comfort that these linkages will be of high quality and from all directions. With
the exception of the proposed pedestrian / cycle bridge over Merlin Road, the TA and
Design and Access Statement (DAS) either rely on other developments coming forward to
deliver infrastructure or provide only commentary on ‘strengthened linkages’ without
confirming what these improvements are likely to comprise.
Public Transport
4.5
In relation to public transport, the improved passenger facilities at the existing bus
station represents seemingly a valid intention to improve the passenger experience at
The Mall although TDM views that this alone will not generate the modal shift required to
minimise impact on the three highway networks in the vicinity of the site.
4.6
There is no evidence that the applicant has undertaken discussions with public transport
providers in view of the forecasted additional attraction to the facilities from the wider
area. For instance, the propensity of current shoppers to use public transport and from
which locations is seriously lacking throughout the TA. The section later, titled: 7. Effect
on Public Transport Services represents a simplistic analysis for such a major
development. No attempt is made to understand the origin of shoppers’ trips together
with the capacity and availability of local bus routes which serve those catchments.
Instead, percentage uplift has been calculated (from a low existing base, rather than an
uplifted target base). This, together with the lack of assessment of customer catchment
and its relationship with public transport confirms a lack of intention of this development
to maximise travel by non-car modes.
5.0
RELEVANT TRANSPORT POLICY
5.1
This section of the TA provides a summary of the policies which are relevant to the
determination of this application in relation to transport and highways. TDM has
assessed this TA with particular regard to key criteria identified in Chapter 4 of the NPPF
(2012), the current Joint Local Transport Plan for the West of England (2011-2026) and
the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy (2006-2027).
6.0
MULTI-MODAL TRIP GENERATION
Calculation of new trips
6.1
This section of the TA provides a brief investigation of similar development proposals
elsewhere in the UK where it has been demonstrated that significant increases in retail
floorspace do not necessarily correlate with proportionate increases in the level of
visitors attracted to the centre in question.
6.2
TDM recognises that major regional shopping centres will exhibit differing characteristics
in terms of access and locational parameters in relation to the potential variables
expressed in the TA. As such, the TA provides a fairly crude assumption of a 50% increase
in trips relative to the 45% increase in floorspace (22.5%) based on the assessment
accepted by the Highways Agency at Lakeside Shopping Centre. There is little additional
evidence to either challenger or support the robustness of this assumption. However, of
greater interest to BCC is how these trips have been distributed and assigned to Bristol’s
network, and the methodology that supports these assumptions.
Pass-By, Linked and Diverted Retail Trips
6.3
In relation to the assessment of movements that are already on the highway network,
either through a) already passing the site (pass-by trips), b) passing the site but as part of
a trip to a further site (linked trips), or changing routing patterns from another alternative
location (diverted trips), the TA makes reference to a historic assumption of a 30%
reduction to take account of ‘existing’ pass-by and linked trips. However, the TA also
reflects on a recent TRICS study which confirms the 30% assumption as no longer being
relevant, furthermore, the 30% accepted at Lakeside is not considered relevant to The
Mall in this instance given the amount of facilities elsewhere in the Lakeside basin. As a
result, no further reduction is made by TTP for the purposes of robust assessment. The
TA does however run with the assumption that a linked-trip reduction is relevant to the
leisure and food / drink outlets, assuming that some shoppers will remain on-site to visit
the non-retail uses. Provided that trips that would be solely attributed to the non-retail
uses are taken account of, this would appear to be a reasonable assumption.
A2-A5 Service, Food & Drink Trips
6.4
Taking the above further, the TA makes the assessment that during the daytime, from
Monday-Friday, the food and drink attraction is only likely to result from those who are
already visiting the retail use. Similarly, during evenings and weekends, those visiting the
food and drink uses are unlikely to do so without also visiting the leisure uses. Assuming
the leisure uses are proposed to constitute a multi-screen cinema, bowling complex or
other indoor gymnasium, spa or children’s play facility, this would seem to be a
reasonable assumption. However, this takes no account of the apparent principle of this
development to provide a strategic hub of activity to compliment the CPNN, where it is
expected / promoted that the new local population will visit this site for recreational
purposes, of which dining / drinking are an integral part.
D2 Leisure Uses
6.5
It is argued within the TA that the D2 leisure uses are not expected to generate significant
weekday peak period trips, and that the existing ‘Vue’ Cinema opposite will capture
cinema-only trips whilst any cinema within The Mall will attract cinema-goers who also
wish to go shopping. Whilst more of a planning issue, TDM would query whether the
apparent overprovision of two multi-screen cinemas opposite one another is realistic or
even viable. Regardless, Transport Assessments are expected to consider worst-case
situations and the TA is required to consider the direct potential impact of the D2 leisure
use, regardless of whether a similar use is located nearby.
6.6
Notwithstanding the above, and having regard to the nature of leisure uses, it would
seem reasonable to assume that leisure uses are unlikely to exhibit a significant weekday
traditional peak hour trip generation, other than adult-leisure facilities, such as fitness
gyms, the movements for which are likely to be linked or diverted trips as part of an
existing commute, whilst a cinema use would only reach a significant increase in
movement at the weekend. To this end the TA only considers the D2 Leisure uses as a
standalone trip at the weekend, with a 20% reduction for visitors to retail. TDM consider
this to be a reasonable assumption.
Multi-Modal Forecast Trips
6.7
The 35,250sqm increase in retail floorspace, when expressed as a percentage of the
existing 77,000sqm represents a 45% increase. As has been qualified earlier using
various evidence, it is not reasonable or credible to assume that this will simply represent
a 45% increase in trips and as such a 22.5% increase in trips is forecasted in relation to the
additional 45% of floorspace. The summary table from the TA is included below for ease
of reference:
Table 6.2
Time Period
Trip generation (vehicular) of retail uses
Existing Traffic
Additional Retail Traffic (22.5%)
Arrivals
Departures
Total
Arrivals
Departures
Total
532
166
698
120
37
157
1,184
1,334
2,518
266
300
567
1,901
1,966
3,867
428
442
870
Friday AM
Peak hour
08:00-09:00
Friday PM
Peak hour
17:00-18:00
Saturday
Peak Hour
14:00-15:00
6.8
The above analysis draws from traffic surveys conducted in July 2014. TDM officers
question whether this represents an adequate basis upon which to make future-year
forecasts. There are several reasons for this which are provided below:
6.9
i)
It is not clear at present to what extent The Mall is currently fully operational in
terms of units occupied and customer footfall. TAs are required to be based upon
a development operating to its full potential (worst case) and TDM would expect
to see some information relating to customer attraction patterns / trends over the
previous years, particularly before the recent recession to understand whether the
collected data truly represents a worst-case.
ii)
TDM do not consider that mid-July represents a robust period for analysis, given
the upsurge in retail activity that occurs across the late autumn / Christmas
period, in addition to peaks in demand that are experienced during the school
summer holidays as holidaymakers stop off at The Mall en route to / from the
south west. These peak periods cannot simply be stated as ‘one-offs’, given that
they occur regularly enough to generate considerable impacts on the local
highway networks. It is also noted that by mid-July the local Universities and
several private schools have ceased full operation, further calling into question the
neutrality of this period.
iii)
No details are provided of the length of stay of customers using car parks. This is
a critical matter for consideration if the proposal is expecting to increase the
amount of time that customers spend in this location as a result of additional
non-retail uses. During the peak periods referred to in ii) above, it is common for
the car parks to either close to or full and an adequate assessment cannot be
made of these periods without the appropriate baseline data.
For the non-retail uses the following assumptions have been made which informs the
data contained in the tables that follow.
Table 6.3
Trip generation methodology for all new uses
Use
Method of trip generation
Retail
Percentage uplift of existing flows based upon
50% increase of +45% floorspace
Assumed: 3,500sqm cinema, 2,500sqm bowling
alley, 1,620sqm gym using TRICS analysis
Leisure
Residential
Hotel
6.10
Method of calculating
mode share
Existing site modal
share questionnaire
surveys
2011 Census travel to
work
CPNN assessment
CPNN assessment
CPNN assessment
The methodologies confirmed for forecasting the additional traffic generated by the retail
uses are commented on above, whilst the use of the TRICS database would appear
reasonable to assess the leisure uses in the absence of any similar uses on the site at
present. The table below is taken from forecasts presented in the TA.
Table 6.4
Trip generation (vehicles) of non-retail uses
Leisure
Time Period
Arr
Friday AM Peak
Dep
n/a
Total
Residential
Hotel
(150 units)
(120-bed)
Arr
Dep
Total
Arr
Dep
Tot
19
51
70
10
24
34
08:00-09:00
Friday PM Peak
17:00-18:00
Saturday Peak
14:00-15:00
Link trip
adjustment
6.11
167
153
320
134
122
256
50
30
80
19
6
25
24
28
52
15
15
30
n/a
TDM would question the use of CPNN flows in relation to the residential and hotel uses
given that they seem significantly low for the location in question. Notwithstanding the
above issue, the total multi-modal traffic generation of the proposed development, as
forecasted by the TA is provided in the table below.
Total multi-modal trip generation
6.12
The multi-modal trip generation of the retail uses has been taken from annual shopper
questionnaire surveys which have been conducted over the period from 2010-2014 with
an average taken across the five years studied. These questionnaires have provided the
following mode splits for shoppers at The Mall:
Car / Van: 90.0%,
Walking: 0.8%
6.13
Bicycle: 0.1%,
Taxi: 0.2%
It is unfortunate that the shopper questionnaire surveys did not differentiate between car
drivers and car passengers, although data was collected on the size of shopping parties
between 2012 and 2014. This study concluded, on average that 45% of visitors to The
Mall travelled alone, whilst for parties of 2, 3, 4 and 5+ people, this represented 41%, 9%,
4% and 1% of groups respectively. Using these statistics to generate a modal share
pattern for car passengers to The Mall provides a percentage of 38.6% of current visitors
travelling to The Mall as a car passenger. This has been used to inform the table below.
Table 6.5
Net forecasted additional trips as a result of expansion
Travel Mode
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak Hour
Arr
Dep
Tot
Arr
Dep
Tot
Arr
Dep
Tot
149
112
261
335
336
671
600
604
1204
Car Passenger
94
38
132
200
225
425
426
427
854
Bus/Coach/Rail
23
14
37
43
49
92
96
96
192
Cycle
2
5
6
6
3
9
3
3
7
Walk
12
27
40
26
14
40
24
25
49
Motorcycle
1
1
3
3
3
6
4
5
10
Taxi
1
0
1
1
1
2
3
2
4
Total
281
198
480
629
639
1268
1156
1163
2320
Car Driver
6.14
Bus / Coach: 8.4%,
Motorcycle: 0.4%
The above forecasts utilise 2011 Census Journey to Work data to inform the modal shares
associated with the residential development, whilst the CPNN modelling has been used to
define the modal share of the hotel use.
Servicing / Deliveries
6.15
In relation to servicing and deliveries a further 34 trips are assumed to visit the site
during the hours of peak demand although it is unclear whether these are two-way flows
or represent arrivals only. Clarification is sought on this matter.
7.0
EFFECT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES
Forecast Modal share
7.1
This section of the TA forecasts that the public transport mode share for the
increased level of floorspace will retain the same 8.4% figure gathered from the
shopper questionnaire surveys referred to above.
7.2
Whilst it is later qualified that this figure is likely to be an underestimation as a result of
the improved bus interchange facilities and the development of CPNN and other public
transport infrastructure, the TA concludes that the demand for public transport is
unlikely to exceed the capacity of the existing bus network. There is no evidence to
support this view one way or the other and therefore this section of the TA is vague and
lacking in integrity. The assumption that rail fulfils a valid role in accommodating travel
demand is unrealistic given the distance of rail connections from the site, the lack of
investment in walking/cycling and the requirement to undertake a further bus journey to
reach the site. This is furthered by the absence of rail travel from the completed customer
surveys.
Origin of travel / mode share
7.3
Without the necessary calculations to support these assumptions, TDM cannot accept
this analysis, given that the intention of the public transport strategy is to promote and
make attractive non-car modes of travel to access the site in order to minimise the
impact of the development. It is also clear that the TA makes no assessment of the
geographical origin of travel to the site by mode and therefore no attempt is made to
understand the relationship between existing / new visitor catchments and the public
transport options that are available and how this affects modal choice.
7.4
The omission of modelled public transport demand represents a considerable
shortcoming of the TA given that much of this work would have been undertaken as part
of the CPNN G-BATS modelling work which is referred to in the next chapter and also in
view of the detailed work that has been undertaken to understand and forecast the retail
catchments applicable to this site.
8.0
TRAFFIC EFFECTS ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK
8.1
The applicant has sought to use the Core Strategy Model (CSM) constructed by Atkins and
adopted by SGC in order to test the impacts of the wider strategic growth proposed in the
area, namely the CPNN. This assesses the impact of the Mall extension in 2021 and 2031.
It is understood from the TA that a further Saturday analysis will be submitted in due
course following pre-application dialogue although TDM are unsure whether this utilises
the CSM or whether it will adopt the manual forecasting provided earlier in chapter 6 of
the TA.
8.2
In order to understand the distribution of additional traffic to the site, customer postcode
data was shared with Atkins who were advised that “the geographical spread of the
catchment area for visitors to The Mall was not expected to be materially affected by the
proposed development” (parag 8.9). This assumption is made on the basis of the
shopper survey and the findings of the Retail Impact Assessment carried out by NLP in
September 2014.
8.3
TDM question this assumption, given that it is quite clear that the increased facilities
proposed are likely to have a significant and differing impact upon a number of
surrounding retail town and city centres in the south west as well as South Wales. The
Transport Assessment unfortunately fails to visit this matter in any sufficient detail in
order to allow the local and strategic highway authorities to corroborate what, on the
basis of what is presented in the TA, appears only as an assumption and advice is
therefore sought from planning colleagues.
8.4
A Select Link Analysis is presented within Appendix I of the submitted Transport
Assessment which provides an assessment of the level of additional traffic that is
forecasted to be generated by The Mall expansion during the weekday PM peak hour
period based on the 2021 CPNN modelled scenario.
8.5
However, TDM officers note that the bandwidth plots contained within Appendix I are
labelled 2016 whilst the text in paragraph 8.11 refers to 2021. Clarity is therefore
required on which year these outputs are provided for. The data is split into arrival and
departure trips with the flows with and without The Mall expansion presented below. This
is produced below for reference although the question above remains outstanding and
BCC would expect these diagrams to be revisited (if necessary) for 2021 and 2031, as
explained in paragraph 8.8 of the TA.
Table 8.1
Weekday PM peak – Mall traffic generation on BCC highway network
Location
Direction
No
expansion
With
expansion
Net
A4018 Wyck Beck
Rd, north of Crow
Lane
B4055 Station Rd,
south of A4018
A4018 Passage
Road, south of Crow
Lane
Knole Lane, east of
A4018
Crow Lane, west of
A4018
B4056 Southmead
Road, south of
A4174
A38 Filton Road,
south of A4174
Southbound
344
385
+41
Northbound
302
357
+55
Northbound
103
131
+28
Southbound
278
304
+26
Northbound
255
299
+44
Eastbound
Westbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Southbound
29
6
23
12
56
34
12
30
16
123
+5
+6
+7
+4
+67
Northbound
7
28
+21
Southbound
Northbound
18
7
33
10
+15
+3
Net
(two-way)
+96
+28
+70
+11
+10
+88
+18
*arrival trips in grey, departure trips in white
8.6
The CSM analysis forecasts that 230 additional vehicles will use Bristol’s highway network
to enter and exit The Mall during the weekday evening peak hour period. Of this figure,
107 are predicted to be trips that arrive at The Mall whilst 123 are predicted to be trips
departing The Mall.
8.7
To put the above figures into context in relation to the proportional geographical
assignment of Mall traffic, TDM has derived the following outputs from the strategic
modelling outputs reproduced in the TA. Routes outside of Bristol are shaded in grey.
Again, subject to confirmation of the actual scenario year presented, these figures may
change as a result of differing traffic patterns brought about by additional background
development (for example CPNN). The forecasts below predict that 39% of arrival trips
and 33% of departure trips would use Bristol’s highway network to access / egress The
Mall.
Table 8.2
Geographical Assignment of Total Mall Traffic – Weekday PM Peak
BCC Highway network trips in white, SGC / HA in grey
Expanded Mall Total Arrival trips
Route
From The Laurels
Expanded Mall Total Departure trips
No.
%
36
2%
504
36%
29
2%
10
1%
2
0%
2
0%
91
7%
0
0%
3
0%
33
2%
421
30%
78
6%
192
14%
From A4018
south of Lysander Rd
(Henbury)
From B4056
south of A4174
(Southmead)
From A38
south of A4174 (Horfield)
From Filton Avenue
From A4174 Ring Road
(Stoke Gifford / MoD, UWE)
From Gypsy Patch Lane
(Parkway)
From Stoke Lane (Patchway)
From A38 North
(M5 / Thornbury / B. Stoke)
From Patchway
(Coniston Road)
From M5 north (via J17)
From
Easter Compton / Over via
J17
From M5 south (via J17)
Route
To The Laurels
To A4018
south of Lysander Rd (Henbury)
To B4056
south of A4174 (Southmead)
To A38
To Filton Avenue
To A4174 Ring Road
(Stoke Gifford, MoD, UWE)
To Gypsy Patch Lane
(Parkway)
To Stoke Lane (Patchway)
To J16
(M5 / Thornbury / B. Stoke)
To Patchway
(Coniston Rd)
To M5 north (via J17)
To
Easter Compton / Over via J17
To M5 south (via J17)
No.
%
8
0%
385
23%
123
8%
33
2%
n/a
0%
16
1%
68
5%
20
1%
89
5%
76
5%
327
20%
138
8%
371
22%
TOTAL
8.8
1,401
100%
TOTAL
1,654
100%
In consideration that the TA relies on two separate methodologies to forecast understand
the impact of the proposals, TDM have sought to provide a comparison between the
levels of traffic that are forecasted in Chapter 6 of the TA using a manual methodology (a
22.5% uplift in current flows + TRICS data for the non-retail uses) and the wider strategic
model assessment, using the CSM, referred to below as the GBATS forecast.
Table 8.3
Manual / GBATS forecast comparison – Weekday PM peak hour
Source
Scenario
Traffic Surveys
Existing Mall
Manual Forecast
Expanded Mall
net additional
Manual Assessment - Total Mall Traffic
G-BATS Forecast
(year to be confirmed)
Existing Mall
Expanded Mall
net additional
GBATS Assessment - Total Mall Traffic
Arrivals
Departures
Total
1,184
1,334
2,518
335
336
671
1,519
1,670
3,189
1,107
1,298
2,405
294
356
650
1,401
1,654
3,055
8.9
The above analyses are broadly similar in relation to departure traffic although there is a
notable difference of just over 100 trips when the same parameters are compared for
arrival traffic. This confirms the GBATS model to forecast 134 fewer trips during the
weekday evening peak hour period.
CSM Assessment outputs
8.10
As referred to earlier, the TA draws upon the outputs of GBATS modelling undertaken on
behalf of the applicant by Atkins. This has sought to test the impact of the development
at both 2021 and 2031. Some detail is provided of the modelling parameters used within
these model runs and this is summarised below:
Table 8.4
Committed Development and infrastructure assumptions used in GBATS
Committed developments
2021 scenario
2031 scenarios
588 dwellings
2,500 dwellings
Filton Airfield (BAE site)
151,000sqm employment
151,000sqm employment
Fishpool Hill
799 dwellings
1,250 dwellings
Haw Wood
526 dwellings
1,000 dwellings
Patchway Trading Estate
116
1,000 dwellings
None, other than junction
CPNN Transport package
Full CPNN package
accesses
Major Transport Schemes – (assumed for both scenarios)
M4 / M5 managed motorways
M5 junction 16 & 17 improvements
Ashton Vale – Temple Meads (AVTM) bus rapid transit
Stoke Gifford Transport Link (SGTL)
North Fringe – Hengrove bus rapid transit (NFHP)
8.11
In relation to the above assumptions, TDM would firstly seek advice from SGC’s planning
officers to confirm that the above assumptions are realistic in relation to housing and
employment completions in the 2021 scenario.
8.12
The bandwidth plots that are illustrated in Appendix I and assessed in section 8.5 of this
report are confirmed in the TA as forecasting the 2021 scenario. Once again, clarity is
required given that the diagrams presented are labelled 2016.
Proposed new BAE site (Filton Airfield) junction
8.13
Before turning to the outputs presented in Appendix K of the TA, one notable difference
is apparent when the assessment outputs for the Mall Expansion TA are compared with
the assumptions that have been made by the planning application for the BAE Airfield
site, which was submitted in October 2014. This proposal includes a new signalised
T-junction to Merlin Road between the San Andreas and Christmas Tree roundabouts to
access the development. This junction is however contrary to the wider CPNN masterplan
and the modelling upon which the CPNN and indeed the modelling to support The Mall
application has been based.
8.14
Such a discrepancy would call into question the validity of the modelling presented to
accompany The Mall expansion in the event that this access were approved by SGC. This
would have a bearing on both the strategic modelling work and also in relation to the
local LINSIG / ARCADY models that have been submitted to support the application in
question.
Flow Difference Plots
8.15
Appendices K & M of the TA illustrate the difference in total flows that are forecasted on
the network with and without The Mall extension for 2021 and 2031 respectively. These
outputs are taken from the wider GBATS model and relate to the weekday evening peak
hour and forecasted the changes in flow across the network. These predicted differences
in flows are quantified in Tables 8.2 – 8.3 for 2021 and Tables 8.8 and 8.9 for 2031.
8.16
The assessment of strategic modelling outputs of this nature need to be understood in
relation to the context of the local highway network, its operation, traffic movement
patterns and the limitations of the modelling process selected. TDM officers have noted
that the following issues arise with the methodology that is employed in this section of
the report.
a)
b)
c)
Above all, the applicant has failed to provide an assessment of the development
during a neutral period of the year, as referenced earlier. Together with sensitivity
testing of the peak operation of The Mall in the weeks leading up to Christmas and
the summer holiday period, BCC highway officers note the following other
discrepancies with the quality and robustness of the reporting submitted:
The comparison of before and after flows using GBATS SATURN model comprises a
simplistic and blunt methodology for determining the wider impact of major
development proposals. Consequently there is a failure to report the impact of the
development on the surrounding highway network and an apparent unfamiliarity
with the surrounding area.
For instance, the forecasted reduction on a number of highway links expressed in
Appendix K requires explanation in view of the additional 670 weekday evening peak
hour trips that are forecasted.
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
GBATS-SATURN output plots are normally expressed as actual flows or demand
flows. The difference between the two being where the highway network has failed to
accommodate the demand (owing to capacity constraints). This ‘unreleased’ traffic
does not figure in the flow plots;
As referenced earlier, the Select Link Analyses are a key consideration and are
usefully provided in Appendix I. That there are significant additional flows generated
by the development on the surrounding highway network during the weekday peak
hour, yet comparably minimal increases in total traffic suggests there is either a
locational or time-related displacement of background traffic (peak-spreading),
neither of which is addressed by the outputs or reporting;
It is noted that the Transport Assessment shows minimal queuing on the junctions
which are assessed using LINSIG and ARCADY in Tables 8.4, 8.5, 8.9 and 8.10.
However, a baseline model does not seem to have been formulated and calibrated
against observed congestion. As a result, there is no basis upon which to agree that
the three junction models (all of which are on SGC’s network) presented in the TA
present a realistic or sound basis upon which to forecast future year impacts;
With reference to paragraph 8.31, the determination of junction modelling using the
5% threshold increase in traffic is no longer relevant or appropriate, particularly
where the area being considered suffers from congestion. This is stated clearly in the
2007 Guidance on Transport Assessment;
Notwithstanding the above, the TA considers the development impact at junctions as
a percentage of the total flow of the junction, rather than the increase in traffic at a
particular arm. This is a common practice of consultants seeking to minimise the
impacts of developments and is incorrect. This requires to be rectified and revised to
show the percentage impact upon each arm. In the BCC area, the analysis requires to
be expanded to provide impact forecasting for the following junctions as a minimum
in view of the impacts forecasted in Table 8.1 of this report:
1) A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Wyck Beck Road / B4055 Station Road (junction is in
SGC but impacts upon Station Road in BCC)
2) A4018 Wyck Beck Road / Knole Lane / Passage Road / Crow Lane
3) A4018 Brentry Hill / Greystoke Avenue / Falcondale Road
4) B4056 Southmead Road / Monk’s Park Avenue / Pen Park Road
5) A38 Filton Road / Toronto Road / Monk’s Park Avenue
8.17
In view of the lack of confirmation of impacts on BCC’s network the above list is provided
as a minimum and is produced without prejudice to other issues which may arise from
alternative and/or further scenario testing which may indicate material impacts
elsewhere which may impact negatively upon the safety and operation of Bristol’s
movement networks.
8.18
Overall, it is disappointing that the applicant has failed to address the requirements
outlined by BCC’s highway officer at the pre-application meeting in October and confirm
the impact of the development on BCC’s highway network. In addition to the further work
that is required to demonstrate the impact of the development during a more neutral
period of the year, in addition to a Saturday and during the peak periods of demand,
notably the period leading up to Christmas and Summer Holidays.
8.19
With respect to Saturday assessment, paragraph 8.47 of the TA confirms the applicant’s
intention to run a simulated Saturday model to test the impact upon the Saturday
afternoon peak hour referred to earlier and an addendum TA is expected to be submitted
shortly.
9.0
SUMMARY
9.1
In summary, BCC TDM officers cannot support the proposals for the following
reasons:

The proposal is considered to be at odds with the NPPF and its requirement for
sustainable development.

Transport Assessment has not taken account of BCC’s requirements expressed
during pre-application discussions.

The evidence to support the assessment of baseline conditions is fragile and takes
no account of seasonal variations.

Customer postcode data is not qualified or assessed in relation to the geographical
spread of trips.

Parking accumulation is not considered in terms of current dwell times, nor is it in
terms of the intention of The Mall to encourage longer stays at the site.

The applicant has failed to assess the existing conditions on Bristol’s movement
network.

The development appears to rely on a series of interventions associated with the
CPNN development without providing an understanding of how the delivery of such
measures will be timed accordingly to coincide, or not, with an expansion of The
Mall.

For many of the journeys accessing The Mall it is not reasonable to assume that the
MetroBus or rail expansion programmes planned will serve to reduce the car reliance
of the development. In conjunction with this, the TA fails to undertake a spatial
assessment of current public transport trips to the site and where gaps currently
exist.

Any improvements to the Public Transport facilities at the site are not considered to
generate the necessary shift in mode shares that would be required in order to
deliver accessibility comparable to other major retail centres in the area.

In relation to the food and drink uses, the TA assumes that all visits to these facilities
will only be taken from trips already forecasted to be generated by the retail offer.
This is in direct contradiction to the principle to create a facility that serves the
forthcoming housing developments to the south.

The principle that leisure uses in the expanded Mall will run complimentary to
existing leisure uses nearby, that is, that whilst essentially the same use, they will
exhibit differing trips patterns fails to assess the worst case.

Trip generation for the residential and hotel uses appear to be extremely low.

Assignment of development trips does not appear to take into account the Retail
Impact Assessment which provides greater clarity in terms of origin of custom, nor
does it make the connection between geographical draw and modes of transport.

Saturn Bandwidth diagrams appear to represent 2016, whilst the text in the report
refers to 2021.

There is a discrepancy in that the application for the Filton Airfield site proposes a
new junction that is not assessed within the TA for The Mall expansion, calling into
question the trip assignment, routing and impacts.

Before and after flows do not present a robust enough assessment of the impacts of
this major development. However, when Select Link Analysis outputs are
interrogated, it is clear that the development results in a material impact upon
Bristol’s highway network.

As a result the applicant has failed to demonstrate the impact on BCC’s network in
terms of the level of congestion, queuing and delay. This is a serious omission.

Related to the above, the applicant has not referenced any baseline capacity
assessments of the junctions that are tested, neither has it carried out queue length
surveys which would be essential in order to validate the baseline outputs presented.
Without this, no weight can be attached to future year modelling.

The 5% impact threshold is no longer valid as a reason not to test a network or
junction, particularly one which is subject to congestion.

Percentage impact has been considered as a proportion of the total number of
movements across a whole junction, rather than the percentage increase on one
arm. This is incorrect and masks the impact of development, reducing the
percentage increase every time this methodology is employed.
AGENDA ITEM 11
CABINET
3 March 2015
REPORT TITLE:
Change Programme Monitoring Report
Ward(s) affected by
this report:
All
Strategic Director:
Max Wide / Strategic Director, Business Change
Report author:
Tara Dillon Service Manager, Programme Management Office
& e-mail address:
0117 92 24391 [email protected]
Purpose of the report: To provide a regular six monthly report to Cabinet on progress with
the Council’s Change Programme.
Cabinet is requested to:•
•
•
Note the progress with the delivery of the change programme
Note the actions being taken to mitigate risks
Note the progress with building the capacity of staff to deliver change now and in the future
The proposal:
1.
Executive Summary:
The Single Change Programme was initiated in October 2013 and is described in detail
in the Cabinet report of July 2014 and updated in the Cabinet report of October 2014. In
the former report the operating principles, financial business case (including savings
targets) and investment requirements are set out. This report is a scheduled update on
progress with the Programme.
Overall the Programme, currently comprising of 25 projects, is progressing well with a
further 9 further projects being recently successfully delivered and a further 16 in
progress, including 2 new projects – Facilities Management Redesign and Property
Management Redesign. Two major deliveries since the last report include the
successful completion of the Restructure Project and the move to the new 100 Temple
Street office together with the opening of the new Citizen Service Point. Our first new
style digital services have gone live, initially for residents parking in St Paul’s and Clifton,
with a pipeline of other services about to migrate including licencing, registrations,
concessionary travel and complaints. The number of people with a ‘citizen account’
continues to grow as people begin to use the new digital services.
1
Spend on the programme is in line with budget. Good progress has been made with the
delivery of financial benefits, with £23m having been realised, and a further £12m of
efficiencies, largely through category management (reductions achieved through the
re-negotiation of contracts), well underway. We are confident also that we have sight of
a further £8.6m distributed across redesign, income generation and asset management
work streams.
The remaining c £22m savings needed in the next 2 years will be delivered through a
combination of service redesign work, early intervention and closer working with
partners. Work is underway to establish firm plans for the delivery of this next tranche of
savings, but it is prudent that the programme should remain at an ‘AMBER’ risk level
until this is finalised.
It is vital that we learn from our work and strive to continuously improve. It became clear
during the restructuring exercise that we needed to do more to invest in the skills and
capabilities of our service managers so that they could themselves deliver re-designed
services now and into the future. We are in the early stages therefore of delivering an
Applied Course in Service Re-design. This modular course is attended by ‘cohorts’ of
service managers working on clusters of projects sponsored by Directorate Leadership
Teams, with targets for saving and improvements identified at the start and verified
during the ‘discovery’ phase of the course. These projects are delivered, during the
lifetime of the course, by service managers who are backed by change support teams.
The first cohort of service managers entered the programme at the end of January, with
subsequent groups being initiated during February and March. All service managers will
complete the course and taken together, the cohorts will deliver a substantial
contribution to the service redesign effort.
Further work is underway to identify the source of the remaining savings with a particular
focus now on ‘step 2’ projects which we have described previously (see July 2014
Cabinet report) as “outcome driven, focused on ‘doing better things’. Addressing areas
such as more effective working with partners, optimising the use of public sector
resources, building the sustainability and resilience of the City, listening to citizens and
understanding the things that they find genuinely helpful to commission a set of services
that achieve better outcomes.” This will help to create a modernised organisation and a
service offering very different to that of today, re-designed ‘from the outside- in’.
2.
Programme progress to date
Projects closed/closing
A number of change projects have recently delivered and are either formally closed or
have entered the close down stage:

Restructure: Change Board received the closedown report for this project in
November 2014. The project achieved its objectives in enabling 600 people to
leave Bristol City Council amounting to 509 full time equivalents. The full year
impact of the savings is just over £21m comprising £2.3m savings from tiers 1-3
(our senior leadership staff), £12.67m from BG10-15 (managerial grade staff)
and £6.4m from BG 1-9 (our lowest paid staff). The shape and size of the Council
has changed significantly therefore in the last year, as the infographic below
shows.
2

New Citizen Service Point (CSP) 100 Temple Street: Opened according to
plan on the 15th December, the new CSP at 100 Temple Street successfully
served 190 citizens in their first week. Feedback to date from both citizens and
staff has been very positive, with many highlighting the success achieved
through the colocation of front line and specialist back office staff in one building.
This is demonstrably enabling faster resolution at the first point of contact and
supporting the prevention of escalating need. Operational staff within the new
CSP continue to monitor how the new space is being used, ensuring they are
being responsive to citizen need.

Electoral Management System: a new fit for purpose election management
system was successfully implemented on the 9th December according to plan,
with handover to business operations undertaken on the 15th January. This was
a rapid and highly focussed piece of work that required supportive and highly
collaborative work across a number of teams to ensure the new system was in
place and working well in advance of the next round of elections.

Evidence Handling Redesign: A number of changes to our approach to
handling citizen evidence for a range of services were implemented to support
the opening of the new CSP. The changes introduced include: the ability to
upload certain types of evidence online (reducing the need to come into CSPs);
self-service scanners in the new CSP allowing citizens to help themselves, not
requiring officer time; introducing the ability for services to begin to share
evidence (preventing asking for it twice/using information already available to
us); adopting a risk based approach to who is asked to provide evidence and
when.

Housing Advice & Assessment: Directly in response to the feedback gathered
through a range of interviews with citizens, we went live with a number of
improvements to our Housing Advice and Assessment service to support the
opening of the new CSP. Changes include: easy to absorb, targeted and honest
information, advice and guidance on the website (directly responding to citizens
requests that we provide honest communication so they understand what options
3
are and aren’t available to them); access to the specialist Housing Advice Team
in the same appointment and in the same building (with the view to providing
support to those who need it most at the first point of contact and prevent
escalating need); introduction of an online self-assessment tool to help citizens
understand the next steps available to them and provide easy to understand
advice and guidance.

Local Tax: A range of improvements to existing services, as well as new
initiatives, were successfully launched. Improvements include:
o Reworked web content for exemptions and discounts, making it clearer for
citizens if they qualify, as well new clearer landing page and an ‘Explain
my Bill’ information sheet;
o Improved web content for customers who are struggling to pay;
o Simplified reminder letters and enforcement action letters to make clear
what citizens need to do;
o Redesign of the annual bill, making it easier for citizens to understand and
removing unnecessary information, allowing important details to be more
prominent (completed – will go live Feb 2015).

New offerings delivered include:
o On-line form for students with the ability to attach evidence (removing the
need to complete by hand and post to the council – over 1000 forms have
been received through the online channel since launch in September);
o Introduction of a highly visual recovery process leaflet to aid citizens to
understand what happens if don’t pay (replacing current word heavy two
sided leaflet);
o The ability for citizens to set up Direct Debit on-line rather than via a paper
form (will go live April 2015).

Housing Benefits: A range of improvements have been delivered to reduce the
number and simplify the content of the letters associated with the service.
Existing online claim forms have been simplified and made easier to use based
on citizen feedback. The ability to upload evidence online has also been created.
The backlog of claims experienced in the latter half of 2014 has now been cleared
and further opportunities to improve this, high volume process identified.

Residents Parking Permits: Residents in St Paul’s and Clifton Village now have
the ability to apply and pay for their permits online. The roll out of the Clifton
Village alone has seen 65% of the applications to date coming in via the digital
channel. If the digital channel had not been turned on and these applications had
needed to be processed manually, in the same 2 week period the Permits Team
would have needed an extra 4 FTE to process what would have been an
additional 296 hours of work. This capability will now be rolled out to the
remaining new zones, as well as pre-existing zones allowing 12 month renewals
to be undertaken online.

Concessionary Travel & Blue badges – each year we receive 1,600 new
applications for free Older Persons bus passes. All applicants have had to prove
4
their identity, age and address by presenting original documents at a CSP or by
post; there was no on-line channel. This project introduced a new online channel,
made improvement to and simplified the existing paper application (for those
customers still requiring this channel), improved web content, introduced a ‘print
on demand’ policy at the CSP (reducing the need to store lots of paper),
redesigned internal processes to make them simpler and improved data capture.
Within the first 2 weeks of launch we had 33 successful applications and received
very positive feedback from users of the website.
Live projects
A number of our live projects are focussed on redesigning the current service offering
seeking ways to improve citizen experience, decrease the time taken to deliver, reduce
any areas of duplication and seek opportunities to reduce costs.

Freedom of Information (FoI) and Complaints Redesign – improved internal
processes for FoI requests, complaints and statutory complaints to increase
speed of handling, improve customer experience and remove waste.
Introduction of a new online channel for citizens integrated with a new fit for
purpose back end system – including improved online information advice and
guidance. Go live for FoI will be March 2015 with statutory and non-statutory
complaints services to be released at set increments over the following weeks. A
related element of this project is looking at the roll out of these improvements
across Mayoral Correspondence.

Licensing Redesign – introducing a range of process improvements and a new
online offering for taxi driver applications and renewals. This will remove paper
based licensing application processes (which is more expensive to process),
reduce footfall into Princess House presenting potential to close front desk,
standardise and simplify the end to end license application processes and speed
up the process of licence applications and reduce hand-offs and delays.

Registrations Redesign – introducing a booking system for the Registration
Team to better support their requirements. Deliver the ability to register a birth,
still birth and request certificates online. Reducing the number of calls into the
Customer Contact Centre and drop-in’s to the Registration Office.

Asset Management Redesign and Facilities Management Redesign –
projects are in their early stages, due to formally be initiated at the end of January
2015. The Asset Management Redesign will outline how the associated Mayoral
Savings will be delivered over the next 2 years.
Due to the need for fit for purpose technology to underpin our council services, there are
a number of live technology replacement projects.

New Adult Care System – work is progressing well, with data migrations from
the existing system (PARIS) well underway. The project is due to be complete
quarter 1 of 2015/16.

New HR/Payroll System – to deliver a modern, integrated, management
information system to support our HR and Payroll functions. Good progress has
been made to date with the project on course to go live on the 1st November 2015
5
to allow for the November payroll to be run through the new system.

New Performance Management System - supplier demonstrations have been
held and procurement process to imminently name preferred supplier. Approach
to rollout being developed, with go-live forecast for May 2015.

New Integrated Education Case Management System – last summer we held
a tender process and discovered the marketplace does not currently offer a
commercial off the shelf software product that meets the needs of the service,
whilst supporting the way the council wants to work. The project has continued
exploring how to meet long term service need whilst commencing a number of
tactical pieces of immediate work. Options to progress the longer term solution
are being investigated.

New Housing Management System – This project is progressing well with final
evaluation of the preferred suppliers currently underway, with supplier demos
and final decision on supplier scheduled to be made in mid-February.

New Asset Management System for the Highways service – the preferred
solution has been identified and we are currently agreeing an implementation
schedule.
The wider change projects currently underway under the umbrella of the programme
are:

Bristol Workplace – stage 1 of the project to decant staff from City Hall,
co-locate predominately front line services in 100 Temple Street (operating new
flexible working practices) and begin to co-locate support services in Parkview
have been successfully delivered. Planning for stage 2 is now underway, which
will include the refurbishment of City Hall, further office moves to release existing
assets, the roll out of new working practices across the whole staff base and the
assessment of the potential for localised ‘community hubs’. A new co-Director is
now in place and asset disposal issues, which have hitherto compromised the
timely release of vacated properties, are now being addressed through the
establishment of a Corporate Property Board.

Libraries for the Future – consultation with the public continues to progress
well, with over 3000 surveys completed. There is now a need to target non-users
in the final month of consultation to ensure their views are represented.
Proposals for the new service are being developed: Discussions with all
management teams have taken place, as well as meetings with community
groups, DWP, scrutiny, internal stakeholders etc. to consider options.

Category Management – In Domiciliary Care short term benefits continue being
delivered through increased compliance with Electronic Monitoring System. The
Framework re-tender, projected to deliver at least £1.7m savings on price with
further demand management savings. Residential Care has delivered some
benefits in 14/15 and the full year effects are likely to be over £1m in 15/16 and
16/17. The Framework re-tender initial consultation with the marketplace is
underway. Workforce savings associated with agency staff demand
management process have been implemented.
6
3.

Boundary Review & Constitution phase 2 - A consultation was run by the
Boundary Commission from 9 December to 15 February inviting comments on the
draft proposals for ward boundary changes. It expects to present final
recommendations in May 2015 with new boundaries to be effective in time for the
May 2016 elections. March will see the review of Scrutiny Report and research is
underway into proposed changes in committees, the role of outside bodies and
changes to the governance of neighbourhood partnerships. An annual review of the
constitution is underway with recommendations for changes being brought to full
Council in spring following discussions with Party Group leaders and Whips.

Care Act – an initial phase of work is underway to put in place the statutory
requirements associated with the Care Act that will go live March 2015. Post April,
work will focus on the broader strategic changes.

Income Generation – this project is in the early stages of initiation; investigative
work is underway to identify and then progress a range of income generating
opportunities. Initial findings to be brought to Change Board for further discussion in
March.
Financial Update:
Investment
The estimated total level of investment required in the Change Programme is £33.5m
over 3 years, as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan. The year to date figures
show that £5.5m has been spent, with current financial year investment in line to hit the
budgeted £10m. Spend sits broadly across the categories: resources, restructure,
redesign, technology and category management.
Benefits
To date, the Change Programme has realised nearly £22.6m of savings through the
organisational restructure (almost exclusively achieved through voluntary severance).
Due to a factors we are now addressing through the Applied Course in Service
Redesign (see below), this was slightly short of the original first year target of £28m, with
the deficit now being recovered through the redesign work stream.
An additional £12m of savings are on course to be delivered through a range of
initiatives being delivered through the Category Management (savings through either, or
a combination of, renegotiation of existing contracts, re-procurement of services and
improved demand management) work stream.
The remaining savings will be delivered through the redesign, income generation and
asset management work streams. The primary contributor will be the redesign work
stream with an estimated £11m to be delivered 15/16 and a further £11m to be delivered
in 16/17.
7
The table below shows the current status of savings realisation across the Change
Programme:
Stage of benefits
realisation:
Benefits delivered
Benefits identified
and projects on track
High confidence in
benefits and work
started
Benefits to be
identified
4.
Content
Sub Totals
Totals
Restructure
Restructure full year
impact
Category management:
 new contracts
agreed
 low case
 medium to high
case
Income generation
Asset management
Applied Course
projects
Further redesign and
‘step 2’ work
£11.8m
£9.3m
£21.1m
£1.5m
£13.2m
£9.0m
£2.7m
£2.0m
£4.6m
£4.0m
£10.6m
£19.1m
£64m
Building change capacity in the Council:
The Applied Programme for Service re-design
As part of the re-design workstream we have sought to invest in our service manager
group to bring them fully into the delivery of savings and improvements as their role
description requires. This enhances our change capacity going forward and frees up
service directors to design and deliver more complex ‘step 2’ work.
We are in the early stages therefore of delivering an Applied Programme in Service
Re-design. This modular course is attended by ‘cohorts’ of service managers working on
clusters of projects sponsored by Directorate Leadership Teams, with targets for saving
and improvements identified at the start. These projects are delivered, during the
lifetime of the course, by service managers who are backed by change support teams.
The first cohort of service managers entered the programme at the end of January, with
subsequent groups being initiated during February and March. All service managers will
complete the course and taken together, the cohorts will deliver a substantial
contribution to the service redesign effort.
The cohorts are identified through Directorate Leadership Teams utilising data on high
cost processes within the Council. A ‘pre-qualification questionnaire’ is submitted that
enables the Board to take an investment decision. The criteria to select potential cohorts
is based on their predicted impact on;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The savings or income quantum
Duplication and inefficiency
The journey to digital
Impact on citizens in priority (life event) areas
Re-use of previously completed work
8
Based on these criteria a number of potential cohorts have been identified which are
currently being evaluated and will be described in more detail in the next update report.
Once selected the programme proceeds as set out below with participants attending a
number of modules described in the top row of the diagram, and then in between the
modules they apply the learning with the help of the change support team. Progress is
overseen by Directorate Leadership Teams and at key ‘gateways’ this is in trun reported
to Change Board.
5.
Conclusion
The programme is progressing well, delivering its expected benefits within the investment
envelope. As would be normal with a programme of this size, problems do occur but where this
happens Change Board is proving a robust vehicle for identifying and resolving any issues. We
are taking steps to enhance change capacity in the organisation by investing in service
managers and beginning deliver digital re-design on a much bigger scale. Challenges remain
to identify and realise the remainder of the savings but we are well placed to do this.
a.
Change Programme Board
Strategic Leadership Team
9
Business Change Scrutiny Commission
b.
None
Finance
Financial (revenue and capital) implications:
10
Financial implications are covered in Section 3 of the report for both capital (investment) and
revenue (benefits/budget savings).
Budget savings associated with the programme are a major element of the budget for 2015/15
and the Medium Term financial Strategy. Any slippage in the projected savings would therefore
impact upon the delivery of the councils financial targets.
Advice given by
Date
Peter Gillett, Service Director - Finance
17th February 2015.
N/A
N/A
Guidance: The impact of the Change Programme laid out in this paper is in line with the Section
188 notice issued in November 2013 at the outset of the 3 year budget. The number of
employees that are considered as being potentially impacted covers the whole permanent and
temporary workforce and we continue to estimate that there will be a potential reduction of 971
(800 FTE) employees during the three financial years covered by the MTFS. The organisation
restructure that has taken place during the current 2014/15 financial year has resulted to date
in workforce reductions of 523 FTE.
Full consultation with Trade Unions has been undertaken throughout the period of organisation
restructure and the Council will continue to seek to reach agreement with the recognised Trade
Unions on how to mitigate the need to make any further compulsory redundancies.
Advice given by
Date
Richard Billingham – Service Director HR
17.02.15
Appendices: None
11

(agenda item 5), 3 March 2015

Transcription

Similar documents

The University of Malaya Library

American Public Libraries Great and Small

You can receive 12 weeks of free vouchers for Slimming World or

WORKING TOWARDS A NEW DANISH LIBRARY STRATEGY

Presentation by Lee van Orsdel

Devil`s Advocate

tug and butty £39000 - Channel Yacht Sales

Creating the library of the future

xl center - Lycée Jean Monnet

Nurul Diana - UiTM Puncak Alam