Place Scrutiny Commission – 23 October 2014
Public Forum Questions (full details attached): Question 1 - questions from Rob Telford Subject: 25 bus service replacement / Romney Avenue bus link
Question 2 - questions from Steve Virgin Subject: Ferry operations
Question 3 - questions from Robert Duxbury Subject - Residents parking scheme finance update
Question 4 - questions from Maggie Shapland Subject – Cycling/pedestrian issues Question 5 - questions from Michael Owen Subject – Residents parking
PLACE SCRUTINY COMMISSION 23 OCTOBER 2014
QUESTION 1
Questions from Rob Telford – 25 bus service replacement / Romney Avenue bus link I have been in conversations with First Group’s Commercial Manager about new bus services through my ward, to replace the 25 bus service that used to go through the St Werburghs and St Pauls areas. Regular services through St Werburghs and St Pauls are a lifeline through my ward, particularly for elderly and disabled residents who want to get to the city centre for shopping and entertainment. The main sticking point seems to be the delay to the Romney Avenue Bus Link. Q1: Can you update us on progress on the Romney Avenue Bus Link and what your department is doing to break up the logjam? Q2: What more can the council do to ensure that the transport operators in Bristol are listening to local concerns around their services?
PLACE SCRUTINY COMMISSION 23 OCTOBER 2014 Questions from Steve Virgin – Ferry operations Details attached.
QUESTION 2
Question 1 Given the fact that the Bristol Ferry Boat company was receiving council subsidies in 2009 (see story below) and then applied for a £125,000 loan to “secure its future” under the Enterprise Guarantee Loan Scheme – what involvement did BCC have in advising, organizing, supporting or submitting positive support for this application? 1) Did this application and the language used in this Bristol Post story ‘keeping firm afloat’ ring any alarm bells inside the council about the company’s solvency? Was any additional action taken to investigate the financial soundness of the organization? If so can they be detailed please. http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Government-backed-loan-keeps-ferry-firm-afloat/story-11263578detail/story.html
Question 2
In Q1 was saw that the Bristol Ferry Boat Company in 2009 had to go cap in hand to the Government for an enterprise guarantee loan. One year later it is in crisis yet again. What actions did Bristol City Council take to review the financial viability of the Bristol Ferry Boat Company given the fact it has nearly hit the rocks in two successive years. If no action was taken to assess the company’s fitness to operate a passenger service on a council licence, is this not negligence? Please comment on what action was taken or not, why it was taken and where responsibility lay for that action. http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Ferry-service-saved-8211/story-11311600detail/story.html#cv0wHxYO35RgguLE.99
Question 3
On the same topic as was the Bristol Ferry Boat Company really a going concern in a financial sense and what actions the City Council took to assess its financial liquidity as a company….. Having borrowed £125,000 under the Enterprise Loan Scheme in 2009 (see Q1) and cut routes (see Q2) the Bristol Ferry Boat Company now sells off its ‘mothership’ the Tempora in the autumn of 2010 for (assuming the guide price was met) £160,000.
Why was the city council not concerned about a company that now seems to be in steep financial decline that it is selling off core assets? What actions did Bristol City Council take in 2010 to measure and assess whether the Bristol Ferry Boat company was actually financially solvent? http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27040447.html
Question 4 Why have City Council officers overlooked this answer given by the Mayor in the course of taking questions from members of the public? It gives the levels of public subsidy handed to the Bristol Ferry Boat company and No 7 Packet Boat and is also a view expressed by the Mayor personally. One would have thought it relevant to the matter under consideration? Can it be included on public record please that the Bristol Ferry Boat Company collapsed owing ÂŁ661,000 AND it had received a level of subsidy (combining all grants below) upwards of half a million pounds as well on top + ÂŁ125,000 Enterprise Grant Award. This is relevant information as a simple ferry boat service seems to have swallowed money at an alarming rate and it does make one wonder whether a full investigation or inquiry into its actions ought to be called. https://www.bristol.gov.uk/committee/2013/ta/ta000/0115_5c.pdf
Question 5 When the Bristol Ferry Boat Company bid for this contract against No7 Packet Boat in the late summer of 2012 – it was only weeks away from liquidation. Can this committee see copies of the Pre-Qualification Questionnaires of all bidders to assess against financial claims made by these companies in the light of what happens later that year? What financial checks were carried out against all of these companies to ensure they were financially able to carry out the contract were they to win? And is the anecdotal claim that the Bristol Ferry Boat Company asked for a £50K annual subsidy to run the route being tendered while the No7 Packet Boat asked for nothing correct?
Question 6
When the Bristol Ferry Boat Company collapsed it left debts of £661,613.98 scattered across Bristol. These include HMRC, Bristol City Council and countless others – list included in attachment. Yet incredibly even though it had collapsed it appears that all its staff wages have been paid. Whilst a nice thing to do morally, why should a set of unsecured creditors be singled out and benefit at the expense of other secured creditors? Is that legal in terms of the UK Insolvency Act and current existing legislation? Did the Bristol City Council team know about or sanction this?
Question 7
In the Place Scrutiny Committee Report for October officers confirm that the routes were NOT retendered commercially as they should have been.
Section 6 of the Report States: The vessels were bought by a group of investors in December 2012 from the liquidation company Harrisons Business Recovery who contracted AMS Auctions Ltd to dispose of the assets. An application was made to the Harbour Authority to commence services previously run by the liquidated BFBC. This was only approved after the new company completed their Maritime and Coastguard Agency certification and a stipulation was that the new companyFerry Boats of Bristol (FBOB) had a signed agreement with No7 regarding their conduct within the harbour and the willingness to operate with what was now the “established operator� (No7). This was duly done and a copy was held at the Harbour Office. FBOB commenced services early Jan 2013. http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Sunk-Bristol-Ferry-Boat-Company-business/story-17978728detail/story.html#ixzz3CYQFoDIt
So why did the Council tell The Post it WOULD re-tender these routes when it clearly did not and has never done so to date
Section 8 of the Scrutiny Committee doc May 2013 FBOB was changed to a Community Interest Company which comprised of over 800 investors (each investing ÂŁ100 per share) in the company, the company was renamed Bristol Community Ferry Boats (BCFB). This company carried on with FBOB routes and timetables.
Question 9
Inconsistencies between Bristol City Council’s own report on passenger numbers of the Bristol Ferry Boat Company/No7 Boat routes and the facts put on public record by one of the operators?
The owner of No7 Boats and Bristol City Council seemingly fail to agree on the success of passenger ferry routes and numbers of passengers. Given this official statement by Richard Rankin (who ought to know something about the success or failure of the routes) – will the council revisit its assessment that ferries have no commercial role to play in making commuting more sustainable by encouraging people to travel by boat rather than car? Given the huge discrepancy between what No7 Packet Boat owner Richard Rankin thinks are realistic passenger numbers and the City Council’s comments in this report – can this whole process be revisited and rethought? Finally, that the Bristol Ferry Boat Company’s passenger numbers are so ‘out of whack’ with that No7 Boat Company found. And that earlier questions have raised concerns about the financial solvency of the Bristol Ferry Boat Company – is it advisable to ask for a further/deeper investigation as to where the fare paying passenger cash taken by the Bristol Ferry Boat company actually went? How can one company be clocking up far greater passenger numbers on the same routes as another, if all its doing is precisely the same trips at the same time? Is this not cause for additional investigation? And questions to be asked of the three shareholders of that company?
http://numbersevenboattrips.com/RequestForAnswers.html
Statement by Richard Rankin No7 Boats Sept. 2007 saw us win a contract from Bristol City Council (BCC), to provide a daily Cross Harbour service which had previously been run by The Bristol Ferry Boat Company (BFBC). The subsidy for this service was £36,000 per year with a requirement to run part days in the winter and full days in the summer. Our successful quote was based on usage figures supplied by the BFBC. From day one we found we were taking at least twice the numbers shown by our predecessors.
Upon realising that the figures supplied were apparently worthless we resolved to run the service at summertime levels all year round, resulting in the taxpayers of Bristol getting over 4000 hrs of service extra over the 5 year period. During this period only 2 days service were lost as a result of the harbour freezing over to a depth of 40mm, on a couple of days we were Bristol’s only public transport service, trains excepted. We even made news in Australia for that!
Place Scrutiny Commission Report 23 October 2014 – Slides 49-50 The Bristol Ferry Boat Company (BFBC) held the original contracts for both the City Docks Commuter Service and the Cross Harbour Ferry. However, following a competitive tendering process they lost the Cross Harbour to No7 Boats in 2007. The Bristol Ferry Company prematurely terminated the Commuter Service contract in 2010. For its final year to September 2011, the contract for a reduced service (Hotwells to the Centre only) was awarded to No7 Boats.
The provision of services at commuting times was aimed at generating a level of demand and usage that would support a commercially provided operation. However, despite timetable iterations aimed at better connections to trains, the aspired patronage growth never materialised. Towards the end of its operation, the 2 combined commuter services provided 13,000 passenger journeys pa. With the costs of operation growing, the Council could not continue its financial support.
The fundamental demand for the service was undermined by lengthy journey times, the infrequent service and the alternatives available at similar or lesser cost. Whilst the non-commuter market remains, and the Cross Harbour service is thriving, we do not currently see other commuter ferries fulfilling a significant role in transport service provision in Bristol.
Question 10
Were SIP 16 rules and regulations adhered to by Bristol City Council in the collapse of the Bristol Ferry Boat Company? If not, why not? What did the BCC actually do? Particularly relevant given the fact that ONE director Ian Bungard moves from BFBC to Ferryboats Bristol and then to Bristol Community Ferryboat Company helping create the illusion that little had changed from the first service run by BFBC to the service running now Given the fact that in 2012 Bristol had a newly elected Mayor for the first time ever promising to be a new broom and sweep away petty-party differences, we are a little surprised that he did not think to call a full, open and public enquiry into the collapse of the Bristol Ferry Boat Company. If, as his protestations at the time are to be believed, he had little or nothing to do with the running of the Bristol Ferry Boats Company – even though he was a 42% shareholder and one of only three shareholders in the company – a full and open enquiry into the collapse would have shown this to be true. As it is now, so we now ask whether the correct procedures under SIP16 (national legislation) were correctly followed and for the City Council (a creditor) to publish these details on public record Details taken from House of Commons Library reference document to MPs (Sept 14)
Phoenix trading Standard Note: Last updated: Author: Section
SN/HA/4083 9 September 2014 Lorraine Conway Home Affairs Section
1.2 Phoenixism and pre-pack administrations Phoenix trading is often linked to pre-pack administrations. The term ‘pre-pack’ describes any situation where the business of an insolvent company is prepared for sale to a selected buyer (i.e. ‘pre-packaged’) prior to the company’s entry into formal insolvency proceedings. The agreed sale is then carried out by the administrator, an authorised insolvency practitioner, shortly following their appointment. The Insolvency Service has estimated that 25 per cent of the 2,808 companies that entered administration in 2011 used the pre-pack procedure; and that nearly 80 per cent of pre-pack sales were to connected parties.1 1 The
Insolvency Service, ‘Annual Report on the Operation of Statement of Insolvency Practice 16’, January/ December 2011
The key attraction to the use of pre-packs is the speed with which the administration proceeds. When undertaken in appropriate circumstances, pre pack administration is a procedure by which a potentially successful business can be saved (with the value of its brand in tact), protecting jobs. However, pre-packs have been criticised for their lack of transparency. The worry of some unsecured creditors is that assets may have been sold at an undervalued price or that goodwill has not been fully valued because of the speed of the sale. The matter is further complicated if the purchaser is the existing management, with concerns raised as to the potential for abuse of the process by directors seeking to purchase a business at an advantageous price and simply avoid payment of creditors. To address these concerns, a Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP 16) was issued in January 2009 (and subsequently updated). Under SIP 16, the administrator is required to provide creditors with:  a detailed narrative explanation and justification of why a pre-packaged sale was undertaken;  information on the name of the purchaser of the business/assets and the price paid; and  details of any connection that the purchaser has with the former directors or shareholders of the insolvent company
In addition, SIP 16 identifies 17 key pieces of information that the administrator should disclose to creditors at the earliest opportunity. In most cases, this will mean with their notice of appointment. This information includes: details of marketing activities undertaken by the company and/or administrator to attract possible buyers any valuations received rival bidders and alternative courses of action considered
Insolvency practitioners can be subject to fines for non-compliance with SIP 16. It is also important to note that a pre-packaged administration (like any other administration) is under the ultimate control of the court. Once appointed, the administrator is required to act in the best interests of all the creditors. A separate Library standard note provides more detailed information on pre-pack administrations.2
Question 11 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/216
The Bristol Ferry Boat Company was heading for liquidation in December of 2012 when its assets (boats) were sold off by Private Treaty Sale to a group of ‘friends’ at a lower price. As a creditor of the Bristol Ferry Boat company, does the council feel short changed that these assets were not sold off on the open market and (perhaps) a bigger value obtained for these assets? Secondly, there were numerous references to ‘The Bristol Ferry Boat Company’ as having been saved all over the TV, Radio, press starting at the end of 2012 and continuing all the way to the th summer of 2013. It wasn’t. It went into full official liquidation on February 8 2013.
As a creditor what efforts did the Council team make to ensure that this blatant misrepresentation of the truth was not perpetuated? Did the council team liaise with the Liquidators (Harrison’s of Hereford) to get them to correct the false representations being made claiming the same company as before still existed? And, more importantly, what efforts did the council make (as a creditor) to ensure the Insolvency Act was complied with and that laws governing the use of names of liquidated companies were adhered to? This is particularly important as one Mr Ian Bungard was a shareholder at all three companies involved: Bristol Ferry Boats Company (Ian had a 15% holding) – along with two other shareholders: George Ferguson (42%) and Jane Salvidge (43%) Ferryboats Bristol appears to be the vehicle that took over the Private Treaty Sale of Assets by ‘friends’ – Ian Bungard and his wife are the two sole directors of this company. Bristol Community Ferry Boat Company (incredibly close name to the original liquidated company) has Ian Bungard and his wife on board as directors as well.
Given the wording of the Insolvency Act Section 216 are there grounds for concern over ‘Restriction on the Re-use of Company names’? As a creditor of the original company that was still in its preliquidation state (January 2013) when the Ferryboats Bristol company started sailing (registered 2nd January 2013) – what actions did the council take to protect the vital assets (its own
routes) and to ensure the financial viability of a new company that had just emerged out of the ruins of one that has just collapsed? And why was the fact that one of the three directors from the previous company leading the Phoenix company seemingly of little concern to the council with its duty of care to Bristol City Council taxpayers?
Question 11 (2)
Evidence that the name of the Bristol Ferry Boat Company is being used after the company has collapsed
Why is absolutely no attempt to correct the story made whatsoever by the company or any of its creditors, which includes the council? Mr Rankin lists reasons as to how the help being given to Bristol Ferry Boat Company and its successors is hurting his business and causing unfair competition http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Sunk-Bristol-Ferry-Boat-Company-business/story-17978728detail/story.html#ixzz3CYQFoDIt
Question 12 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Rival-given-unfair-help-says-Bristol-ferry-firm/story-22048233detail/story.html http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Ferry-owner-s-anger-rival-company-plan/story-17790191detail/story.html#UdGlfU8Gccs7De20.99
see below
Why has Bristol City Council DELIBERATELY declined to answer questions about the harbour, ferries and routes around them for nearly 18 months? Is it trying to hide something? Is Mr Rankin correct in his allegations? (see his questions below)
http://numbersevenboattrips.com/RequestForAnswers.html I therefore require answers to the following questions and am now making a formal request for written and public answers. Richard Rankin, MD. No 7 Boat Trips Ltd To The Council of Bristol City Council;
1. How much has BCC paid in transport subsidies to the BFBC since Mr Ian Bungard bought the business in 1978 up to the point when payments ceased? 2. Would Mayor Ferguson confirm or deny that he along with John Grimshaw were amongst others the founders of the ferry company later known as the BFBC when the ferry service first started in 1977?
3. Can Mayor Ferguson confirm the original boat was sold to one Ian Bungard in 1978 and thus the BFBC was formed? 4. Can Mayor Ferguson confirm that on the 19 of November 2011 (when the BFBC called in Harrisons Business Recovery & Insolvency Ltd), that he held 84,000 shares in the company and that Mr Ian Bungard held 30,000 shares in the company and that the remaining 86,000 shares were held by Mrs Jane Salvidge (The person Named in Harrisons creditors report as the company director)? 5. Can Mayor Ferguson confirm that as the creditors report shows at least £12,000 was still outstanding in unpaid wages to staff? 6. Can Mayor Ferguson confirm that the creditors report shows that in excess of £31,000 was owed in respect of PAYE and National Insurance? 7. Can Mayor Ferguson confirm that the creditors report shows BCC was as of the 14 December owed just over £10,900 pounds in unpaid moorings, commercial licenses, and office rent. A further £5,970 pounds in unpaid passenger insurance (to knighthood Insurance). A further £7,548 pounds to local business, £261,660 pounds to the Nat West Bank, and a further £198,700 owed to a third party? 8. The Evening Post reported that a consortium of over thirty people headed by one John Grimshaw had purchased the boats of the bankrupt BFBC, further reports stated that a Mr Ian Bungard (the founder of the BFBC) would run the new company as a CIC, could the council in the interests of clarity of government provide a list of all the interested parties in this consortium, and their past associations with each other (both professional and private)? 9. Given that BFBC crashed with debts in excess of £660,000 does the council think it is a good idea to let a not for profit company start up in opposition to 3 independent operators in the floating harbour? This following closely on the news that the Balmoral has to cancel its entire 2013 season due to the present trading situation. 10. I think the council will find that all of the present non-bankrupt companies in the harbour would speak as one in their opposition to this CIC’s proposal if they were given the chance. This, if allowed to go forward would effectively devalue our companies and places us in an unfair trading position. Two of the current commercial operators are Ltd companies, with shareholders to consider. We have all paid our dues and current commercial licenses and have kept our heads above water during very hard times for our trade in general. Does the council agree that to allow a notfor-profit company to operate could do damage to the commercial viability of those operators in the harbour, resulting in further job losses to our industry? 11. Would Mayor Ferguson in his role as Transport Minister kindly confirm that his assistant Zoe Sear passed on my company’s intentions with regard to re-branding some of our boats blue and yellow and also our requirements with regard to timetabling which was submitted to the council at various applicable levels on the 18th of December? Two full days prior to the auction of the Bristol Ferry Company boats, thus ensuring a continuation of Bristol’s beloved iconic blue and yellow ferries, regardless of the outcome of the sale. 12. Would Mayor Ferguson kindly enlighten both the rest of the council and the people of Bristol as to his position with regard as to whether a CIC is an appropriate way of ensuring fair and equal treatment of the commercial situation in the floating Harbour, taking into consideration the fact that one company was previously continuing to operate in a bankrupt manner. 13. Would Mayor Ferguson in his role as Transport Minister state his opinion as to the suitability of both Mr Grimshaw and Mr. Bungard to have an opinion on the subject of what is needed in the way of commuter ferry services given that any relevant experience in this field is 30 and 14 years (respectively) out of date with the current needs for waterborne transport requirements.
Question 13 https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/PublicSpend/transactions/files/bristol-ferry-boatcompany/458?skip=0 This’ll be about Q10 – just quick to knock up for you
This link shows pretty clearly the level of monthly subsidy paid to the Bristol Ferry Boat Company right up until its collapse. Earlier questions (dating the start of Bristol Ferry Boat Companies money troubles from 2009) – list a number of alarm bells all suggesting that this company was in deep financial difficulty – how much was it paid in Council subsidy between Jan 1 2009 and its collapse? Second question is a bit disturbing – why did the council seemingly pay the Bristol Ferry Boat Company £600 in February this year if it was liquidated in February 2013?
Dear Chair Having seen the provisional report on Ferries for Scrutiny Committee next week I was alarmed at just how inaccurate it was. (see below and match with my questions in an earlier mail). There is a lot of smoke swirling around the Ferries at the moment and one part of it appears to be based on the idea that although the Mayor has no financial connection with the two versions of the Phoenix companies that emerged from the Bristol Ferry Boat Company collapse the City Council does seem to be going all out to favour the resurrected Bristol Community Ferry Boat company over other companies operating in the port. This is one of the reason why I find the report submitted to Scrutiny so alarming. Is this yet another example of rewriting history so that one company associated with the Mayor can be favoured over others? I think Scrutiny Committee should be asking the officers involved in writing that report why they chose selective bits of facts to paint such a bias and possibly untruthful picture. For the record – these are the charges/answers that the Committee needs in simply form so that members of the committee (our representatives) have a tick list they can work through.
1) 2) 3) 4)
Phoenix Company SIP 16 Insolvency Act infringement Section 216 Offence on the Phoenix A failure to re-tender the routes of the Bristol Ferry Boat company – handing them from one Phoenix to the next like sweets 5) A mysterious and glaring omission of who or how all the staff salaries were paid at the Bristol Ferry Boat Company (which would be paying an unsecured creditor and no one else) 6) Possible trading fraudulently in the summer of ’12 when the Bristol Ferry Boat Company bid for passenger routes across the Harbour (they were 661K in red) yet would have to have submitted a Pre-Qualifying Questionnaire answer to BCC saying they were actually solvent (waiting on an FOI to prove this conclusively) Regards Steve Virgin
QUESTION 3 QUESTIONS FOR THE PLACE SCRUTINY COMMISSION MEETING ON 23 OCTOBER FROM R DUXBURY OF ST ANDREWS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEM 15 (RPS FINANCE UPDATE) My questions relate to the attached chart which shows results from an unidentified survey done on vehicle parking between Nov2013 and Feb2014. Q1 Please can council officers make available the full contract cost of commissioning these surveys and the name of the contractor? Q2 Please can council officers provide the terms of reference under which the contractor undertook these surveys? Q3 Please can council officers explain to what use the results of the survey have been/are made? Q4 Please can council officers prove exact definitions for categories: 1. ‘commuters’ 2. ‘mixed, incl. shopping & leisure’ Q5 Please can council officers explain the purpose of the column ‘total vehicles’ and how the final column headed ‘% commuter parking’ was exactly calculated?
Please note my wish to have a written copy of the answer prior to the meeting together with a record of any additional verbal reply, or any answer given to my supplementary questions, provided within 10 working days.
Collation of parking survey data within proposed Residents Parking Schemes Parking beat surveys were carried out across four time periods during a typical working day. These were undertaken between November 2013 and February 2014.
The number plates of vehicles parked in specified zones were recorded. Sizes of each beat were set to ensure vehicles were fully surveyed within time periods. Beats were as follows: 5am – 7am, 10am – 12 noon, 2pm – 4pm, 7pm – 9pm (8pm – 10pm in zones with significant night time activity). The type of parking could then be attributed against presence within one or more beats. The exact boundaries of the proposed zones may have changed from the boundary of the survey, but not significantly enough to alter the general picture.
Easton and St Philips St Pauls Redland Cliftonwood & Hotwells Clifton Village & West Southville Bedminster East Montpelier
Residents’ Cars
Outbound commuting
In-bound commuters
Mixed, incl. shopping & leisure
TOTAL Vehicles
% Commuter Parking
705 579 1202
139 343 1111
731 848 1126
595 804 1279
2170 2574 4718
33.70 32.94 23.87
1523
148
802
719
3192
25.14
2668 2450 406 1202
186 203 41 114
1882 971 481 462
1479 1134 379 511
6215 4758 1307 2289
30.29 20.41 36.83 20.17
QUESTION FROM MAGGIE SHAPLAND
QUESTION 4
Walking and Cycling - questions for Place Scrutiny Commission 23 Oct 2014. To be read in conjunction with my statement which was presented to the Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership meeting 14 October 2014. We would like the Council to look after the pedestrians. We can no longer identify where cycling is and is not allowed due to mixed signage and mixed messages. This is confusing to both cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrians are getting hit by cyclists (including me on a number of occasions). There is no way of reporting cycle incidents so no statistics. Cyclists can be abusive when told to dismount even though they are cycling illegally, on narrow routes, on pedestrian routes or when there are "no cycling" signs. Cyclists can go on the road, pedestrians have nowhere else to go. Why has this happened? The Partnership was referred to a Cyclist Campaign briefing for cycling and pedestrians whose aim is to get cyclists off the road and onto pedestrian areas! Why not work on the Walking Strategy? Have other Partnerships worked on it? Why not segregated areas? Responsible Cycling campaign can only be aimed at cyclists breaking the law as it is then enforceable by the Police. How can it be enlarged to protect the pedestrian on pedestrian routes? Speeding cyclists and those who do not give priority to pedestrians should not be on a pedestrian route. The Greenways Project / Walking Strategy minutes on 11th March 2014 stated "The need to communicate a ‘joined up’ Walking Plan within the city is important, although perhaps it hasn’t been clear enough to date on how these things link together. Why is there is no dedicated resource or team for this project? The Ramblers have not had any feedback in months." The pedestrian has the right of passage on the Greenway. Are cyclists allowed on the whole of the Greenway, especially on a pedestrian route? Is a pedestrian route classified as a pavement? Could this be clarified? Round the harbour is identified as a walkway with a pedestrian logo, defined as a primary pedestrian route, yet signage has warnings related to cyclists. Why? Is it a shared footpath? Who knows? How do we find out? Instead of messages telling cyclists to dismount at pinch points, that pedestrians have the priority etc there is a shared footpath sign telling cyclists to beware of the railings! This is ridiculous. There are no fewer than 4 signs by M shed plus a barrier to stop cyclists at an area which has a large pedestrian footfall. A large sign at the Suspension Bridge telling cyclists not to use the footpath should equally be common sense and redundant. Bristol has put up a few signs warning cyclists to give way to pedestrians so why not more?
Why is there a shared footpath sign on a pedestrian route? Why is the sign cycling orientated?
We are confused about the current Hotwells Waterfront proposal to widen the path at the ferry stop. It was admitted by the Cycling Group that there had not been a proper consultation with any groups, no user flow analysis nor any of the other necessary analysis. How can this happen? The cycling group can not work in a vacuum. 1. The declared intention is to attract more cyclists onto the waterfront. This will be to the disadvantage of pedestrians on a primary pedestrian route. Why? 2. Another intention is that cyclists no longer have to slow down to walking pace in this busy intersection, which increases the danger and anxiety of pedestrians. Why? 3. There is no undertaking for any proper slowing measures once the pedestrians' safety barrier is removed. Sustrans consider cyclists should be able to do 10-15mph. John Richfield urban cycling BCC confirmed that cyclists should not have to dismount and that they should be able to go faster than pedestrians, yet this is a pedestrian walkway and popular destination. What is going on? 4. Tree roots affect cyclists so what will happen to the trees? More noisy harbour maintenance plates to be run over and disturb the residents, cobble stones cut in half and turned over so the cyclists can go faster, ferries and ferry passengers affected, many pinch points---- Why encourage cyclists here? The Rownham Mead consultation illustrates the problems when funding is provided for cyclists even though policies require pedestrians to be treated as a priority. Pedestrians including tourists should not have their experiences spoilt as a result of a cycling scheme especially when it has been shown by residents there are often 7 times more pedestrians than cyclists during the day and weekends. There is no dedicated resource for pedestrians to protect them. . Far more people walk than cycle and this will always be the case. Why even contemplate a scheme like this?
Maggie Shapland
PLACE SCRUTINY COMMISSION 23 OCTOBER 2014
QUESTION 5
Questions from Michael Owen – residents parking
On the current Bristol City Webpage on Resident's Parking Schemes the following statement sits. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/transport-and-streets/residents-parking-schemes "Outer areas (shown as light blue): we are keen to hear feedback from these communities by email to respark@bristol.gov.uk, through local councillors or the Neighbourhood Partnership. This will help in deciding whether future residents’ parking schemes might be appropriate."
1. Question : In the light of current difficulties over implementation of RPZ, when were these submissions sought, which submissions would help decide if the scheme is inappropriate to the wards, what stage of consultation does this represent?
2. Question : How many residents in Cotham North, Redland, Hotwells, St Pauls did not receive their parking permits before the schemes went live?