(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)

To receive disclosures of interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

Notes:

(1)       Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct.  Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(2)       Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them.  A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

(3)       Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.

(4)       Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.

That in the interests of transparency, the Chair and Asad Shah (Clerk), disclosed an interest in Minute 10 as they were both residents of Highfield Crescent.

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Asad Shah – 07541 624384)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

To hear questions from electors within the District on any matter this is the responsibility of the Committee. 

Questions must be received in writing by the City Solicitor in Room 112, City Hall, Bradford, BD1 1HY, by mid-day on Tuesday 23 February 2021.

(Asad Shah – 07541 624384)

There were no questions submitted by the public.

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “C”) provides an update on COVID-19 in Bradford District.  It describes the district response between March 2020 and January 2021.  The latest data on cases, admissions and deaths will be reported verbally at the meeting. 

The report sets out how the Bradford District COVID-19 response is being managed, explaining the leadership role of the COVID-19 Management Group and the working groups that feed it.

Recommended –

That Bradford West Area Committee notes the contents of the report and the work that is taking place across district to respond to the Covid 19 pandemic.

(Ian Day – 07896 728186)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “C”) provided an update on COVID-19 in Bradford District. It described the district response between March 2020 and January 2021. The latest data on cases, admissions and deaths were reported verbally. 

The report further set out how the Bradford District COVID-19 response was being managed, explained the leadership role of the COVID-19 Management Group and the working groups that fed it.

Assistant Director, Neighbourhood and Customer Services was in attendance, accompanied by the Strategic Manager of Employment & Skills and the Consultant in Public Health. At the request of the Chair, a synopsis of the report commenced. The Assistant Director explained that in reference to Section 3.3 in the report, the current public health data changed on a daily basis, hence the reasons for not being able to collate information prior to this committee. In terms of hub working, there were 11 different working groups that undertook work of the hub on a weekly basis. The do focus work of the hubs working groups was driven by a public health Intelligence document. The information contained in this document captured the current infection rates, hospital admissions, deaths, location points of high incidences, high prevalence of infection and the insight data that had been returned from the community engagement work that was discussed at a weekly meeting. In response to the information received, work themes were deployed on the back of recommendations that were contained in that public health data document.

At this point, the Assistant Director gave way for the Consultant’s update. She stated that public health data received this morning showed a slight increase of 208 in comparison to the previous weeks when the city had a 203 infection rate in the over 60 years old population. This was critical in terms of the area in the highest incidence of deaths which was now 132.5 per 100,000 populations. However, this figure in itself was lower than the 210 figure and therefore the impact of the vaccination programme had started to make a positive impact on the rates of infection. Work on home testing and lateral flow testing sites were being run at St. George's Hall and the Airedale Shopping Centre in Keighley, along with the mobile testing units that were run by health partners. Hospital admissions in the last seven days were 135, reduced from 158 from the previous days. The deaths in the district had increased in the last seven days, with a further 40 deaths in the district, an increase from 32 in the week prior. In overall, Bradford stood at 19 in the country out of around 350 cities on the list. Bradford had a stubborn level of continued infection across the district that proved a real challenge in terms of reducing. In terms of the vaccination and perhaps, there was slightly more optimism. 145,000 in the district had been vaccinated, which represented about 30% of the adult eligible population in district to receive a vaccine. The vaccine  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The report of the Chief Executive (Document “D”) provides an update on COVID-19 communications in Bradford District. It describes the district communications response between March 2020 and January 2021. 

The report sets out how the Council-led system-wide communications response to COVID-19 across the Bradford District is being managed, explaining the leadership and co-ordination role of the System Communications Group, communications activities throughout the pandemic so far, and NHS-led planning for vaccinations. 

Recommended –

(1)       That Bradford West Area Committee notes the contents of the   report and the communications work that is taking place across   district to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

(Jenny Cryer – 07582 103747)

The report of the Chief Executive (Document “D”) provided an update on COVID-19 communications in Bradford District. It described the district communications response between March 2020 and January 2021.

The report set out how the Council-led system-wide communications response to COVID-19 across the Bradford District was being managed, explained the leadership and co-ordination role of the System Communications Group, communications activities throughout the pandemic so far, and NHS-led planning for vaccinations.  

The Assistant Director was in attendance and with the invitation of the Chair, gave a synopsis of the report. She explained that the report gave some indication of the communities’ work that had been going on to date. There were a number of approaches which the Council had tried since the beginning of the pandemic. The communications channels had been significantly extended to reach wider audiences. Contracts had also been awarded to voluntary organisations, who had been asked to focus on community based engagement with particular groups of residents and residents across the district. 

earmarked

A question and answer session ensued:

·         How much money had been awarded to the organisations that had been tasked to deliver the community engagement activities?

o   In the region of £200,000 each was earmarked for the 3 organisations that had been given the contracts for the delivery of activities of engagement work;

·         Out of the 3 organisations, clarity was sought on Urban Reach?

o   Urban Reach was a community interest company that undertook district wide work and that contracts had been signed by the company representative;

·         It had been brought to the committee’s attention that Urban Reach was a new organisation being registered by the individual who was also the President of Council for Mosques. Council for Mosques was also a faith organisation that undertook community work. Was Council management aware that the President had earlier refused the contract on behalf of Councils for Mosques as the organisation was unable to deliver the work of the Council and then, the same individual having registered a new company as Urban Reach, under his name and had accepted the Council contract to deliver the exact same engagement work that he had declined on behalf of Council for Mosques?

o   Due to a lack of information at hand on the background of the background of the organisation, the individual concerned and the basis for rewarding the community engagement work, information sought could not be provided at present. However, the community organisation was called Urban Reach that the and the name of the representative was for public records to view in Companies House;

·         The Chair asked the committee whether any member had come across this new community organisation during their engagement activities within communities in their respective wards or ever heard of this organisation?

o   To which the answer was no; and,

§  Following a sense of confusion by the committee, the Chair raised concerns as to the authenticity of Urban Reach and how a significant amount of public funds could be given to a newly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “E”) considers objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order on various roads in the Bradford West Constituency.

Recommended –

(1)       That the No Waiting At Any Time restrictions proposed for the   area between Sandsend Close and Neville Grove be removed from     the draft Order, and the remaining objections be overruled and the   Traffic Regulation Order be sealed and implemented as otherwise             advertised.

(2)       That the objectors be informed accordingly.

(Andrew Smith – 01274 434674)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “E”) considered objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order on various roads in the Bradford West Constituency.

The Chair opened the discussion by bringing the committee’s attention to the presence of members of the public who wished to express sentiments on their respective highway matters concerning Highfield Crescent and Great Horton Road.

However, as a matter of custom, he first invited the Principal Engineer to give a synopsis of the report to the committee.

During the introduction of the report, it was explained that the report presented objections to Bradford West’s various traffic regulation orders. The proposals were approved by the committee last year as part of the current year's several roads programme. The scheme was primarily for waiting restrictions at various locations in Bradford West. Proposals were advertised earlier this year and as a result, objections in respect of four of the sites. 

Following the introduction of the report, the Chair invited the public to address their matters of views to the committee.

Highfield Crescent:

A resident of Highfield Crescent expressed his strong support in favour of the proposed parking restrictions. However, he expressed concerns as to whether the restrictions went too far as it was important for allowance to be made for some parking spaces; the implementation of the full extent of the proposed traffic measures could possibly instigate the misuse of parking restrictions by residents’ parking their vehicles very late at night to avoid enforcement action; motorists were parking in the cup-de-sac, eating takeaway food and discarding their rubbish on to the street before driving away. The consideration for the allowance would alleviate unexpected problems or congestion in the tight cup-de-sac.

In response to the resident’s concerns of enforcement, the Principal Engineer explained enforcement was relied heavily on those who were responsible to enforce restrictions and to simply have such restrictions in place was a form of deterrent in itself.

Another resident addressed the committee on her objections to the proposed waiting restrictions. She explained that if the proposal was implemented then this would result in no parking directly outside of her house. This proposal would cause detrimental impact on her family as her two children were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); as current circumstances stood, it was extremely difficult to care for her children due to their hyperactivity movements through their impulsivity acts. The lack of parking provision would entail a greater and arduous nature of attention to her children in comparison to present status. Furthermore, with the proposed waiting instructions would result in parking in front of other properties to the extent of blocking driveways.

The committee sought clarification that further to the layout on the map. It seemed there was ample space on driveways to park vehicles and therefore had it been identified if residents’ used their garages and driveways or whether they parked their vehicles on the street. In response, it was stated that this was a factor that was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “F”) will update the Committee on actions from the previous brief in November 2020 with regards to the additional demands and operational difficulties encountered due to the Covid19 pandemic and its effects within Bradford West and the wider District.

Recommended –

(1)       Members are asked to consider this report and the obstacles that         Waste Services have had to overcome to maintain this essential    operation. Any recommendations to further aid with service          provision are welcome.

(Richard Galthen – 01274 431217)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “F”) updated the committee on actions from the previous brief in November 2020 with regards to the additional demands and operational difficulties encountered due to the Covid pandemic and its effects within Bradford West and the wider District.

Following an invitation by the Chair, the Contract and Procurement Manager gave a synopsis of the report.

He explained that waste management representatives had met in January to discuss areas of concern and joint working which could be closely co-ordinated in order to make an impact on issues relating to low recycling rates and side waste.

It was then agreed to increase co-ordination between Ward Officers, Wardens and Recycling Officers with stronger communication links and expectations, as this would be advantageous, increased sharing of data from collection routes in the west area would also be closely scrutinised to identify early priority locations.

He mentioned other streams of work being undertaken, summarised as follows:

·         A six weeks plan to visit prioritised areas and not exceeding 3 hours per visit;

·         Teams to visit entire wards of Bradford West;

·         There would be further visits to businesses and residents by recycling officers to check for contamination and general engagement activities;

·         To follow up on targeted communication from a neighbourhood team via social media and other network platforms;

·         Challenges remained the same the in terms of recycling contamination as this stood at 30% during ore Covid and currently between 45 and 50%;

·         Various recent analysis had been undertaken using different third parties to analyse the raw material effects at curb sides. Due to Covid, contamination ranged from 13% to 50% in some areas.

·         During the winter period, there were issues with snow and ice which caused significant lost days of collection;

·         The service was about to develop a new strategy which will impact on services to the Council and residents. The strategy would be in line with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and government guidelines;

·         The contamination levels were currently around 1500 tonnes

per month in recycling. This was costing up to £260,000 a month;

·         The cost towards Covid impact was £200,000 per month with no sign of ease;

·         The service was currently looking at a Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF) at Bowling Back Lane. MRF had the potential to service significant amount of waste a year and would assist the Council becoming more efficient in waste management services;

o   The function of MRF at Bowling Back Lane is to maximise the quantity of recyclables processed, while producing materials that will generate the highest possible revenues in the market.

·         The role of 6 Recycling Advisors undertaking engagement activities with residents. However, with Covid efforts had been curtailed; and,

·         In between the two Covid lockdown restrictions, the advisors had hand delivered leaflets and stickers. In the region of 20,000 stickers and leaflets had been delivered.

A question and answer session ensued:

·         Due to more people remaining in their homes during lockdown restrictions, additional waste was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.