This report (Document “M”) of the Strategic Directors of Health and Wellbeing, Children’s Services and the Interim Strategic Director of Place follows a motion at full Council in asking for the approach to School Streets and Play Streets to be explored by Bradford Council across three key services: Health and Wellbeing, Place and Children’s Services

Recommended –

(1)       The Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes the report.

(2)       That a future report be presented to the Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny on completion of the pilots to give details of their delivery, experiences of the schools and community and realisation of the outcomes and provide details of a Play Streets Policy.

(Sarah Possingham & Andrew Smith & Michael Bunting

Phone:07582 100244, 07582 102287, 07970 828949)

The report of the Strategic Directors of Health and Wellbeing, Children’s Services and the Interim Strategic Director, Place (Document “M”) was presented to Members in response to the motion at full Council on 16 July 2019 which requested that workstreams explored School and Play Street schemes by the three key services (Health and Wellbeing, Children’s Services and Place).

The work on developing the Play Streets scheme had commenced prior to lockdown but whilst this had stopped, the work on the School Streets pilot schemes was able to be accelerated with eleven across the District, targeting poor air quality areas.

Two pilot sites were selected in every constituency with three in Bradford East.  Concerns had been raised regarding the displacement of traffic and this was a key consideration in planning and selection.  It was stated that the pilots would not interfere with school transport and the aim was not to interfere with local businesses also.  It was noted that the Play Streets scheme was not being progressed at this time due to the need to avoid large gatherings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but this would be re-visited at a more appropriate time in the future.

Details were provided on how the decisions for selection had been reached as the focus was on primary schools due to the higher level of drop offs and pick ups as primary children were less independent.  Schools on bus routes were also ruled out for pilot schemes.

Prohibition for driving would be introduced at certain times of the day and signage erected would provide drivers with the details.  The detailed design process was underway and, acting on advice from the Legal Team, separate orders had been sought for each individual site.  The pilots would be in place for up to eighteen months, including a period during the first six months to allow for consultation and review.

The Chair expressed support especially in light of health inequalities which had been highlighted during the pandemic and lockdown.  One Ward Councillor commented that they had not been consulted even though a pilot was due to go ahead in their Ward. 

There was then an opportunity for Members to ask questions which are detailed as follows:

·         A Member and Ward Councillor for Wibsey expressed the need for the scheme to be tried, tested and evaluated and requested a pilot scheme be introduced at Wibsey Primary if possible.  He also requested a follow up be made on evaluation of the schemes.

·      Officers advised that the choices for schools to be selected had been difficult and there was a limit on what could be done due to financial constraints.  This was a small test with certain criteria used to select schools including air quality and ‘Active Travel’ schools.

·         A Member queried the number of schools who had responded as it was very low, had a follow up been done?

·      Officers stated that report had been written at the beginning of the consultation process and that consultation was now happening in earnest.

·         In relation to public health, had thought been given to look at better training and cycling for independent children?

·         Would it be better to engage with schools who haven’t signed up to ‘Not idling’ and to not just shift the problem?

·      Officers advised that this was the reason for the pilots and that there were a range of projects taking place e.g. bikeability, walk to school etc.  There was evidence of a permanent shift where School Streets had been implemented.

·         Had the impact on dropping off children at different schools with restrictions been thought of?

·      Officers advised that further exploration was needed but stated that most primary children live locally but some were being taken further which could make this contentious.

·         Were the Police on board as there had been issues with enforcement, specifically looking at cars with no registered keeper?

·      Officers were not able to comment on the situation in relation to registered keepers but confirmed that five Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) were on board.  Evaluation work on the impact of toxic emissions on brain development in babies and small children had been carried out and incentives were offered to schools with children of nursery school age to provide better walking routes and improved health and nutrition.

·         If Traffic Restriction Orders (TRO’s) were successful, would these go through the normal process with the view to moving the scheme out to other schools?

·      TRO’s could be converted to permanent conditions and there were individual orders for each pilot site.  The roll out would depend on:

1.    How successful the pilot schemes were

2.    Funding opportunities

·         How would people be informed on why schemes will exist?  Ward Councillors would want to speak to residents and businesses etc. as a full consultation flowchart was not included in the report. 

·         Also, how would it be publicised and where would signage be?

·      Officers stated that the scheme needed to start out correctly and that all stakeholders would be informed and included.

·         Members were still concerned about cars idling and that young children were breathing in exhaust fumes.  Could measures be strengthened around other schools?

·         Public Health were looking into re-implementing a No Idling campaign but other priorities had taken over at present.

·         A Member stated that walking was good for health and fitness but 77% of 5 to 11 year olds do not do 60 minutes of exercise per day and 38.3% of the 2018/19 cohort left primary school overweight or obese (information from Public Health England).  As it is possible to do multiple drop offs on foot, parents should be urged to walk children to school.

·         As there could be issues when pilots are rolled out there needed to be a clear expectation of what success looked like beforehand but this was not clear in the report.  How would it be evaluated?  Also, how would taxis be affected?

·      The Council does use taxis where school transport was not available but some children are being sent to school by parents in taxis.  Discussion would need to take place with schools and parents.  Officers confirmed to Members what success would look like and apologised for it not being in the report.

·         A guest speaker was in attendance and stated that School Streets went some way to tackle the harm to children’s health.  Increased level of physical activity such as cycling and walking would make a huge difference to health and wellbeing.

·         There could be problems notifying the wider public so information needed to be available outside the restricted areas to avoid issues.

Resolved –

(1)          That the report be noted.

(2)          That a further report to be presented to the Committee on completion of the pilot schemes to give details of the delivery, experiences of the schools and community and realisation of the outcomes and provide details of a Play Streets Policy.

ACTION – Strategic Directors of Health and Wellbeing, Children’s Services and the Interim Strategic Director, Place.