Bristol City Council - Sustainable Community Act Suggestions - June 2009

Sustainable Communities Act - Local Panel Report Monday 8 June 2009 The panel was provided in advance with the following information in advance of the panel meeting: • Department Communities and Local Government short guide to the Sustainable Communities Act • Headline list of SCA suggestions made • Panel guidance prepared by officers • Sustainability criteria checklist The following information was made available to the panel on the day: • Full details of the suggestion made by the public • Legal comments from officers Sustainable Communities Act panel scoring results Panel members were asked to say whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed to the following statements against each SCA suggestion: • I think this would lead to improved environmental sustainability • I think this would lead to improved economic sustainability • I think this would lead to improved social sustainability To ensure that panel members considered whether suggestions may or may not have a positive or negative impact on sustainability they were also asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree to this question: • I think the benefits from this suggestion would outweigh any potentially negative effects from this suggestion. The scores to the statements have been combined to provide a rank order showing the suggestion with the most and least support (Appendix 1).

With 15 members of the panel, each able to say whether they agreed strongly, agreed, disagreed or disagreed strongly with each statement the maximum figure each suggestion could receive is 60. Some panel members opted not to put a mark against some of the statements hence the total for those suggestions is less than 60. Of the suggestions that the panel considered: • 33 suggestions received a score of 45 (over 75%) or more (37, 48, 42, 6, 55, 29, 27, 66, 23, 79, 73, 47, 50, 70, 22, 45, 44, 51, 49, 7, 34, 3, 15, 25, 65, 31, 43, 24, 18, 58, 21, 56, 78) • 22 additional suggestions received a score of 31 (over 50%) or more (46, 71, 1, 68, 53, 19, 52, 28, 41, 63, 4, 30, 62, 35, 2, 40, 10, 72, 61, 60, 69, 64) • I suggestion tied with 30 people agreeing/disagreeing (14) • 2 suggestions received a score of 30 agreeing (20, 26) • 18 suggestions received 29 (below 50%) or less (59, 9, 16, 36, 32, 8, 80, 77, 12, 13, 33, 76, 5, 11, 39, 17, 74, 75) • 7 suggestions received 15 (below 25%) or less (Number 75 received no support) (76, 5, 11, 39, 17, 74, 75) • Of the 55 suggestions with a score over 30 (50%) 9 suggestions supported by the panel were not supported by officers (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 40, 53, 71, 72)

Appendix one ‐ List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores   D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer

panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

# 

Suggestion title 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

37 

Have more powers over local bus company operators 

D 

28 

31 

1 

0 

59/  1 

48 

42 

Powers to build/reopen rail stations and dormant track for passenger  traffic. 

 

Increased local authority control of buses. 

 

27 

32 

1 

0 

59/  1 

29 

29 

2 

0 

58/  2 

6 

55 

29 

Enforce that all office buildings only use minimal lighting outside of  business hours. 

 

Extend Business Rate relief to urban Post Offices. Urban Post Offices  are not currently eligible for full Business Rate Relief, unlike those in  rural communities 

 

Make changes to DCLG Legislation. 

 

26 

31 

3 

0 

57/  3 

19 

38 

2 

0 

57/  2 

14 

43 

3 

0 

57/  3 

27 

66 

23 

Allow local authorities to change policy on industrial and commercial  waste minimisation. 

 

Provide Local Authorities with the power to retain revenue from  Business Rates for environmental and/or sustainability projects. 

 

Reduce commercial and industrial waste. 

 

37 

19 

4 

0 

56/  4 

37 

19 

4 

0 

56/  4 

33 

23 

4 

0 

56/  4 

79 

Councils to publish total ecological footprint 

 

14 

42 

4 

0 

56/  4 

73 

Prioritising cycling and walking 

 

24 

30 

5 

0 

54/  5 

47 

Support  the diversity of local centres and local economies. 

 

20 

34 

3 

2 

54/  5 

 

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores   

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

# 

Suggestion title 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

50 

Allow local community groups to make decisions on applications for  new or change of use food retail decisions by over‐riding central  government planning policy (PPS6) to prevent, 

 

30 

23 

7 

0 

53/  7 

for example, new take aways, supermarkets and other chain food  retailers, from further eroding the sustainability of our communities.  70 

Statutory biodiversity/eco footprint data in planning applications 

 

17 

36 

6 

1 

53/  7 

22 

Reduce VAT on refurbishment and insulation materials to 0%. 

 

26 

26 

6 

0 

52/  6 

45 

Make changes to development proposals. 

 

20 

32 

8 

0 

52/  8 

44 

Protect high quality agricultural land from development. 

 

18 

34 

4 

0 

52/  4 

51 

49 

Allow communities to override competition law to refuse planning  applications for, for example take aways and supermarkets, that  undermine the promotion of local, sustainable food and its associated  gains to the local economy, environment and health. 

 

Ensure Sustainability of local shopping centres. 

 

8 

44 

7 

0 

52/  7 

8 

44 

8 

0 

52/  8 

7 

34 

Improve the quality of public transport and reduce the cost of public  transport. 

D 

Allow Local Authorities to challenge EU regulations preventing public  sector procurement 

 

20 

31 

1 

 0 

51/  1 

17 

34 

9 

0 

51/  9 

policies from stipulating local as a requisite for its food suppliers.  3 

Increase frequency of trains on the Severn Beach line. 

D 

12 

38 

8 

0 

50/  8 

 

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores   

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

  # 

Suggestion tittle 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

15 

Encourage use of car clubs. 

 

24 

26 

10 

0 

50/  10 

25 

Remove road tax and congestion tax on Car Club cars. 

 

23 

27 

10 

0 

50/  10 

65 

Refurbish existing houses to reduce environmental impact. 

 

20 

27 

13 

0 

47/  13 

31 

Place a tax on plastic bags. 

 

17 

29 

12 

2 

46/  14 

43 

24 

Zero Rate VAT on Property Refurbishment & Brownfield Site  development. 

 

Place restrictive limits on covenants. 

 

15 

31 

12 

0 

46/  12 

15 

31 

14 

0 

46/  14 

18 

Levy non domestic rates on car parking spaces at superstores. 

 

22 

23 

15 

0 

45/  15 

58 

Introduce new house building standards. 

 

18 

27 

15 

0 

45/  15 

21 

Place levy on bottles sold which is refundable when bottles are refilled.   

10 

35 

15 

0 

45/  15 

56 

Save our gardens, refuse hard standing planning permission 

 

9 

36 

15 

0 

45/  15 

     

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores   

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

  # 

Suggestion tittle 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

78 

Financial accounts to be accompanied by social and environmental  accounting 

 

6 

39 

14 

0 

45/  14   

46 

Place levy on every bottle sold. 

 

9 

35 

16 

0 

44/  16 

71 

1 

68 

Government to assess capabilities of all technologies prior to   implementation 

D 

Encourage localised hubs for deliveries and use electric vehicles for  deliveries. 

D 

20 mph default speed limit 

 

8 

36 

10 

6 

44/  16 

1 

41 

14 

0 

42/  14 

19 

22 

19 

0 

41/  19 

53 

19 

Provide additional waste bins in Bristol with integrated recycling and  ensure that plastic materials state if they can be recycled. 

 

Place a ban on use of patio heaters. 

 

2 

39 

17 

2 

41/  19 

25 

16 

14 

3 

41/  17 

52 

28 

Allow communities to shape food and farming in their area by re‐ allocating Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) spending to benefit local  farmers using sustainable production methods and supplying local  markets. 

 

Improve rights for Bristol Refugees. 

 

17 

23 

20 

0 

20 

14 

26 

18 

2 

  41 

40/ 

40/  20 

Promote cycling by amending the law to make it safer. 

 

18 

22 

20 

0 

40/  20 

   

 

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores   

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

  # 

Suggestion tittle 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

63 

Taxation of second homes to control their growth and support local  housing needs. 

 

12 

28 

16 

0 

40/ 

M32 to become an A road at the Filton Junction. 

D 

4 

16  1 

37 

13 

0 

38/  13 

30 

Ensure student households are responsible. 

 

10 

27 

12 

11 

37/  23 

62 

Allow more imaginative planning and licensing powers. 

 

9 

28 

20 

0 

37/  20 

35 

2 

Prohibit the use of planning covenants which are anti competitive and  reduce the diversity of local services. 

 

Reduce noise along the M32 with sound bafflers. 

D 

3 

34 

14 

0 

37/  14 

0 

37 

21 

2 

37/  23 

40 

Take measures to prevent obstruction of dropped kerbs. 

D 

23 

13 

21 

0 

35/  21 

10 

72 

Amend the Local Government and Housing Act to support the  employment of young people and people with learning difficulties,  specifically within local authorities. 

 

Ecological compensation for greenfield development 

D 

10 

25 

23 

2 

35/  25 

5 

30 

23 

2 

35/  25 

61 

Create a separate fund for the revenue raised from council tax on  second homes.     

 

13 

21 

26 

0 

34/  26 

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores   

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

    # 

Suggestion tittle 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

60 

Be the first city to ban plastic bags and facilitate local starch bag  production. 

 

4 

30 

24 

2 

34/ 

Carbon budgets and carbon trading for all 

 

69 

26  13 

20 

26 

1 

33/  27 

64 

Fund research on under floor insulation 

 

8 

23 

26 

0 

31/  26 

14 

Take VAT off vegetable seeds and polytunnels. 

 

12 

18 

30 

0 

30/  30 

20 

Reduce growth of second homes. 

 

17 

13 

23 

3 

30/  26 

26 

Retain funds from business rates to fund commuter transport routes. 

D 

3 

27 

21 

0 

30/  21 

59 

Allow communities to opt out of the World Trade Organisation's  General Agreement on 

 

12 

17 

27 

0 

29/  27 

Trade in Services, (GATS) irrespective of whether the EU has signed up  its catering, food  retail or eligible agricultural sectors.  9 

Phase in a ban on the importation of non‐fair‐trade goods. 

 

13 

12 

31 

4 

25/  35 

16 

Make local Government elections compulsory. 

D 

6 

19 

25 

9 

25/  34 

 

 

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores    

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

  # 

Suggestion tittle 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

36 

Re‐think how central agency money is spent. 

D 

6 

36 

18 

0 

24/  18 

32 

8 

80 

Amend Planning Laws to remove the right of appeal to central  Government. 

D 

0 

24 

36 

0 

24/  36 

Stop the right to buy scheme, stop negative equity and fund councils to    build/buy affordable housing. 

12 

Welfare or well‐being index 

4 

 

11 

24 

13 

23/  37 

20 

28 

4 

23/  32 

77 

Transport costs to reflect total costs of travel 

D 

0 

21 

24 

0 

21/  24 

12 

13 

Provide the facility for the Council and residents to rent / own wind  turbines  in Bristol. 

 

Regulate advertising of beauty products. 

D 

4 

14 

27 

15 

18/  42 

4 

13 

38 

3 

17/  41 

33 

Generate electricity with tidal power screws. 

 

2 

14 

36 

8 

16/  44 

76 

Criteria for government public consultations 

D 

0 

15 

38 

0 

15/  38 

5 

Abolish private schools and abolish private health care. 

D 

4 

9 

28 

19 

13/  47 

   

List of SCA Suggestions: Local Panel scores    

D in right-hand column = removed from main list as deemed not eligible by officer panel

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree T – Total

  # 

Suggestion tittle 

O 

SA 

A 

D 

SD 

T 

11 

Raise the entitlement age for concessionary bus passes. 

D 

1 

12 

37 

10 

13/  47 

39 

Provide Community credits for Community involvement. 

 

1 

11 

34 

10 

12/  44 

17 

Retain revenue from business rates and spend on local priorities. 

D 

0 

7 

41 

8 

7/  49 

74 

Immigration and emigration zero balance 

D 

0 

1 

13 

46 

1/  59 

75 

Broadening range of statutory planning considerations 

D 

0 

0 

50 

4 

0/  54 

 

Appendix 2 - Comments from panel members on the SCA Suggestions #

Comment

1

Electric Vehicles may be good.

2

What was the experience with the St Werburghs sound reduction nr Mina Road? Distraction

3

Other (train) lines too Need to improve all lines and improve capacity. Problems with Temple Meads timetable slots?

4

Safety is a huge issue and cost. Shouldn’t be considered and supported when looking at the functioning of deprived social areas. What is the meaning of de-trunking? Not supported because distraction – others more important

5

No comments

6

Good symbolic act which would go positively towards changing culture/practice of energy usage I would support this but worry about it being difficult to enforce e.g. how would you know whether the lights were on because people were working at night? Applies also to air conditioning, heating and computers – this is too specific. How do you define ‘minimal’?

7

Why were these ruled out by officer panel? Would this help integrated transport authority and oyster cards? What is the council’s role in an integrated transport policy for Bristol?

8

I opposed right to buy from the beginning. Stopping will contribute to social sustainability. Isn’t the answer to ensure that 100% of housing receipts are reinvested in new housing? Right to buy makes people more responsible for own homes. Reduces the amount of affordable housing. The right to buy has fragmented housing estates and increases homelessness.

9

Do at EU (European Union) level This would produce a lot of scams to get round it. Not worth doing legally. In right direction if fair trade criteria included (environmental) sustainability. Exactly how is ‘fair trade’ and ‘non fair trade’ defined? Axxx sweatshop + non fair trade.

     

10

Separate issues. Learning difficulties is a big issue and could be a priority. Council needs to be proactive to end discrimination and improve conditions in society for less privileged. Not sure about this one.

11

Fair point. If you are still working you should still pay.

12

Scientific basis of proposal? As I understand the research wind turbines in Bristol, even on top of hills would not produce much electricity. What a good idea. Too costly to environment for too little return. Other methods should be considered. Like ESCO’s could be very powerful good thing.

13

Distraction Should inflict exacting standards.

14

Is cost the main factor preventing people growing their own food or is it lack of space? Distraction.

15

Is more thorough than number 25 Needs more info on private car clubs and business car clubs. What criteria define eligible car clubs?

16

Comment 3. Says it wouldn’t improve democracy. Perhaps it would lead to greater democratic involvement. I think it would improve the democratic process but should be all elections so can’t agree with it as it stands. Needs to be combined with other changes to improve the working of our democracy. How do we compel voters to be informed. All this does is allow rich people, who can pay a fixed penalty notice to avoid paying a fine. No it wouldn’t increase turnout. Doesn’t necessarily lead to better democracy. Yes it would lead to better democracy. Better to have ‘none of the above’ option. Support the principle.

17

Would agree if the revenues were only spent on sustainable projects. Should be part of business rate. Problems with equal rates

 

18

Discouraging out of town shopping encourages: Local shops? Less congestion? Local employment? Would superstore pass charge onto car owner rather than shoppers who walk or use bike? Would this reduce less of section 106 available? Is this just food stores or all out of town facilities? Not happy with piecemeal approach to council powers of taxation and levy. Does not guarantee sustainability on several counts. Better if improved nationally, stops some councils doing it and others not.

19

I have never understood people wanting to heat outdoors. It seems a daft thing to try and do. Difficult to enforce How would this be enforced? I feel it does meet sustainability criteria strongly.

20

I think we could reduce, but not ban it all together (What about poor MPs?) Not sure about sustainability impact of these suggestions re second homes. Need to better understand impact prior to supporting this. Problem with buy to let houses and moving with work and renting.

21

Bring back Ribena bottles! (Glass) Prefer national scheme – 21 better than 46 Would this increase prices for consumers? What are the admin costs, would a voluntary industry scheme be better? Is it all bottles or just glass?

22

Needs strong guidance to avoid abuse of the incentive. Why not? Need to define brown field site better. Problems defining brown field. May encourage unnecessary refurbishment.

23

Not sure whether it’s about indication or responsibility. Most of waste is construction waste. There needs not to be a cost to council tax payers. Needs much clearer legislation on plastic, both its manufacture and its biodegradability. Good idea, what is the breakdown of commercial waste by type? Support duty to monitor and publish commercial waste breakdown by type and company. Needs not to be cost burden on the council.

24

I worry about inevitable loop holes in this kind of law that could be anti sustainable.

 

25

A congestion charge could be introduced. Does this need government approval? Eligible car clubs should be ‘social’ i.e. beneficial to the community.

26

Abstention on 27 and 26 in favour of 66 Can these suggestions be amended to highlight sustainable criteria? Why better than central government allocating to sustainable projects with councils submitting? Should be part of business rate

27

Compact power in Avonmouth reduces bulky waste to ash. Produces an energy outlet as a by product. Steam is quiet and visually low impact. Small local waste disposal units. Adaptable to this amount of waste generation.

28

Of course people should have a right to work. Status is irrelevant.

29

Need to free up land, especially in towns.

30

Is it fair to expect one person in a household to be responsible for the behaviour of others? Should be all households. How would it be policed? Good idea to make students comply with recycling. A creative suggestion – ‘carrots’ rather than ‘stick’ approach promoting personal responsibility. Assure ‘responsible person’ should be resident, makes very good sense. Problem is defining how CT reduction may be apportioned and chargeable. Is individual’s not group’s.

31

They aren’t sold, they are given away. We could tax them if sold. If combined with accessible use of biodegradable bags. Bit of a distraction. Is this necessary?

32

It’s important to have an independent route to appeal against a planning decision. Loss of right to question local authority process or decision. Is third party – is this against natural justice? Would judicial review stay? Should be equal weight of appeal if application approved (for objectors). Not supported as worded. Should be a right of appeal to ask independent third party for both developers and those opposed to the development. Need to give the right of appeal to communities.

 

33

What is happening with the barrage proposal and how does this fit in? Difficult or not, legislation should allow for the exploration of viability. Would support research into schemes to generate power in rivers. Have to disagree because of the wording, also not proven yet. This proposal is very technology specific. Other ‘better’ technology may exist to achieve the same end. Support renewable from cut. Is this feasibility part of the current review? Do not feel comfortable supporting such a specific proposal but support research on this proposal. Needs a lot of thought re impact on biodiversity of New Cut and is it the right solution?

34

Yes, but still need to have some foreign goods available. Would like to agree but can’t see how this would work. Criteria of ‘local’ too narrow What about ‘local’ meat fed on imported feed.

35

Anti covenant could also work in a negative way. Covenant – anti competitive Would a stronger use (of) classes order or GDO (general development orders) powers be a better alternative?

36

Not enough detail in the proposal. This would lead to greater democratic accountability.

37

I support 42 in preference to 42

38

Why wasn’t this included in the transport group in this morning session (duplicate or similar suggestions)? Plus room to put bikes on as on the continent.

39

Democracy and engagement are not things to be bought!! No, it’s done now for free.

40

It is happening now Does it require signage or road markings above surface? Don’t want more signage. This hasn’t happened.

41

May reduce safety awareness among cyclists.

42

I believe that an integrated ‘big picture’ approach is required to develop a sustainable solution for transport in Bristol.

43

Need to define brown field site better. May encourage unnecessary refurbishment.

 

44

Government has recently removed prerequisite to use brown field (sites) first. Needs redress! This is good and specific.

45

Important to get more building for future when oil runs out. No. If development for, say, 30 years, might be quite inappropriate.

46

What are the admin costs, would a voluntary industry scheme be better? Is it all bottles or just glass? Not comfortable in supporting a potentially “piecemeal” approach to additional taxation by council. Prefer other approaches.

47

Where does this fit within (council) retail strategy hierarchy? Can the LDF (local development framework) impact on this? What does the new retail P5 guidance say on this?

48 49 50

No comments No comments Support because good for local groups to be systematically consulted and have more voice but (I) disagree they should have actual decision.

51

Only supported if powers vested in local authority.

52

CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) needs directing better, local body may be best to do this. This is not very clear.

53

Increase metal recycling in street - good. Don’t want carpets or food waste dumped on streets Encourages recycling mindset – is good. The legislation should be at the source of plastic manufacture. Make it compulsory to be biodegradable. Need to push ‘revising’ and not just recycling and cutting packaging. If it’s within councils’ powers, why don’t they do it? Wouldn’t it be better to say all plastic materials should be recycled.

54 55

No comments Couldn’t all post offices get business rate register?

56

No. With not enough street parking it would be silly to stop people using their gardens.

57 58

No comments Planning should enforce Always good to build in sustainability.

 

59

Can anyone explain in simple terms? This seems to relate to the other proposal that Bristol City Council should be able to buy local food. Sounds good so central government should consider. I don’t think it’s immediately obvious how this would promote sustainability.

60

May be a bit of a distraction. Plastic bags made from waste that would otherwise would be burnt? What resources are consumed by making corn starch bags? Corn Starch – very unsure about use of corn starch. Re using bags is the priority Reduction of use Reduction of bag use is also important – we shouldn’t be diverting land into growing corn starch liners at the expense of locally produced food. Why not? Can’t deal with this suggestion separately as they are interdependent.

61

What is the impact. 10% of 1621 homes? (point 3) How define second home? 2 small worse than one big? Lodgers? Very messy and difficult to be fair.

62 63 64

No comments No comments Needs to go much further. Housing stock needs to become ‘carbon neutral’ Does this mean damp proofing or things like ground source heat pumps Not clear enough

65

The decent homes standard is not very high. Needs to go much further. Housing stock needs to become ‘carbon neutral’

66

This one does say ‘a proportion’ which is better. Is this a form of CABGI? Number 66 is more thorough than 26 and 17.

67 68

No comments Enforced red signs not green. Vehicle automated signs. Use more petrol at 20 mph Selective introduction on roads where it is appropriate is better than blanket introduction on all roads. Make areas like congestion charging – so that we all know the speed limit. Less signage and no humps but cameras and fines. Still doesn’t solve the problem of speed on arterial roads in cities but a start! Why ever not?

 

69

What would happen if (a) carbon budget exceeded. Carbon limits for all – can’t see point of travelling Worry that carbon guzzlers will just buy up credits of those who don’t/can’t afford to use their allowances. What about a conflict with conservation area status?

70

Agree belt suggestion not very clear. Good intentions but wording of suggestion not ideal. Seems OK

71

The idea of a sustainability assessment of new technologies is good.

72

Where would this fit with the biodiversity plan? Content of suggestion good. Do we reject because fully compensate demand? A good idea is at the root of this. Sounds like a good idea but how would you go about assessing the ecological impact in the short or the long term? How do you decide on different environmental benefits e.g. wildlife v wind turbines.

73 74 75

No comments No comments Too vague! Unclear about the scope of additional criteria. Just needs more info prior to me supporting. Too vague, can’t judge proposal. Unclear

76

Would need to refer to existing code of practice before voting. Too woolly Effects of criteria are not clearly expressed.

77

Potentially discourages public transport. Car journeys should subsidise buses and trains (even walking and cycling infrastructure). Might reduce access to transport by most deprived communities e.g. on fringes of city. Would this include operating margins, employment costs etc? Good point re air travel but danger of the cost of motoring? Would not allow for subsidising less used routes. Full environmental/health costs. Very difficult to measure.

78

I think this would be very beneficial to increase corporate responsibly. Synergy with “Carbon trading” Agree

79

Why not demand sustainable? Very important. I would strongly support this if it was publication of “sustainability footprint” Make sure calculation isn’t too onerous.

80

If zero economic growth would we be happy and have good welfare? By £10,000 a year income and a worthwhile social involvement? Don’t understand this suggestion.

Other comments from the SCA panel The panel members were asked for general comments on the SCA process at the end of the panel meeting. The comments were broadly divided into two. 1. Comments on the process of inviting SCA suggestions, the guidance given to people putting forward suggestions and the supporting information that accompanied the suggestions. Comments from panel members: • • • • • • • •

Several of the suggestions have merit, but seemed rather prescriptive in nature which created a conflict for me in providing or withdrawing my support. A process to help people with the quality of their proposals would have made a big difference. Many of the proposals would have benefited from being better formed. In future it would be good to find a way of facilitating this. Filter duplicates and combine prior to the panel meeting Should be a preliminary workshop for original consultation so they are not so easily eliminated. No opportunity to reword or change suggestions i.e. amalgamate or make better sense of suggestions. Submitter should have had feedback and a chance to re-phrase (before the panel meeting) Some points needed more info to ascertain worth – there was no opportunity to have this info.

2. Comments were made in relation to the SCA panel meeting Comments from panel members: • • • • • • •

The process was very easy to follow. I would have preferred more facilitated group discussion as part of today’s process and a more structural approach encompassing a wider variety of activities. Should have pre-voted and discussed at the meeting and re-voted. If everyone had agreed then no need to spend time discussing. If someone disagrees with vote (they) should have chance to sway consensus. The process today was less useful than it might have been if there had been time to discuss each proposal in the groups. Should have been more discussion to clarify some of the suggestions but realise time is a barrier. Provide background info/workshop prior to the panel meeting. Would have helped to have a reminder as to what was meant by social, environmental and economic criteria in each room.