The ALCA South Gloucestershire Area Group

Annual General Meeting

Thursday 8^th September 2021   MINUTES

Welcome

Cllr. Mike Drew, Chairman of the ALCA South Glos. Area Group and Vice Chairman of NALC

Present

Apologies

Cllr Pat Savage – Olveston Parish Council

Cllr Tom Aditya – Bradley Stoke Town Council

Falfield Parish Council

Aust Parish Council

Marshfield Parish Council

1. The minutes of the 2020 AGM held on 2nd July 2020 were AGREED as a correct record of the proceedings

2. Keynote Speakers

Leah Bromley and Jack Lloyd from the Centre for Sustainable Energy gave a presentation on Neighbourhood Planning in the Climate Emergency

3. Election of South Gloucestershire Parish Councillors to the ALCA Regional Committee

1. Chairman Cllr. Mike Drew (Yate TC)
2. Vice Chairman Cllr. Gail Boyle (Pucklechurch PC)
3. Pat Trull (Wickwar PC)
4. Sue Hope (Hawkesbury PC)

Were elected and agreed unanimously

4. Two breakout room discussions were held

Fleecehold

Breakout Session Discussion of South Gloucestershire Council”s policy of Public Open spaces on new developments being managed by management companies. Facilitated by Cllr Mike Drew who outlined the issue.

These are legally Estate Rent Charges which are permitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. They are often call “Fleecehold” by critics.

On new developments where under section 106 agreements Developers are obliged to provide Public Open Space, Play Areas and other public facilities Developers can and many do setup Management Companies to provide maintenance.These Companies can and do charge householders an Estate Rent Charge which the householder even though the House may be Freehold. There are no legal controls on what and how much can be charged.

 In the past the District/Unitary councils adopted these areas and provided the maintenance - although Developers would have to provide a “Commuted Sum” to cover a number of years (in South Glos that was 15) costs.

In recent years instead of being adopted the Developers have in agreement with South Gloucestershire setup Management Companies. These are in existence in Yate, Lyde Green, Westerleigh, Wickwar and many other places.

There are organisations which are campaigning on the issue

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/?s=fleecehold

The Government have been looking into the issue Luke Hall MP was the Minister responsible - but in no longer since the Cabinet and Minisiteriial reshuffle.

There is a paper in the HoC Library on the subject:

 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8497

The members of the session agreed that Public Land should be maintained by the public through its councils - either a Principle Authority or Local Council.

ACTIONS - They also agreed that there should be a call for NALC to lobby the Government to urgently introduce legislation to prevent the exploitation of Estate Rental Charges.

Default digital discussion group comments.

This discussion question arose in part as a response to the lived experiences of T&PCs and their residents, and in part to SGC’s SCI.

1. Lack of basic digital infrastructure and equipment

Digital poverty is not just about lack of access to equipment or knowledge -  there are fundamental issues for some areas of South Gloucestershire where there simply is no broadband coverage. We cannot exclude people from being able to participate in, for example, consultation processes because they have no option for digital connectivity.  It is ageist to assume this is an issue that relates to solely to the older generation when it became obvious just how many families had little or no IT provision when trying to home school their children during the pandemic. Can we approach SGC to discover how the solution to this is being prioritised? How cab we best address digital poverty?

2. Provision of materials in hard copy

Many T&PCs request promotional materials (posters relevant to info share or consultations for example) so as to try and reach out to and engage those who do not have digital capability – being told materials are available at one-stop shops or at libraries is not a solution for those that are housebound OR where public transport services do not exist to enable people to get there. SGC could provide access to digital files for graphic resources that have already been designed in-house in template format as part of a public communication package with guidance on use – the latter could be edited appropriately with T&PC details as necessary and printed and distributed locally.

3. Online forms

As referenced above – not everyone can access a computer to complete online forms – SGC customer services  who answer the telephones should be able to offer assistance to do this on behalf of a caller. This is not routinely offered but would reduce the frustration that many callers experience and be more efficient as well as inclusive.

4. SGC website

This is not easy to navigate by those that are digitally capable – in fact the accessibility statement lists many areas that need improvement including the fact that the homepage carousel is only partially compliant as you cannot navigate it using a keyboard only. It is understood that accessibility regulations do not require PDFs or other documents published before 23 September 2018 to be fixed if they are not essential to providing service,  but is it appropriate that users be told that ‘we will consider your request and get back to you in 10 working days’ where information has been provided that cannot be accessed?

5. Local solutions

What can T&PCs do to help alleviate the problems that are faced by those who are excluded or marginalised by a default digital approach – are there local groups that exist or could be formed to help those that are digitally poor? Could a focus group be formed that works in conjunction with SGC as a critical friend?

The meeting closed at 8.20 pm