Bristol’s lollipop ladies and men could be saved from the axe after cross-party councillors opposed controversial plans to cut their funding to zero. The city council’s finance sub-committee overwhelmingly demanded scrapping the proposal after hearing children’s lives would be put at risk and the savings would amount to only £314,000 a year compared with the local authority’s £52million funding gap over the next five years.
But the sub-committee has no decision-making powers and can only comment on planned cuts before all the options to save money and balance the books are considered by the strategy and resources policy committee on February 3 ahead of a final decision by full council three weeks later. The strength of feeling against the move at the meeting on Wednesday, January 15, was apparent, however.
Cllr Ed Plowden (Green, Windmill Hill), chair of the transport and connectivity committee, which is responsible for the city’s school crossing patrols, said the cuts, along with proposed new fees for disabled parking bays, would have a big impact, especially on people with protected characteristics. He said they were on the list of options because if the council effectively declared bankruptcy, as some other authorities, including Birmingham, have had to do, both would be among the first decisions by commissioners brought in to take over the council’s finances, as they are not statutory services.
Cllr Plowden told the meeting: “It’s worth saying that if one of our aims is a preventative approach, school crossing patrols encouraging children and often their parents and siblings to travel actively to school is a very good preventative measure, a very healthy thing to be doing. If they are removed, more people may choose to drive and that could increase the danger for those, particularly deprived people, who may not be able to afford a car and will still be travelling actively.
“One way to reduce the impact of taking out school crossing patrols is to install zebra crossings where possible but often the patrol is there specifically because it’s not a simple site to do this and it’s not the same as a proactively attended patrol.” He said staff were reduced from 65 to about 42 by the previous Labour administration in 2017 and that those who remained were at sites deemed more dangerous.
Cllr Plowden said: “We can also review the need for them on an ongoing basis as we roll out school streets and liveable neighbourhoods and as we put in other measures to try to improve road safety overall. On disabled bays, the saving is so negligible, it would be a pity to take it forward.
Sign up to receive daily news updates and breaking news alerts straight to your inbox for free here.
“These will have the biggest negative impact, they will be controversial, so if there is any headroom then I would really like not to take forward these two savings.” Cllr Jonathan Hucker (Conservative, Stockwood) said: “I completely agree. These are the two most unpalatable suggestions in the document.
“We do have a little bit of wriggle room and if we have then I would like to see these removed.” Cllr Patrick McAllister (Green, Hotwells & Harbourside) said: “School crossing patrols are a really important thing for children and their families, so if there is any headroom then I fully support not taking those savings options forward.”
He said it was a fundamental principle that disabled parking bays should not incur charges. Cllr Kelvin Blake (Labour, Hillfields) said he welcomed Cllr Plowden’s wish to remove the disabled parking charges from the list of savings because a car was the only way for lots of people with disabilities to get out and about.
He said: “If we were to introduce fees for this, it would be another tipping point, another pressure, that they don’t need.” Cllr Plowden replied: “Frankly for £90,000, that’s such a small amount of money that it seems like such a poor thing, so I would really like to see this one removed.”
Cllr Tim Kent (Lib Dem, Hengrove & Whitchurch Park), who is not a member of the sub-committee, said earlier at public forum that cutting lollipop ladies and men would be a “very bad choice”. He said: “We already saw a large reduction in crossing staff when they were cut by the [then] Labour mayor [Marvin Rees].
“Those that remained were often working on busy roads where there are strong safety concerns. Keeping our children safe must be our first duty.
“Given the relatively small saving, I hope you as a committee voice strong opposition to this proposal.”
Try BristolLive Premium for FREE without intrusive ads and brilliant new features
No intrusive adverts, pop-ups or distractions! Just our brilliant content presented in the best way possible.
Get your free one-month trial by visiting the ‘Premium’ tab on the BristolLive app now (auto renews annually at £19.99).
If you haven’t got it already, get started by downloading our app here on iPhone or here on Android. If you already have the app but can’t see the ‘Premium’ section, you’ll need to check for the latest update. More info here.