Agenda and minutes

At the time of publication, 5 items had been submitted

There were 18 questions from the following people: Councillors Nigel Roberts, Eleanor Jackson (2), John Bull, Tim Warren (2), Patrick Anketell-Jones (2), Vic Pritchard, Mathew Blankley, Anthony Clarke, Colin Barrett (2), Kate Simmons; and members of the public Sarah Moore, Katrina Davies, Mrs S Osborne, Liz Richardson.

[Copies of the questions and response, including supplementary questions and responses if any, have been placed on the Minute book as Appendix 1 and are available on the Council's website.]

At the time of publication, 12 items had been notified

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones, in a statement about Urban Broadband [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council's website], noted the award by government of £100M to cities (including Bristol) and the additional £15M for smaller cities.  He felt that the council must not be left behind in this race and called on the Cabinet to do the work necessary to submit an application to DCMS.

The Chair referred the statement to Councillor Cherry Beath for her consideration.

There were a number of other speakers, all of whom made their statements at the relevant agenda item.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor David Bellotti, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 11th April 2012 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

This is a standard agenda item, to cover any reports originally placed on the Weekly list for single Member decision making, which have subsequently been the subject of a Cabinet Member requisition to the full Cabinet, under the Council’s procedural rules

This is a standing agenda item (Constitution rule 21, part 4D – Executive Procedure Rules) for matters referred by Policy Development and Scrutiny bodies.  The Chair of the relevant PDS body will have the right to attend and at the discretion of the Leader to speak to the item, but not vote.

On this occasion, the Resources PDS Panel has referred some recommendations to Cabinet following a working group.  Councillor John Bull, the Chair of the Panel, will be invited to address the Cabinet.

The Chair announced that recommendations from the Resource PDS Panel would be considered at item 18 on the Agenda.

The Leader and Cabinet have indicated that most decisions will be taken by the full Cabinet, at its public meetings.  This report lists any Cabinet Single Member decisions taken and published since the last Cabinet meeting.

This document provides information and tools needed for the protection and management of the World Heritage Site setting in support of policies in the Local Plan and the Core Strategy. Approval is requested from the Cabinet to go out to Public Consultation during May – June 2012.  Following consultation, the final version of the document will be reported to Cabinet for adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document.

Note:  The SPD document is very large, so copies will be put on display at the Council’s Public Inspection Points and in the Council’s Political Group Rooms.

Councillor Tim Ball said that the proposals spoke for themselves and he moved the recommendations.

Councillor Cherry Beath seconded the proposal and gave her full support.  She said the document was an important step in protecting the world heritage status of Bath.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Cherry Beath, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the Draft City of Bath World Heritage Site Setting Supplementary Planning Document for public consultation as part of the process leading to adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document to policies BH.1 in the Bath and North East Somerset Council Local Plan and B4 in the Core Strategy once it is adopted; and

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director for Planning and Transport Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Homes and Planning, to make minor text changes and minor design changes to the layout, if required, and for the inclusion of the rest of the appendices and changes to the selection of photos to the Draft Supplementary Planning Document.

The Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document is a formal planning document which will allocate land for the development of authorised Gypsy and Traveller pitches across the District. The Preferred Options document is the second stage of consultation, following on from the Issues and Options consultation that took place between November 2011 and January 2012. It puts forward seven ‘preferred’ sites which have the potential to be allocated for development which could meet the identified unmet need in Bath and North East Somerset. The Preferred Options paper seeks public feedback on those sites.

Councillor Judith Chubb-Whittle (Chair, Stanton Drew Parish Council) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council's website] expressed the view of the Parish Council that the site at Stanton Wick should be removed from the consultation list.

Councillor Ashton Broad (Whitchurch Parish Council) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 21 and on the Council's website] asking for the Woollard Lane site to be removed from the consultation list.

Cllr Maggie Hutton (Vice-Chair, Camerton Parish Council) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council's website] explaining why the Parish Council felt so strongly that the open site at Daglands in Camerton should be removed from the consultation list.  She presented two petitions, one of 370 signatures from residents of Camerton, and one of 75 signatures from Camerton children together with their art, letters and poems asking for the site to be saved.

The Chair referred the petitions to Councillor Tim Ball for his consideration.

Philip Townshend (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.

Clark Osborne (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.

Dr Christopher Ree (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.

Karen Abolkheir (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.

Liz Richardson (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.

Sue Osborne (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.

Jennie Jones (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 11 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to remove the Stanton Wick site from the consultation list.  She presented a petition to Cabinet of 1161 signatures objecting to the inclusion of the site in the consultation.

The Chair referred the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

This report sets out the latest situation relating to the Community Empowerment Fund which was agreed by Cabinet on 2nd March 2011.  It makes specific recommendations relating to the Performance Reward Grant “Main Grant Fund” of £1m and the £336,000 element of the Council’s Community Empowerment Fund for helping disadvantaged communities, regeneration and localism projects.

Councillor Paul Crossley in proposing the item thanked the officers of Policy and Partnerships for their hard work in preparing the arrangements for the fund.  He was delighted that the main recommendations for use of the fund had come from the community.

Councillor Nathan Hartley seconded the proposal.  He also was delighted with the proposals.  He announced the launch of a brand new fund of £100K, to be used to ensure that the young people we work with have a better chance of fulfilling their goals and aspirations.  £60K of the fund was earmarked to fund groups and initiatives that support young people to get involved with positive activities and £40,000 was for young people who were struggling to find training or employment.  He was confident that the fund would make a huge difference in a number of young lives.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Nathan Hartley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE the provisional funding allocations in relation to the Performance Reward Programme Main Grant Fund and that conditional offers be made with regard to the projects identified, subject to successful negotiations on grant agreements as set out in the report;

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director, Policy and Partnerships, in consultation with the Council Leader and Section 151 Officer, to sign funding agreements that have been finalised according to this process, put in place performance management arrangements and reallocate any sums returned to the fund in accordance with the prioritisation assessment agreed by the LSP Board;

(3) To AGREE the proposed funding allocations in relation to the Fund for disadvantaged communities, regeneration and localism projects, including the £60,000 allocation for equalities projects recommended by the LSP Board following its deliberations on the Main Grant Fund;

(4) To DELEGATE authority to the identified Divisional Directors, in consultation with relevant Cabinet members and the Section 151 Officer, to manage the budgets allocated under the Fund for disadvantaged communities, regeneration and localism projects;

(5) To AGREE the funding profile for the Ward Councillors Initiative as follows:

2012-13: £3000 for each member

2013-14: £3000 for each member

2014-15: No allocation

(6) To AGREE the allocation of £100,000 from the Fund for disadvantaged communities, regeneration and localism projects for a new Future Fund.

Note: The papers were not available for draft despatch and will be distributed under separate cover.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement welcomed the initiative.  He noted that the area was in competition with a number of larger cities such as Bristol.  He felt that the proposed hub would be an excellent start – but that it would only be a test-bed which would inform other developments such as Bath Quays and Bath Western Riverside.

Councillor Cherry Beath in proposing the item said that there was clear evidence of demand for the provision.  The area had high levels of self-employment, with many looking for work space, but that cost was a major factor.  She referred to a letter of support which she had received, signed by the Chair of Creative Bath and the two Universities.  She strongly supported the development, and congratulated John Wilkinson (Economic Enterprise & Business Development Manager) for the work he had done in getting third parties involved.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.

Councillor Paul Crossley said that he was excited that the Council was working with a range of businesses and manufacturers to set up the hub.

Councillor Cherry Beath summed up by observing that the proposed arrangements would be for a community interest company.

On a motion from Councillor Cherry Beath, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE that up to £500,000 capital provisionally allocated in the 2012/13 budget be used to redevelop an area in the Guildhall to become a Co-Working Hub;

(2) To AGREE that the final layout of the Co-Working Hub will be agreed by Council officers in conjunction with the Cabinet members for Sustainable Development and Community Resources;

To AGREE that a lease be granted by the council to a Community Interest Company to deliver the Co-Working Hub. The specific details of the governance arrangements will need to be agreed by the Council’s Section 151 officer in consultation with the Cabinet member for Sustainable Development and Community Resources.

In certain circumstances a Local Authority has the legal right to use Compulsory Purchase Order powers to acquire land to achieve certainty of delivery of its redevelopment and/or highway aspirations.  It is beneficial if the Council makes it clear whilst negotiations continue that it is prepared to use CPO powers should the need arise.  The CPO process in relation to the Riverside site, Keynsham will only be exercised if it is considered to be necessary by the Chief Property Officer, in consultation with the S151 Officer and Cabinet Member for Community Resources.

Councillor David Bellotti in proposing the item said that the issues were straightforward.  He referred to paragraph (2) of the proposals and explained that the Council needed the powers because it could not in all conscience leave the secondary site to degenerate next to the site which was being renewed.  The Cabinet intended to bring forward plans for the secondary site in due course.

Councillor Cherry Beath seconded the proposal and gave her full support to the plans and the need to use the CPO powers if necessary.

On a motion from Councillor David Bellotti, seconded by Councillor Cherry Beath, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AUTHORISE the Chief Property Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community Resources to take all necessary steps to make, as necessary, a CPO or CPOs under Section 226(1) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for the acquisition of land and/or the creation of new rights pursuant to Section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (or any such other legislation  may be  appropriate for the delivery of the scheme) in respect of acquisition of land and/or rights within the indicative area shown on the attached site plan for the  Riverside office block and its environs, Temple Street, Keynsham to bring forward the area for redevelopment following the Council’s vacation in 2014.

The Chief Property Officer is authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community Resources, to take all necessary steps in the process of making, confirmation and implementation of any CPO, including the publication and service of all notices, and the presentation of the Council’s case at Public Inquiry.

(2) To AUTHORISE the Chief Property Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community Resources, to acquire interests in land and new rights within any CPO either by agreement(s) or compulsorily and approve agreement(s) with land owners setting out the terms of the withdrawal of objections to the Order, including where appropriate seeking exclusion of land or new rights from the Order and or making arrangements for re-housing or relocation of occupiers;

(3) To AGREE that any use of the CPO powers is subject to authorisation from the S151 Officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community Resources in respect of the anticipated financial implications of the authorisation.

The Cabinet is asked to consider the points raised during the public consultation of Traffic Regulation Order "(Various Roads Newbridge & Weston Bath) (Prohibition & Restriction of Waiting) (Prohibition of Loading/Unloading)” Traffic Regulation Order and decide whether to proceed with the proposed scheme.

Councillor Roger Symonds in proposing the item explained that there had been a backlog of yellow line proposals, and that officers from the Transportation Division had worked hard to bring them to this point.  He observed that his recommendation was to implement some of the proposals as advertised, but in some cases to overturn or to amend the proposals.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the motion.

On a motion from Councillor Roger Symonds, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

To AGREE that in regard to the advertised proposals below that the proposals are implemented, modified or withdrawn as below:

(1) proposal to prohibit parking in lengths of Apsley Road, Burleigh Gardens, Cedric Road, Chelsea Road, East Lea Road, Manor Road, Meadow Gardens, Newbridge Gardens, Newbridge Hill, Newbridge Road, Partis Way, Penn Gardens, Penn Hill Road, Penn Lea Road, South Lea Road, Westfield Park, West Lea Road and Weston Park;

Apsley Road: That the Double Yellow Line (DYL) junction protection in Apsley Road from Newbridge Road is implemented as advertised. That the proposal for DYL on the west side of Apsley Road from Newbridge Hill is modified to reduce the length of DYL to commence at a point 94 metres south of the junction of Newbridge Hill, extending for a distance of 20 metres in a south westerly direction into the western cul-de-sac, in response to public feedback.

Burleigh Gardens: That the proposal to implement DYL on the east side from its junction with South Lea Road for a distance of 190 metres in a southerly then westerly direction encompassing the turning head in the western spur of Burleigh Gardens is modified to implement DYL on the east side from its junction with South Lea Road for a distance of 11 metres in a southerly direction. Then DYL on the south side of Burleigh Gardens from a point 150 metres south westerly from the eastern kerbline of its junction with South Lea Road in a westerly direction for a distance of 44 metres, encompassing the turning head in the western spur of Burleigh Gardens to allow traffic movement.

That the DYL on the west side of the road from the junction from its junction with South Lea Road for a distance of 11 metres in a southerly direction is implemented as advertised for junction protection purposes.

Cedric Road: That the proposals are implemented as advertised as no objections were received.

Chelsea Road: That the proposals are implemented as advertised as no objections were received.

East Lea Road: To implement DYL on the junction on the east side from its junction with South Lea Road for a distance of 19 meters as advertised to ensure traffic flow and road safety issues are resolved. To modify the proposal on the western side of East Lea Road to DYL from the junction of South Lea Road for a distance of 19 meters then reduce restriction to Single Yellow Lines in operation 10am till 4pm Monday to Friday  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

The Chair of the Panel will introduce the Panel’s recommendations.

Note:  This item is for information only.  No implementable decisions will be made by Cabinet and the item will therefore not be subject to Call-in

The Chair welcomed Councillor John Bull (Chair of the Resources PDS Panel), and invited him to introduce the Panel’s recommendations.

Councillor John Bull explained that a cross-party group of four members of the Panel had worked on the report.  They had interviewed a number of officers.  The broad conclusions had been that there was not great abuse of the system.  They had identified clear criteria for the use of consultants in the Council although it was not always evident whether they had been applied.

He referred to the advice of the National Audit Office that agency accounts could be an efficient way of engaging consultants where necessary, because this would enable the Council to dip in and out of the agency provision as required.

He made two particular recommendations:

(i)  Council expenditure on consultants is of such public interest that it should be identified in Service Action Plans;

(ii)  The Resources PDS Panel should be given an analysis from the Staff Satisfaction Survey relating to working with consultants.

Councillor David Bellotti thanked Councillor Bull and his Panel for their work in bringing this to Cabinet’s attention, and agreed that this was a very timely debate.  He had arranged to attend the forthcoming Panel meeting, at which he would give a response to the Panel.  He assured the Panel that he would listen to their views and would report back to Cabinet.