Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Tim Ball and Roger Symonds

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Questions submitted before the deadline will receive a reply from an appropriate Cabinet member or a promise to respond within 5 days of the meeting.  Councillors may ask one supplementary question for each question they submitted, up to a maximum of two per Councillor.

There were 20 questions from the following people: Councillors Geoff Ward, Tim Warren (3), Anthony Clarke (3), Eleanor Jackson (2), Vic Pritchard (2), Charles Gerrish (2), Brian Webber (6), Patrick Anketell-Jones.

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

Councillors and members of the public may register their intention to make a statement if they notify the subject matter of their statement before the deadline.  Statements are limited to 3 minutes each.  The speaker may then be asked by Cabinet members to answer factual questions arising out of their statement.

Gillian Risbridger made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council’s website] asking Cabinet to support proposals for a 20mph Speed Limit on Wells Road, Bath, and presented a petition to Cabinet of 87 signatures: “We the undersigned wish to show our support for a 20mph speed limit on Wells Road”.

The Chair said that he would refer the petition to Councillor Roger Symonds for his consideration and response in due course.

Amanda Leon read a statement on behalf of George Bailey (Radstock Action Group) [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council’s website] making a number of points as the group’s response to the study

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 12^th September  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

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.

On this occasion there have been no such decisions since the last Cabinet meeting.

There were none.

The Grand Parade & Undercroft project presents a unique development opportunity for the World Heritage City of Bath.  It represents an opportunity to bring redundant and inefficient space back into use for community and commercial benefit, whilst also creating a new fully accessible destination point for business and tourism.

Councillor Brian Webber said that he wished the project well and was delighted that plans were being made to bring the Undercroft back into public use.

Councillor Peter Anketell-Jones agreed, but felt that the plan would not mitigate the costs of the Guildhall, as was apparently anticipated.  The project lacked a clear objective, and not enough detail had been given to enable Cabinet to make an informed decision.

Councillor David Bellotti in proposing the item, said that a successful meeting had been held with the market traders, who were excited about the new opportunities it would provide.  He explained that the plans included a mix of retail, leisure and food outlets which would be a valuable use of an area which was currently wasted space.  The project would not be about the Council spending large sums of money as it was seeking partners to achieve the project.  He felt that the timetable was ambitious but achievable.  He explained that he would be moving slightly different proposals from those recommended in the officer report and a further report would only be brought to Cabinet if a decision was required.

Councillor Cherry Beath seconded the proposal and said that the Cabinet was keen to develop the underused areas of Bath.  She was confident that good progress would be made towards bringing the colonnades back into public use.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that a detailed consultation exercise should be undertaken with key stakeholders and the general public;

(2) To AGREE that a development brief should be produced, taking into account the feedback from the consultation exercise, to enable a development partner to be procured;

(3) To ASK the Chief Property Officer to produce a full viability appraisal and options report on the opportunities under consideration; and

(4) To AGREE that on completion of the above recommendations, if required, a further report will be submitted to Cabinet for approval.

In order to prepare for a national funding formula, direction has been given to Local Authorities to review their formula of school funding to ensure that it fits with the government’s intentions for the future. The LA has developed its proposal and consulted schools on the proposal in order to allow the cabinet to decide on a formal methodology to submit to the Education Funding Agency (EFA).

Councillor Eleanor Jackson in an ad hoc statement expressed surprise that St Mary’s Writhlington was apparently not considered to have any pockets of deprivation.  She asked for clarification of the definition used for deprivation.

Councillor Dine Romero in proposing the item, said that deprivation was not an exact science; the DfE were proposing to use fewer factors in the definition, including measures of special educational need, free school meals, and others.  She thanked the officers for the hard work they had done in preparing the consultation and assessing the responses.

Councillor Romero explained that there would be a cap on losses and gains until 2014/15, to mitigate the effects of the new formula.  She moved that option (2) of the 3 options should be the one adopted by Cabinet, because it retained funding at 7% rather than reducing it to 6%, and it balanced the weighting equally between the IDACI index and the free school meals figures.  She felt that this addressed concerns that the IDACI index did not adequately reflect rural deprivation.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He emphasised that changing any funding formula was always difficult, which was why the Cabinet had wanted to consult with schools before making the changes.  The proposals would meet the government’s requirement that the funding formula must recognise social deprivation.

On a motion from Councillor Dine Romero, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that option 2 is submitted as the methodology to be adopted by Bath and North East Somerset Council from April 2013. This reflects an amendment to the proposal for the funding of Deprivation changing the split of resources between the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and free schools meals to 50:50 split. (Compared with the 75:25 split in the consultation proposal)

If successful in its bid to the Weekly Collections Support fund the Council must commit to keeping weekly refuse collections until 2016/17.  This report seeks approval for this commitment in accepting any offer of funding.

Councillor Michael Evans in an ad hoc statement said that he hoped the Council would support weekly collections, even if the funding application was not successful.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson agreed with Councillor Evans that weekly collections were important to local communities.

Councillor Geoff Ward in an ad hoc statement emphasised that there was good evidence that moving to fortnightly collections increased the pest problems associated with waste.

Councillor David Dixon in proposing the item, said that weekly collections were a luxury rather than a statutory service; but the Cabinet had high hopes of retaining weekly collections at least until 2016/17 if the application for £1.6M from DCLG was successful.  He observed that the food waste collection was weekly and gave credit to Councillor Charles Gerrish, who had introduced that scheme.  He said that Cabinet still aimed to increase the recycling rates in the authority.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He said he was passionate about recycling and hoped the government would keep its pledge.  He pointed out that if the funding was not awarded, then the issue of weekly residual waste collection would have to be considered by the Council.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that if a funding award is made by DCLG from the weekly collections support fund:

(a) The Council commits to keeping a weekly refuse collection service until 2016/17 and, assuming that the award is for the full amount of the bid, allocates £1.6 million to do this;

(b) The Council allocates the remainder of the funding awarded to projects which are designed to minimise and recycle more waste.

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director of Environmental Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods to agree the detail of the award and the delivery of associated projects with DCLG; and

(3) To NOTE that Council as part of its budget setting process will consider the allocation of resources towards achieving its waste and recycling objectives in the light of the money available from DCLG and the conditions attached thereto.

In response to concerns about the impact of high levels of Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath, the Cabinet considered a mixture of planning controls and housing-led solutions on 14th March 2012. The Cabinet agreed to make a non-immediate Article 4 Direction covering Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath. Once confirmed, implementation of the Article 4 Direction requires a Supplementary Planning Policy to be effective.  The first draft of this has now been prepared entitled Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath: Supplementary Planning Document (Consultation Draft) and is presented to Cabinet for agreement to publish for public consultation in Oct – Nov 2012.

The final decision to whether to implement the Article 4 Direction, adopt the Supplementary Planning Document and to proceed with Additional Licencing scheme for HMOs will follow in Spring 2013.

Councillor Will Sandry in an ad hoc statement thanked the Cabinet for addressing the issue.  He felt that the report contained a robust study of the issues and the consultation.  He recognised that some students would have concerns but he hoped that when they saw the full details they would be persuaded that the proposals were fair.

Councillor Geoff Ward said he appreciated that Councillor Tim Ball had involved him at an early stage of thinking.  He remained concerned however that the Article 4 approach would generate a high volume of applications and appeals which would prove very challenging to the Planning Department.  He was not convinced that special licensing would solve the HMO problem and felt that the money would have been better spent on enforcement.

Councillor Paul Crossley in proposing the item, said that he and the Chief Executive had met recently with students and the Vice Chancellors of both universities.  They had called on homes in Lawn Road and Shaftesbury Road to get a measure of the balance between HMO and family houses.  He explained that the enforcement route would have the effect of reducing student accommodation and would damage some communities.

Councillor Crossley emphasised that the proposals would not reduce the number of HMOs, but would make communities more mixed.  He emphasised that Cabinet was being asked to agree to consultation, not to make a final decision.  He asked Councillor Ward to submit his comments on enforcement during the consultation period.

Councillor Simon Allen seconded the proposal.

Councillor David Dixon said that the issue was not only the impact of HMOs but was about bringing homes back into use for families.  He related that people selling their homes are often inundated with offers from landlords wanting to convert the home to an HMO and felt that this created a false market which he hoped would soon level out.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Simon Allen, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE the Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath: Supplementary Planning Document (Consultation Draft) for public consultation;

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director of Planning & Transport, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing, to make final graphic and minor textual amendments prior to publication of the Draft Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath Supplementary Planning Document;

(3) To NOTE the responses from the Article 4 Direction public consultation in response to the “intention to implement” notice (Appendix B) and the findings presented in the Stakeholder workshop report; and

(4) To NOTE the Equalities Impact Assessment of the draft SPD and the draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report.

The report details progress to date of the review of the current policy framework and Resource Allocation System for Personal Budgets and makes recommendations for the implementation of the Department of Health national RAS

Councillor Charles Gerrish in an ad hoc statement declared that he had a non-prejudicial interest in the issue.  He said that he understood the aims of the proposals but was concerned that it was intended to achieve those aims within a 12-month period.  He felt that this would lead to difficulties and that this would then increase the costs of residential care. He asked Cabinet to consider increasing the transitional arrangements to a longer period.

Councillor Simon Allen in proposing the item, said that the report was a progress report only.  The Council had been a pilot council for the introduction of personal budgets, the aim of which was to give more choice and control to the individual.  During the pilot scheme, the Council had developed its own policies which it now found were not totally in line with the national policies.  The Council needed therefore to agree ways to come into line with national policies.

He thanks Councillor Gerrish for his comments, which would be fed into the consultation, and promised that the item would come back to Cabinet at a later date for adoption to ensure a fair and equitable process.

Councillor Paul Crossley, in seconding the proposal, said he felt that personal budgets were an important way to empower clients and he was pleased that after being involved in the pilot scheme the Council was now taking steps to catch up with best practice.

On a motion from Councillor Simon Allen, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that, based on the modelling contained in the main report, the percentile model for calibrating the national RAS locally is further explored and tested;

(2) To AGREE that, based on the above recommendation, further engagement and consultation with service users, carers and social care staff takes place;

(3) To AGREE that, based on the modelling contained in the main report, scenario 4 of the five transitional scenarios is adopted when roll out of the national RAS begins; and

(4) To AGREE that implementation of the national RAS should take place in early 2013 following a period of statutory consultation.

The Localism Act introduces new rights for local communities. These rights include the ability to nominate assets of community value for inclusion on a list maintained by the Council. If the owner of a listed asset wants to sell it, the Council must be notified to give communities time to develop a bid for the asset. This report outlines the provisions relating to this and proposes a decision making process for the listing of community assets.

Councillor Paul Crossley in proposing the item, reported that an issue raised with him during consultation related to criterion C2 of Appendix 1, with a request which would have the effect of broadening the evidence base for satisfying the criterion.  He explained that he intended to pass on the request to the Divisional Director, Policy and Partnerships, if Cabinet agreed to delegate to him the power to amend the document.

Councillor Simon Allen seconded the proposal.  He felt that the proposals were evidence of one of the most positive aspects of the Localism Act and would be very beneficial to communities in the area.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Simon Allen, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director, Policy and Partnerships for decision-making in response to nominations for entry into the List of Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act 2011, drawing on the decision-making guidance as set out in the report (or, in the event of this Divisional Director having a conflict of interest, to a Divisional Director nominated by the Strategic Director- Resources);

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director Policy and Partnerships for decision-making with regard to updating this guidance, in consultation with the Council Leader, in response to experience of implementing the provisions, new regulations and emerging case law;

(3) To AGREE that the internal review process in relation to listing be undertaken by a Divisional Director not involved in the initial decision;

(4) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director Property Services to make arrangements relating to the procedures following listing, including moratorium and compensation provisions, as set out in the report; and

(5) To AGREE that an Annual Review of listing decisions be prepared.

The West of England Partnership has been successful in being awarded £5m DfT Better Bus Area Grant. The package of measures funded by the Better Bus Area Grant will be used to improve the reliability and quality of services in the sub region.

David Redgewell in an ad hoc statement asked the Cabinet for assurances about accessible buses.  He reminded Cabinet of a number of authorities which had achieved 100% accessible buses and asked how long the Council would hang on to its old buses.  Since the Council had pioneered quality partnerships, why had it not worked with First to ensure DDA compliance?  He stressed that in all of its contracts the Council should insist on the use of low floor buses.

Councillor Charles Gerrish in an ad hoc statement expressed concern that First Bus had recently cut services further.  The Council should be working to increase the number of people served by buses, but the proposals were only enhancing existing routes instead of expanding services.

Councillor Paul Crossley in proposing the item, agreed that there must be a clear aim to work towards having all low floor buses.  He said however that if the alternative was to have no bus at all, that was not a desirable option.  He stressed that the Council would not allow itself to become dependent on one large service provider and would continue to work with the smaller providers.  The approach would be to secure the grant funding and then continue to improve.

Councillor David Dixon in seconding the proposal said that he agreed that it was important to move towards accessible buses.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ACCEPT the Better Bus Area Grant funding to:

(a) Upgrade bus stops on A431 Kelston Road;

(b) Expand Real Time Information; and

(c) Promote multi-operator ticketing scheme.

The paper recommends an approach to translate the government's economic growth, housing delivery and related future financing agendas and align them with regional LEP opportunities into a Development Agenda for Bath & North East Somerset, in order to meet the Council's Vision for economic growth and housing targets as set out in the Core Strategy

David Redgewell in an ad hoc statement emphasised the importance of upgrading the rail corridor and felt that there was not enough in the report about this.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson in an ad hoc statement said that she was pleased to see that the report in paragraph 4 acknowledged the importance of developing local action plans for Radstock, Westfield and Midsomer Norton.  But she felt that the Radstock Economic Forum had done little and asked for real action in future.  She welcomed the plans for a creative hub for Bath, but said that the Somer valley must also be given similar opportunities.  She referred to paragraph 5.23c where Radstock and Midsomer Norton regeneration were listed as priorities, but asked Cabinet to explain how and when the £500K promised for the area in the budget would be spent.

Councillor Cherry Beath in proposing the item, said that she was delighted to bring the proposals to Cabinet.  The report had a very wide ranging scope and showed that the Council’s new priorities had people at the heart.  She agreed with David Redgewell that transportation improvements would be crucial to economic growth.  Cabinet were trying to link up the rail networks, in addition to creating employment opportunities.

Councillor Beath responded to Council Jackson by saying that there were plans for the promised £500K which would become clear soon.  She reminded the previous speakers however that this report had not been intended to be a detailed report about the sources of funding, but rather was an indicator of how the Council was working with possible partners to achieve its aims.

Councillor David Bellotti said that he was delighted to second the proposal.  He observed that economic growth would be derived from investment by the private sector.  He referred to paragraph 3.1 of the report, which made it clear that all the proposals were subject to funding agreement in the Council Budget.  He was delighted to see the intention to introduce apprentices in the key development sites.

Councillor David Dixon referred to appendix 1 paragraph 1.14, which showed that the Radstock Road scheme was a key objective for the next 12 months

Councillor Simon Allen welcomed the socially responsible attitude to regeneration, particularly the commitment to creating more adaptable “homes for life” so that older people could live independently; and the commitment to ensure that new developments would meet the requirements of the Public Health Framework.  He responded to Councillor Jackson’s comment about the Radstock Economic Forum by observing that the forum had met recently; a wide range of local businesses were involved; and the members were determined to work together for the benefit of the town.

Councillor Paul Crossley responded to David Redgewell by saying that although the report did not give enough detail about the rail corridor upgrade, it had not been intended to be that detailed.  However, he reminded the meeting that great progress was being made on the Saltford Station business case and on the Bathampton Park and Ride idea.  This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.