Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Peter Edwards welcomed everyone to the meeting and announced that Councillor Martin Veal had asked him to act as Chairman in his absence.

The Panel were in full support of this proposal.

The Chairman will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 6.

The Chairman drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Martin Veal and Councillor Nigel Roberts.

Members who have an interest to declare are asked to:

  a)  State the Item Number in which they have the interest

  b)  The nature of the interest

  c)  Whether the interest is personal, or personal and prejudicial

Any Member who is unsure about the above should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting in order to expedite matters at the meeting itself. 

Councillor Brook Whelan declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest as an employee of Capita with regard to the Development & Major Projects Update Report.

There was none.

At the time of publication no notifications had been received.

David Redgewell, South West Transport Network and Deborah Porter, Somer Valley Friends of the Earth had both registered to speak in relation to agenda item 8 (Development and Major Projects Update).

The Panel RESOLVED to approve the minutes of this meeting as written and the Chairman signed them as a correct record.

This report provides an update in respect of all the projects currently managed by the Development & Major Projects Directorate.

David Redgewell, South West Transport Network addressed the Panel. A summary of his statement is set out below.

He said that coordination of cross-authority bus and local rail services was urgently required.

Following a meeting of the WofE Partnership Board on Feb 25^th it was decided to keep the Planning, Housing and Communities Boards and the Joint Transport Executive under democratic control, one step away from the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), but reporting to it.

However, we remain concerned that there is still little wider transport and planning coordination across the boundaries of the West of England into Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Somerset. These counties contain a number of small to medium sized communities which are much related to the Bath and Bristol area, and their respective authorities are hoping particularly in Western Wiltshire to grow towns very substantially in the future. A new and larger commuter belt is forming. Demand for travel generally will greatly increase where the wider and Bristol / Bath area is concerned.

It is surely in the interests of everyone to plan for this growth right across the wider Bristol and Bath area now, with excellent public transport links and interchanges the essence of a sustainable future. Improvements to the bus and rail network need to be thought about now, on a cross-authority basis with Wiltshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire all involved.

Much investment has been put into the Greater Bristol Bus Network and new vehicles specially brought into service by operators. We must build on the success of this network rather than lose pieces of it to cuts. By joint ownership of the problems of running a good sub-regional bus network authorities can bid collectively for money to maintain and run the kind of quality services and infrastructure needed in the present and future. Subsidy issues, evening and Sunday services need to be addressed sub-regionally.

Bus service cuts have recently left many villages and sizeable towns such as Glastonbury, Street and Wells (perhaps put together as many as 40,000 people in all) without evening bus services. People reliant on bus services actually cannot get back from working in Bath or Bristol.

To deal with ‘regeneration’, sustainable communities, enterprise and the Big Society we need to create a strong partnership between the WofE Partnership, the Greater Bristol Authorities (Bath City sub-region including Western Wiltshire and Mendip) and strong robust partnerships to build on the Greater West Partnership between Swindon, Greater Bristol and Cardiff.

Deborah Porter, Somer Valley Friends of the Earth addressed the Panel. A summary of her statement is set out below.

The Norton Radstock Regeneration Company (NRR) is pressing ahead with a new development partner in an attempt to deliver the 2006 master-plan. However, the socio-economic benefits of alternative uses for the site were not considered as part of their process and there was a lack of sound socio-economic analysis.

The regeneration scheme was to deliver the SRB3 outputs according to the Final Regeneration Case, but the SRB2 bid had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Panel will receive a presentation on this item from the Chief Executive of Bath Tourism Plus.

Robin Bischert, Chief Executive of Bath Tourism Plus was present and gave the Panel a presentation regarding this item. A summary of which is set out below.

Introduction

• The market is now in its eleventh year
• Estimated 300,000 visitors in 2010 over 18 days
• 129 retail units – 50% from B&NES and the surrounding area

Visitor Survey

• Carried out every two years by independent research company, South West Research Company
• Face to face survey of visitors to the Christmas Market
• Findings highlight the importance of the Christmas Market on the local economy

Main findings 2010

• 64% of visitors said the Christmas Market was their main reason for choosing to visit Bath
• 69% of visitors on day trip to Bath
• 92% of visitors are repeat visitors
• 88% of visitors intending to do shopping in the city outside of the market
• 74% planning to have a meal out in Bath

Visitor spend

• Average spend per person per day on goods bought in the Christmas Market was £19.80
• Total estimated influenced spend in the market was £4.2 million in 2010

Visitor spend – outside Christmas Market

• Average of £40.24 spent per person per day outside the market
• £24.54 on other shopping
• Total estimated influenced spend in Bath City was £6.6 million in 2010

Conclusion

• Bath Christmas Market continues to have a significant economic benefit to Bath
• Bath Tourism Plus intend to continue to work to spread economic benefit by working with other organisations and business including the Business Improvement District, Southgate and B&NES

Councillor Carol Paradise asked if Bath Tourism Plus had any influence over Hoteliers within the City as she had been made aware of some unhappy visitors recently.

Mr Bischert replied that he would advise them to contact him and he would discuss it with the relevant members of the organisation.

Councillor Peter Edwards asked if there had been any problems associated with coach parking on this occasion.

Mr Bischert replied that the market had been spread over 18 days in an attempt to reduce congestion.

The Divisional Director for Tourism, Leisure & Culture added that in 2010 370 coaches had visited in connection with the market and that no complaints had been received.

Councillor Colin Darracott asked why the use of the ‘square’ within the Southgate development was not more widely allowed under the user agreement with Multi.

Mr Bischert replied that attitudes over the use of the area may be changing.

The Director of Development & Major Projects replied that in light of these discussions he would look at the current user agreement.

The Chairman on behalf of the Panel thanked all concerned for their hard work.

This item gives the Panel an opportunity to ask questions to the Cabinet Members and for them to update the Panel on any current issues.

Councillor Terry Gazzard, Cabinet Member for Development & Major Projects addressed the Panel. He wished to respond to a statement made at a previous meeting of the Panel relating to the Radstock to Frome railway site. He said he had spoken with Somerset County Council on the matter and advised members of the public who have any concerns to contact their local MP or relevant Cabinet Member following the local elections. He added that he personally believed it would transform Radstock if the link were to be made.

Councillor Charles Gerrish, Cabinet Member for Service Delivery wished to add that during the Full Council debate on the Core Strategy a number of minor amendments were taken board, one of which was ‘Recognise the rail link for Radstock – Frome’.

The Panel thanked them for their comments.

This report has been prepared by Bath and North East Somerset Council to meet the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. The Regulations transpose EU Directive 2007/60/EC into UK legislation and place a legal duty upon Lead Local Flood Authorities to prepare a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.

Bath and North East Somerset Council is a unitary authority and is defined as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) within the legislation.

The Design Group Manager introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that the report had been prepared by Bath and North East Somerset Council to meet the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. The Regulations transpose EU Directive 2007/60/EC into UK legislation and place a legal duty upon Lead Local Flood Authorities to prepare a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.

Bath and North East Somerset Council is a unitary authority and is defined as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) within the legislation.

A map of indicative flood risk areas within England and Wales was produced by the Environment Agency based on nationally available information. These are areas where significant harmful consequences are expected to occur in a flooding event. Only 10 of these areas are present within England and Wales. No stand alone indicative Flood Risk Areas fall within the Bath and North East

Somerset area. The closest Indicative Flood Risk Area to Bath and North East Somerset is that of Bristol. A relatively small portion of this area (1.5%) falls within Bath and North East Somerset administrative boundary. Discussions with Bristol City Council have resulted in the agreement that they will take the lead in reviewing this indicative flood risk area on the basis that the selected location falls predominantly within their administrative boundary.

Councillor Colin Darracott wished to congratulate the officers on their efforts in compiling such a detailed report. He asked what kind of decisions would the Council need to be taking in the future relating to this matter.

The Design Group Manager replied that flood risk strategies of a local nature would need to be formulated and decided upon.

Councillor Brook Whelan asked what effect drain blockages and poor storm drains have on the risk of flooding.

The Design Group Manager replied that he believed it did have some effect to the risk of flooding, but wished to add that this was not within the remit of this report. It is an issue that the team does assess as part of its wider responsibility though.

Councillor Brook Whelan asked if future housing developments would be required to find suitable drainage solutions for rain water.

The Design Group Manager replied that new developments would be pushed towards ‘green thinking’ with regard to the problems of surface water and rain water by the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems.

The Panel RESOLVED to commend the report to be submitted to the Environment Agency.

This report presents the latest Overview & Scrutiny Workplan for the panel.

The Chairman introduced this item to the Panel.

Following a brief discussion the Panel concluded they had no new items to add to the workplan.