Meeting documents

29 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair was taken by Councillor Francine Haeberling, Leader of the Council.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

30 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda

31 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were none.

32 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

There were none.

33 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)

There was none.

34 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 11 questions from the following people: Councillor Sharon Ball, Councillor Dr Eleanor Jackson, Councillor Ian Gilchrist (2), Councillor Will Sandry (2), Councillor Andy Furse (2), Councillor Roger Symonds (2), Councillor Caroline Roberts.

[Copies of the questions and responses, 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.]

35 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Councillor Caroline Roberts made a statement reminding the Cabinet that she had previously asked for a 20mph speed limit to be introduced at places in her ward but had received a letter stating that this was not possible. She said that she had recently visited the site of such a scheme in Portsmouth, and felt that it had been well implemented. She urged the Cabinet to look again at the Portsmouth model and to emulate it if possible.

Councillor Charles Gerrish agreed to take on board Councillor Roberts' comments.

36 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 25^th June 2008

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 25^th June 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person)

37 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were none.

38 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES

There were none.

39 SINGLE MEMBER CABINET DECISIONS PUBLISHED SINCE PREVIOUS CABINET MEETING

The Cabinet resolved to note the report.

[The Chair announced that, in view of the considerable public interest in item 13, Bath Transportation Package - Land Assembly, she would hear this item next on the agenda]

40 BATH TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE - LAND ASSEMBLY (Report 13).

The Chair thanked those members of the public who had provided written submissions in advance to Cabinet, all of which had been read and would be considered when making the decision. She announced that there were 5 registered speakers on this tem.

Councillor Andy Furse made a statement expressing concern that some affected residents had only become aware of the proposal in the last week and some had been on holiday at the time. He felt that if the proposal had been for a tramway or guided bus route, people might have felt differently but what was being proposed was a road, at the bottom of gardens which until now had been quiet and had provided privacy, shade and pleasure to their owners. He pointed out that even the Cabinet member for Customer Services had admitted that he did not know how many minutes would be shaved off journey times by the proposals but current forecasts were only 2 minutes.

Alison Weston made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2] in which she appealed to the Cabinet not to pursue the Compulsory Purchase Order. She highlighted the social, environmental and community impact and questioned the viability of the proposals.

Carolyn Allen made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3] in which she appealed to the Cabinet not to pursue the Compulsory Purchase Order. She explained the consequences of the loss of a metre-wide band at the bottom of her garden and the effect it would have on her lifestyle.

Nadine Geary made a statement appealing to the Cabinet not to pursue the Compulsory Purchase Order. She complained of the short notice given. She said she had been promised a map of the relevant land in June or July but had still not received it, nor had she received as promised an explanation of why the new road could not be built behind the gardens instead of on them. She called for a public inquiry to be held if the proposals were submitted as a planning application.

David Batho made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4] appealing to the Cabinet not to pursue the Batheaston Park and Ride scheme, which had already been rejected by the Bristol-Bath to South Coast study because it would have serious adverse environmental impacts.

Councillor Charles Gerrish, in proposing the item, emphasised that the proposal being considered was a technical enabling paper and would not of itself initiate compulsory purchase proceedings. CPO powers would only be considered if the Council, having obtained planning permission and having then obtained government agreement to the Bath Transportation Package, found that negotiations with land owners failed to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. He emphasised that the Council was obliged to adopt the proposals before it in order to be able to make the application to government for funding for the BTP.

Councillor Chris Watt seconded the proposal. He felt that no member of Cabinet would challenge the concerns that the speakers had expressed but said that residents' right to the enjoyment of their land had to be balanced with the greater common good which might necessitate land vital for public purposes being acquired. If so, then the Cabinet must have the courage of its convictions and this might require the use of CPO powers. For example, a previous CPO was to enable the building of a school.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney repeated that the proposals were only a technical paper to position the Council in the event that negotiations with land owners failed. He felt that, despite this, it might have been more helpful to land owners if they had been given an explanation of this and he apologised if this had not happened.

Councillor Tim Ball, acting Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, expressed his concern that there was a perception amongst the public that proper process had not been followed on this occasion and he appealed to the Chair to defer the decision.

The Chair declined to defer the decision because she considered that proper process had been followed. She reminded the meeting that a full debate on the issues of substance would be held when two Overview and Scrutiny Panels debated the issues at their forthcoming meetings at which members of the public and members of Council could make full contributions.

Rationale

The use of CPO powers to acquire land in respect of a major scheme is an accepted method of gaining security of delivery. It provides, subject to proper consideration on their individual merits of each case, certainty of property assembly.

Land assembly is essential to the delivery of the scheme. The CPO process sets out statutory provisions for compensation to landowners.

In order to draw down funding from the Department for Transport to undertake the scheme, the Authority is required to prove land assembly has taken place or there is certainty of delivery.

Other Options Considered

Seek to acquire necessary land by negotiation. This will be done where possible - however, the use of Compulsory Purchase powers may be necessary if the scheme is to progress to delivery. One landowner unwilling to deal with the Council would have the potential to prevent the scheme from being delivered.

Whilst acquisition by agreement is preferred it is considered that the potential use of compulsory purchase powers in tandem with negotiations is essential if the Council is to bring forward the scheme and prevent ransom and other barriers to delivery.

On a motion from Councillor Charles Gerrish, seconded by Councillor Chris Watt, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That the Council shall make, as necessary, compulsory purchase orders under the Highways Act 1980, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for the acquisition of land and new rights within the areas shown (by the red line for the land and by a blue for the temporary rights) on the published plan and described generally in the report and appendices for the delivery of the Bath Transportation Package;

(2) To authorise the Chief Property Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources, to take all necessary steps to secure the making, confirmation and implementation any CPO including the publication and service of all notices and the presentation of the Council's case at Public Inquiry on the implicit instructions of the Transport Board and the Project Director;

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

(4) That any use of the CPO powers will be subject to the authorisation of the S151 Officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources in respect of the expected financial implications of the authorisation.

41 DRAFT DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (Report 12).

Councillor Adrian Inker made an ad hoc statement welcoming the report and promised that his political group would contribute fully to the public consultation. He reminded the Cabinet that not al recent s106 agreements had been successful but that it was important if the Council was to achieve its affordable housing targets.

Councillor Dr Eleanor Jackson made an ad hoc statement agreeing with Councillor Inker. The task of the Planning Committee would be greatly helped once this guidance came into force.

Councillor Charles Gerrish, in proposing the item, welcomed all contributions and agreed that the new guidance would clarify the issues. He moved a proposal slightly amended from the one published with the Agenda.

Councillor David Hawkins seconded the proposal.

Councillor Chris Watt referred to paragraph 1.2.10 of the draft document, the effect of which would be that developers would no longer be able to divide their developments up into "bundles" of less than 15 dwellings in order to avoid responsibility to make a contribution.

Councillor Vic Pritchard emphasised that the draft documents could still be amended to ensure a better outcome for affordable housing.

Rationale

There is a need for a coherent and coordinated approach to securing the maximum amount of developer contributions without threatening the economic viability of the scheme to ensure that the effects of development are mitigated in a way that benefits the community.

Other Options Considered

The alternative to producing SPD is to continue with current ad hoc approach. This is considered to be inefficient and not cost-effective and will be more so given the significant growth the district will face over the next 20 years.

On a motion from Councillor Charles Gerrish, seconded by Councillor David Hawkins, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To agree the Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document for statutory public consultation; and

(2) To approve the Affordable Housing Companion Guide for consultation as a non-statutory supplement to this draft Supplementary Planning Document.

42 REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING, CASH LIMITS AND VIREMENTS - APRIL TO JULY 2008 (Report 14).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, said that the Council continued to be subject to financial pressures and it would still be necessary for Strategic Directors to bring their services back into line with the budget.

Councillor Vic Pritchard seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The report is presented as part of the reporting of financial management and budgetary control required by the Council.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That Strategic Directors should continue to work towards managing within budget in the current year for their respective service areas, and to manage below budget where possible by not committing unnecessary expenditure, through tight budgetary control;

(2) To note this year's revenue budget position;

(3) To note the capital expenditure position at the end of July and the year-end projections;

(4) To agree the revenue virements listed for approval;

(5) To note the changes in the capital programme.