Meeting documents

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

CABINET

Wednesday 5^th March 2008

PRESENT:
Councillor Francine Haeberling    - Leader of the Council
Councillor Malcolm Hanney          - Resources and Deputy Leader
Councillor Vic Pritchard                - Adult Social Services and Housing
Councillor David Hawkins            - Development and Major Projects
Councillor Charles Gerrish           - Customer Services
Councillor Chris Watt                    - Children's Services

72 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

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

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

73 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

74 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were none.

75 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

Councillor Malcolm Hanney declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest relating to Agenda Item 15, as Chair of the Primary Care Trust.

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

There was none.

77 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 8 questions from the following people: Councillor Adrian Inker (2), Councillor David Dixon, Councillor Paul Crossley, Councillor Andy Furse, Councillor Keith Kirwan (Keynsham Town Council), Gail Coleshill, Gitte Dawson

[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.]

78 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Deborah Porter, Cam Valley Wildlife Group, made a statement expressing concerns about bio-diversity and seeking a commitment from the Council to be pro-active in all aspects of bio-diversity.

Councillor Charles Gerrish asked Deborah Porter whether she would agree to meet with the Divisional Director, Planning and Transportation, to discuss these issues and she agreed.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist made a statement appealing to Cabinet to provide a safe crossing on the lower Wells Road, Bath and during which he referred to comments from local residents [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2] and presented a petition to Cabinet [the words of which are attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3]. An aerial photograph of the area had previously been submitted for Cabinet consideration [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4].

The Chair referred the petition to the Cabinet member for Customer Services for his consideration and response in due course.

Meryl Stannard made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5] in which she appealed to Cabinet to provide a safe crossing on the lower Wells Road, Bath.

Councillor Doctor Eleanor Jackson made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6] in which she addressed the issue of traffic safety on Bath Old Road and Frome Road, Radstock.

Councillor Charles Gerrish asked Councillor Dr Jackson whether she was aware that officers had met with local residents on 26^th February and that a site meeting was planned for the near future. Councillor Dr Jackson agreed that she was aware of this but said that urgent action was required.

Scott Morrison, Coordinator, Bath Friends of the Earth, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7] urging that the Council should aim for sustainable "development" as opposed to "growth" which he believed would be unsustainable.

Councillor Charles Gerrish asked Scott Morrison whether he was aware that the public consultation on the enquiry in public would last for 12 weeks once the government's response was known, that it would be published in late May and that this Council intended to respond robustly to the government. Scott Morrison thanked Councillor Gerrish for his assurance.

Councillor Vic Pritchard asked whether Scott Morrison was aware of the great sympathy he held with the points made in his statement. Scott said that he was aware of this.

Wendy Learoyd made a statement about King Bladud's Pigs in Bath - the summer arts event. She had previously submitted for Cabinet consideration an invitation to support the event [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8].

Councillor Charles Gerrish asked Wendy Learoyd whether she was aware of the answer he had provided to a question submitted by Gitte Dawson about the same subject. Wendy thanked Councillor Gerrish for his supportive response to the question.

79 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 6^th February 2008

On a motion from Councillor Francine Haeberling, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6^th February 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person)

80 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were none.

81 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES

There were none.

82 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT OCTOBER 2007 TO JANUARY 2008 (Report 11).

Councillor Caroline Roberts made an ad hoc statement in which she referred to item 7.11 Deep Clean Keep Clean. She thanked the Council departments involved in organising the recent clean-up of the river bank in Newbridge and Kingsmead. She thanked Councillor Charles Gerrish for attending and said that he had worked very hard.

Councillor Francine Haeberling, in proposing the item, said that the Council was performing well, delivering and improving services while keeping costs low. She paid tribute to officers for their hard work in striving to improve the Council's performance. She referred to a recent Voice Box survey in which 59% of respondents were satisfied with the Council's performance (significantly above the 51% national average).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney seconded the proposal.

Councillor Chris Watt drew attention to the authority's results at Key Stage 3 which had now put the Council in the top 10 across the country. He mentioned that one of the most challenging measures was rates of teenage pregnancy and there had been a significant reduction of 20% which had not come to light in time to be reflected in the report but which was very encouraging.

Councillor Charles Gerrish highlighted the achievements in Customer Services and thanked officers for their contribution to this. The Council had won the best waste minimisation award and had achieved a 300% increase in car parks winning awards. He pointed out that although the council was apparently not achieving the waste disposal costs per tonne, this was partly explained by the way the figures had been reflected.

Rationale

This report is a key part of the Council's performance management framework.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Francine Haeberling, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To note the contents of this third quarter report for 07/08 performance;

(2) To approves the corrective actions

(3) To consider in light of the identified corrective actions whether additional actions are required to improve performance.

83 REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING, CASH LIMITS AND VIREMENTS APRIL 2007 TO JANUARY 2008 (Report 12).

Councillor Paul Crossley made an ad hoc statement that he had been investigating why, when the Council had last year received £140K funding towards the Learning Difficulties fund, and had been told that the level of funding this year would be £152K, the actual amount provided was only £112K.

The Chair invited the Strategic Director for Adult Social Services and Housing to explain. She said that 25% of the fund had been top sliced by government. The Council had asked government for an explanation.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, thanked officers for ensuring that the situation at the end of the year would be much improved from the earlier situation.

Councillor Francine Haeberling 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 Francine Haeberling, 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 as shown in Appendix 2 of the report;

(3) To note the capital expenditure position for the Council in the financial year to the end of January and the year end projections detail in Appendix 3 of the report;

(4) To note the changes in the capital programme listed in Appendix 5(i) of the report.

(5) To note the proposed virements and carry forwards in Appendix 6 of the report and to approve the carry forward of £200,000 specifically related to domiciliary care.

84 FRAMEWORK FOR DELIVERING DEVELOPMENT IN BATH & NE SOMERSET TO 2026 (CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION) (Report 13).

Councillor Charles Gerrish, in proposing the item, said that the report was a statement of position regarding the Core Strategy, setting out a framework for the future. He had been delighted by the significant level of public response, resulting from the hard work by officers to encourage engagement. There had been a total of 3029 comments. He pointed out that the report also included a timetable, which would prove very helpful.

Councillor David Hawkins seconded the proposal.

Rationale

This report provides clarity about how the consultations on the Core Strategy Launch Documents and the Futures consultation relate and the way forward for the Core Strategy/Regeneration Delivery Plan.

Other Options Considered

Retain existing timetable of public consultation on the Core Strategy in June/July 2008. Rejected because of the need to take account of new White paper proposals to the planning process.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To endorse the approach and timetable set out in paragraphs 7.6 to 7.16 of the report, for a coordinated framework for responding to the Regional Spatial Strategy growth agenda and delivery of development within Bath & North East Somerset;

(2) To agree the amendments to the programme for the preparation and public consultation on the Core Strategy as outlined in Appendix 1 of the report.

85 ADOPTION OF BATH WESTERN RIVERSIDE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (Report 14).

Major Tony Crombie, the Bath Society, made a statement in which he expressed serious concern over the excessive density of the proposals and the excessive building heights. He referred to a large map of the area which he had submitted for Cabinet consideration [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 14 (not available on the web)]. He felt that UNESCO would agree with him that "the proposals would have an adverse effect on the outstanding value of the site".

Joanna Robinson, Conservation Officer, Bath Preservation Trust, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 15 (not available on the web)] in which she assured Cabinet that the Trust welcomed many of the proposals but had some concerns. She was very concerned that there was no specific height limit on buildings. She felt this would have an adverse effect on the city's world heritage status and that there should therefore be a specific limit of 6 storeys. She asked the Cabinet to defer adoption of the Supplementary Planning Document so that an explicit tall buildings policy could be included.

James Dodson, Norfolk Crescent Green Residents Association, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 9] expressing concern about aspects of the proposal as it would relate to the east side. He felt that the height, scale and mass of the proposals would all impact on his quality of lift and that of his neighbours. His comments centred on light, flood risk and the setting of listed buildings, all of which would deteriorate as a result of the proposals.

Katarina Connolly, Norfolk Crescent Green Residents Association, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 10] in which she highlighted objections to the proposed new crossing. Local people were very concerned about antisocial behaviour late at night and the freedom of young children to play during the day. She felt that deletion of the bridge from the proposals would be the only solution.

Jan Brown, Secretary, Norfolk Crescent Green Residents Association, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 11] urging that careful consideration should be given to the increased flood risk resulting from the proposals and asking the Cabinet to include in Amendment 49 the words: "Development will not be allowed if it might cause increased risk of downstream flooding".

Betty Honeybone, Norfolk Crescent Green Residents Association, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 12] in which she expressed concern that in paragraph 2.7.7 of the Supplementary Planning Document it stated that the city could accommodate higher buildings and that the design code allows for buildings of 5-8 storeys. She felt that even if it were not possible to impose height restrictions across the whole site, at least the buildings over 6 storeys should be kept to the inner part of the site. She asked that all buildings should be subject to shading analysis. She welcomed amendment 39. She urged the Cabinet to ensure that height restrictions were applied to the entire river frontage.

Samantha Elwin, Norfolk Crescent Green Residents Association, provided a statement which was read on her behalf by Charles Stirton [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 13] asking for a further period of consultation because there had been no active engagement with his community during the early stages of consultation and the document now before Cabinet was substantially different from the one originally consulted upon.

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement in which he agreed that some good points had been made by earlier speakers but appealed the Cabinet to ensure that the Supplementary Planning Document was adopted without further delay because the derelict site was an eyesore. He felt it would be possible to work on reducing the building heights but reminded the Cabinet that Bath already had one 9-storey building.

Councillor Andy Furse made an ad hoc statement in which he referred to the commercial area and its relationship to the proposed new bridge. He asked for the proposed bridge to be removed. He felt that the location of the school was a cause for concern because of its possible impact on the viability of Oldfield Infants. He agreed that there had been informal consultation with local communities but felt it should have been more formal.

Councillor Charles Gerrish, in proposing the item, said that the document being considered was not a planning application: it was a Supplementary Planning Document. Most of the concerns expressed by earlier speakers would be allayed by existing policies and plans. There was no need to change the Supplementary Planning Document references to building height since it gives only general guidance. Planning Policy 25 addressed the flood risk concerns. He assured Councillor Furse that proper consideration had been given to the location of the bars and restaurants. He reminded the speakers that any new bridge would have to be the subject of a planning application and he felt that the cost would in the event mean that it was unlikely to be pursued.

He said that he intended to move a different proposal from the one recommended in the report - by including two additional paragraphs into Appendix A of the Supplementary Planning Document so as to address some of the concerns which had been raised.

Councillor David Hawkins in seconding the proposal said that the Supplementary Planning Document would be a guideline for development of a derelict site. Although people will be delighted to see the end of the brambles, he acknowledged that people would want to know what was going to take their place.

Councillor Chris Watt responded to the point made by Councillor Furse about the position of the school by saying that the school was planned as a single form entry but the projected number of children on the whole site, on standard measures, would be 1.5 forms. It was very unlikely therefore that the proposed school would draw children away from Oldfield Infants.

Rationale

There is no longer any need to delay the adoption of the Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Planning Document now that the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan has been adopted. The Supplementary Planning Document supplements Local Plan policy GDS.1/B1 and other policies in the Local Plan and has already been adopted for Development Control purposes pending the adoption of the Local Plan.

Other Options Considered

None.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To adopt the Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Planning Document subject to additional paragraphs to Appendix A of the Supplementary Planning Document:

86 INTEGRATION WITH THE PRIMARY CARE TRUST - NEXT STEPS: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS (Report 15).

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement in favour of the proposal but expressed concerns about how it would be implemented. He felt that the whole Council should be asked to support the proposals. He suggested therefore that Cabinet should adopt the proposals in principle but should recommend the issue to Council so as to ensure ongoing commitment.

Councillor Francine Haeberling, in proposing the item, said that the partners had been working on integration for 4 years. This would be a big step, taken with great consideration. She responded to the point made by Councillor Tim Ball by saying that the issue had been referred to Council and had gained agreement to proceed. There was no need to go to Council at this stage.

Councillor Vic Pritchard seconded the proposal and said that the proposals were the next step towards progressing the principle by putting into place a management structure.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney said that the Primary Care Trust Board would be making their decision next week. The partners had been working together for 5 years and he emphasised the importance of the proposals so that services can be delivered without the difficulties of demarcation.

Rationale

This report proposes arrangements for taking forward the existing decision taken in principle to further integrate the work of the Council and the Primary Care Trust.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Francine Haeberling, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That the Local Authority and PCT should build on arrangements for partnership working across health and social care with:-

(2) That arrangements be put in place to implement these proposals, including a public engagement process and joint senior management arrangements from 1st April 2008;

(3) To note that further work to develop appropriate governance mechanism to enable further integration at operational level will follow.

The meeting ended at 6:35pm

Chair(person)

Date Confirmed and Signed

Prepared by Democratic Services