Meeting documents

43 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

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

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

44 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

45 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies had been received from Councillor David Hawkins.

46 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

There were none.

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

There was none.

48 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 30 questions from the following people: Councillor John Bull (2), Councillor Eleanor Jackson, Councillor Ian Gilchrist (3), Councillor Roger Symonds (3), Councillor Paul Crossley (4), Councillor Marian McNeir (2), Councillor Will Sandry (2), Councillor Tim Ball (2) Councillor Nathan Hartley, Councillor Cherry Beath (2) Councillor Nicholas Coombes, Councillor Caroline Roberts (2), Councillor Andy Furse (3), Joanna Robinson (Bath Preservation Trust) and Alison Phillips (Bath Heritage Watchdog).

[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.]

49 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Councillor Andy Furse made a statement regarding the Bus Rapid Transit in which he called for further information to be made available to the public regarding alternative routes. He also called for an opportunity at Council or Cabinet for a fuller discussion of this issue.

50 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 3^rd September 2008

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 3^rd September 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

51 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were none.

52 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES

There were none.

53 SINGLE MEMBER CABINET DECISIONS PUBLISHED SINCE PREVIOUS CABINET MEETING

The Cabinet noted the report.

54 JOINT WASTE CORE STRATEGY FOR THE WEST OF ENGLAND: PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT (Report 12).

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2] in which he endorsed the strategy as a basis for consultation but regretted that it did not address more fully the issue of zero waste.

Councillor Andy Furse made a statement in which he referred to the figures mentioned in paragraph 5.7 of the report and commented that transporting so much waste by road would increase congestion and traffic on the A4.

Councillor Tim Ball made a statement in which he referred to the additional 21,500 properties required by the Regional Spatial Strategy, noted that the figures within the Core Strategy were based on current figures and hoped that the additional housing requirements were being considered.

Councillor Roger Symonds made a statement in which he expressed his disappointment that, since being one of the top recycling Authorities in the country in 2003, the Council no longer held this position. He found the targets mediocre and felt they should already have been achieved.

Councillor Adrian Inker made an ad hoc statement in which he welcomed the consultation and opportunity to address some concerns, particularly regarding the A4. He referred to the mention of a minimum of 2 "drop in" events in each Unitary Authority (ref para 5.4 of the report) and requested that there be more of these, particularly in Keynsham.

Councillor Charles Gerrish, in proposing the item, referred to some minor amendments that had been tabled which would be incorporated into the Strategy. He explained that this document was predominantly a joint planning document rather than a waste disposal policy. With reference to the 50% target, he explained that that wasn't this Council's target and it would be exceeded. Councillor Gerrish expressed his commitment to drive this forward and achieve greater recycling; factors which were instrumental in his opposition to Phase 3. With regard to the movement of waste on roads, Councillor Gerrish explained that he had been pushing for some time for the river to be used. Finding a site in Bath would be preferable but had so far proved difficult. He agreed with Councillor Ball's comments regarding the need for a joined up approach between this and the Regional Spatial strategy so that the Council got its percentages right. Councillor Gerrish referred to the Overview & Scrutiny consultation that had already taken place and then commended the Strategy to the Cabinet as a basis for consultation.

Councillor Vic Pritchard seconded the proposal.

Rationale

Consultation will focus on a preferred waste planning strategy, including identification of prospective sites for locating additional strategic waste recovery facilities. This will ensure that one of the key alternatives to landfill can be accommodated.

A critical issue for the West of England is its limited capacity to provide for a declining, but significant need for landfill. Opportunities for landfill within the sub-region are constrained and there is a need to consider options involving disposal in locations outside the West of England area.

The Core Strategy will also provide a framework of broad policies, particularly focused on waste minimisation, recycling and composting, to guide the development of more detailed waste planning policies by individual Unitary Authorities

Other Options Considered

The option not to consult was considered, however consultation is essential to ensure the "soundness" of the Publication Version of the Submission Document.

On a motion from Councillor Charles Gerrish seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

55 PUBLIC REALM AND MOVEMENT STRATEGY FOR BATH CITY CENTRE - DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION (Report 13).

Councillor Caroline Roberts made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3] in which she welcomed the reference to riverside development, having for some time recognised the potential for the riverside. She enquired about the use of Section 106 funding which she had raised before but which seemed not to have materialised, and urged the Cabinet not to miss such opportunities in future. She concluded by requesting the proposed improvements to public realm in the city centre could be continued outwards, along the river environment in particular.

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4] in which he welcomed the consultation as the culmination of several years work starting with the Legible City project in 2005. In view of the short timescale for consultation, he stressed the importance of having a short concise version available for pick up and on the website. He congratulated officers and departments on the document.

Councillor Andy Furse made a statement in which he raised a number of queries referring to the `quick wins' on page 121 of the document. He enquired whether the de-clutter initiative had not already taken place, initiated by Sir Elgar Jenkins. He referred to the quality of some existing pavements and hoped they could be improved. Regarding 20 mph zones, he commented that there were already a fair amount of these but that it was still not clear to motorists where these were. He referred to page 83 and mention of a bridge at Norfolk Crescent which he had understood was no longer planned. He asked for clarity, and, if it was back on the agenda, whether local residents had been informed.

David Redgewell made an ad hoc statement in which he sought assurances that public use would be taken into account and that a holistic approach be taken in working on bids to Government.

Councillor Terry Gazzard, in proposing the item, addressed the points and queries that had been raised. He agreed with the importance of the riverside environment and work was being progressed on this. With regard to Section 106 money, he noted the comments and explained that Bath Western Riverside S106 money is proposed to be included as Bath Western Riverside is implemented. With regard to the locations for consultation, 13 locations have already been identified; 800 copies of the consultation document will go to various bodies and agencies across the Authority. Councillor Gazzard explained that he had done a declutter walkabout the previous month with the City Centre Manager and relevant officers, and had identified various sites. A declutter trial spot had been identified near Bath College so people could see it in action and comment. Paving was being looked at by a new contractor. Councillor Gazzard acknowledged the comments regarding the 20 mph zones and offered to get back to Councillor Furse regarding the bridge at Norfolk Crescent. In response to the comment from David Redgewell, Councillor Gazzard confirmed that this Strategy will be developed in conjunction with other plans and strategies. In conclusion, Councillor Gazzard explained that there will be a launch with the press invited and within 2 weeks of that, a public meeting will be held.

Councillor Chris Watt seconded the proposal and stressed the importance of public spaces in shaping how a community feels about their quality of life. He was encouraged by the development of Regeneration Delivery Plans for Radstock, Midsomer Norton and Keynsham and hoped they would receive the same level of attention.

Councillor Charles Gerrish welcomed this as a statement of intent. He acknowledged the cross-departmental nature of this strategy and explained how officers from the Highways department had been supportive and engaged.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney acknowledged former Cabinet Member Colin Darracott for his efforts in bringing public realm to the fore as it was a key factor in contributing to Bath outperforming other areas over the next 20 years. Resources were available to support the pubic realm and enhancing the long-term value of the commercial estate. However, if there were further requirements, these would need to be prioritised.

Rationale

The Public Realm and Movement Strategy for Bath City Centre seeks to put in place a long-term plan to deliver a beautiful, coherent, accessible, world-class public realm where the priority in terms of movement and animation is given to people, be they residents, workers or visitors. It is proposed that this will enhance the economic success and sustainability of Bath and the wider district, encourage increased social cohesion, community safety and public health, and enhance the natural, built, and historic environments in line with Bath's status as an international visitor destination and World Heritage Site.

The intended future adoption of the Strategy as SPD will allow it to be used for planning purposes and, in particular, as a basis for developer contributions to part finance and implement delivery.

Other Options Considered

The alternative to progressing the Strategy along the SPD route has been considered, but other routes to formal adoption would not provide the same planning powers.

On a motion from Councillor Terry Gazzard, seconded by Councillor Chris Watt, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That the draft Public Realm and Movement Strategy for Bath City Centre be released for a statutory public consultation process.

56 BWR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Report 14).

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5] in which he welcomed the Development agreement with Crest and stressed the importance of the Council not making further concessions on sustainability, design quality or housing tenure mix.

Councillor Andy Furse made a statement in which he asked that attention be given to the blank area at the east of BWR and its proximity to residents.

David Redgewell made an ad hoc statement in which he stressed the importance of an integrated approach which linked routes, housing development, rapid transit etc.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer then made a statement explaining the Access to Information and public interest test requirements.

The Leader sought an assurance from all Cabinet Members that they had read the Public Interest test paper and considered the factors for withholding and disclosing the appendices marked exempt. . It was then moved by Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Chris Watt and

RESOLVED that the five appendices contain exempt information falling within paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 because they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of the Council and the other parties to the proposed development agreement and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings and that having applied the public interest test it is considered that the public interest is best served by withholding the information.

Councillor Terry Gazzard in proposing the item, said that the current financial climate had made reaching this stage difficult, but he was determined that the good work invested by officers so far would be taken forward. With regard to the eastern BWR area, Councillor Gazzard noted the comments and agreed to include consideration of this and links with the transport programme in the Regeneration Delivery plans.

Councillor Charles Gerrish seconded the proposal.

Rationale

Planning permission for BWR West can only be granted after the DA with Crest is signed. The planning permission is essential for the development to start on site and for resultant outputs for the Council to be delivered.

By moving to secure a planning permission through entry into the Section 106 and the DA the Council is in a position to crystallise the progress made to date on this major development project. It is also a demonstrable step highlighting Bath and North East Somerset Council's commitment to the delivery of this strategic regeneration site which in itself will act as a catalyst by unlocking the potential of adjacent sites through infrastructure investment.

Other Options Considered

The Council could dispose of its land element into the project by a straight freehold sale and therefore not need a Development Agreement. However this has been considered inappropriate in this case, as the public interest is better served by securing positive obligations on the developer via the Development Agreement.

If a Development Agreement cannot be signed then Crest (if successful in planning terms) could progress development on their land alone, not providing comprehensive development of the whole site nor enabling infrastructure for the wider area. Due to the reduced positive outputs of this option for the public, it is considered inappropriate.

On a motion from Councillor Terry Gazzard, seconded by Councillor Charles Gerrish, it was then further

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That the Chief Executive be authorised to enter into the Development Agreement for BWR West between the Council and Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited, in consultation with the Executive Member for Economic Development, the Director of Resources and Support Services and the Council Solicitor, subject to his being satisfied that financial, technical and regulatory compliance issues have been resolved.