Meeting documents

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

CABINET

Wednesday 6^th February 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

58 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

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

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

59 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

60 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were none.

61 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

There were none.

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

There was none.

63 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 5 questions from the following people: Councillors Nicholas Coombes (2), Tim Ball, Cherry Beath, Gerry Curran

[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.]

64 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Steve Bruce-Jones, Trustee of The Genesis Trust, made a statement relating to the disposal of 1-3 James Street West [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2] in which he urged the Council to work with Genesis and Somer to develop much-needed affordable housing whilst still raising significant capital for the Council.

The Chair referred the statement to the Cabinet member for Resources, for his consideration.

Councillor Dr Eleanor Jackson made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3] in which she complained that there had been inadequate consultation about The Vision for Bath and North East Somerset and in particular `The Vision for the Somer Valley'.

The Chair referred the statement to the Cabinet member for Development and Major Projects, for his consideration.

Scott Morrison, Bath Coordinator, Friends of the Earth, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4] in which he acknowledged that fortnightly waste collection had many detractors and suggested that a simpler solution would be a printed bag scheme for domestic waste, similar to that already operated by the Council's commercial waste division.

The Chair referred the statement to the Cabinet member for Customer Services, for his consideration.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney asked Scott Morrison, given the Council's reaffirmed commitment to zero waste, whether Friends of the Earth would be willing to work with the Cabinet to explore the issues he had raised.

Scott Morrison replied that he would be very happy to work together in this way.

65 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 9^th January 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 9^th January 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person)

At this point, Councillor Malcolm Hanney made a statement relating to Minute number 57 (Future of Victoria Hall) in which he referred to the Cabinet resolution that a report would be prepared for the March Cabinet setting out proposed objectives and a delivery programme in relation to Radstock town centre. Councillor Hanney advised the Cabinet that constructive discussions were taking place with key stakeholders and that further meetings were scheduled. The Cabinet would be asked to consider a report at a subsequent meeting, which would be likely to be in May or July.

66 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were none.

67 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES

There were none.

68 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2008/09 (Report 11).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the report and made a slightly amended proposal from that recommended in the report.

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal.

Rationale

This report is a statutory requirement.

Other Options Considered

None.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To recommend to Council:

(a) That Council approve the actions proposed within the Treasury Management Strategy Statement;

(b) That Council approve the borrowing and debt rescheduling strategy;

(c) That Council approve the investment strategy;

(d) That Council approve the changes to the authorised lending list;

(e) That Council approve the proposed policy on Minimum Revenue Provision and depreciation of assets;

(2) To note the Prudential Indicators detailed in the report;

(3) To delegate authority for updating the reports prior to approval at Full Council on 19th February 2008 to the Assistant Director Support Services (Finance) and Executive Member for Resources.

69 CORPORATE PLAN 2008-2011 (Report 12).

Councillor Paul Crossley made an ad hoc statement in which he congratulated the Cabinet member for Customer Services on his intention to avoid mass incineration as part of his waste strategy and on the carbon reduction scheme. He said that the Liberal Democrat Group was eager to work with the Cabinet to enable increased recycling. He noted that Caring for the Elderly was a key item in the Council's Corporate Strategy and appealed to the Cabinet not to move towards "local average" care charges in one move, which he felt should be phased in.

The Chair drew attention to the Draft Minutes of the recent Corporate Performance and Resources Overview & Scrutiny Panel (including notes of the debate about the Corporate Plan), which had previously been provided to Cabinet members. Copies of the Draft Minutes were available in the public gallery [and are attached to these Minutes as Appendix 9]. She asked Cabinet members to bear in mind the Panel's comments when considering the issue.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, said that the Corporate Plan linked into the Council's Corporate Objectives and the Budget. He was confident that this would become clear during the meeting.

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal and responded to Councillor Crossley's statement by reminding the Cabinet that many residents of Bath & North East Somerset who live close to the border with neighbouring authorities pay less than their near neighbours who live just outside the authority's area.

Councillor Charles Gerrish proposed an amendment to the recommendations, which was accepted by proposer and seconder. The amendment would commit the Council to reviewing in due course its planning processes, building standards and sustainable procurement policies in the light of the LGA Climate Change Commission report.

Rationale

The Corporate Plan has been developed using a robust evidence base of the issues facing Bath & North East Somerset over the next few years. This evidence base compared issues from the whole framework of the Social, Environmental and Economic spectrum. This has been shared with partners and this has been considered alongside evidence of existing performance. In order to set out those issues which the Council wishes to focus more of its time and resource.

Other Options Considered

The Plan was developed looking at a range of issues and a judgement has been made (based on the rationale above) to focus on the proposed improvement priorities as areas where the Council needs to have greatest impact over the time of the Plan period.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To recommend to Council that the draft Corporate Plan 2008-11 (incorporating the Financial Plan) be adopted as a Policy and Budget framework item with the addition of the following words at the end of the bullet points on page 10 regarding climate change:

"Following the LGA Climate Change Commission report, the Council will review in the light of the report:

(i) its planning processes and building standards;

(ii) its sustainable procurement policies."

(2) To authorise the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader to make presentational improvements to the Corporate Plan prior to submission to Council.

[The italicised words in paragraph (1) were added following an amendment from Councillor Charles Gerrish, accepted by the proposer and seconder.]

70 FINANCIAL PLAN 2008/09 - 2010/11, BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX 2008/09 (Report 13).

Councillor Adrian Inker made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5] in which he highlighted the concerns of the Labour Group about the budget proposals, in particular the increases to adult social care charges and cuts to the Employment Development Service, the Youth Service and Libraries.

Councillor Dr Eleanor Jackson made a statement in which she asked the Cabinet to reconsider its proposed cuts of £14K to the Employment Service.

Councillor John Bull made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7] in which he appealed to the Cabinet to reconsider the planned reduction of £75K in the Library Service budget.

Councillor David Speirs made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8] in which he opposed the cuts of £395k per annum which had previously been made to the Youth Service.

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement in which he said that there were items in the Budget to which he wanted to draw attention. He was unhappy about the £2.5M in increased charges to balance the books and felt that these charges would be in danger of hitting the vulnerable. He felt that the £200K raised from the Bus Gate was an underestimate and suspected that the actual income would be double, which would provide an unbudgeted income which Council would have no opportunity to allocate. He felt that the increased parking charges had unfairly hit the residents of Bath. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the proposals about Libraries and the Youth Service

Councillor Paul Crossley made an ad hoc statement in which he acknowledged that the Cabinet had been faced with tough choices when preparing their budget. He asked the Cabinet to look carefully at their proposals on waste and in particular whether the Council's participation in the West of England Waste Partnership should be continued. He felt that many waste issues could be resolved with local solutions, which would avoid exporting waste to Bristol for incineration. He pointed out that the £580K currently being spent on the Waste Partnership would have enabled the Council to introduce food and same-day collections.

On the subject of Libraries, Councillor Crossley agreed with the point made by Labour Group members that the volunteer proposals would be a slippery slope leading to closure. On the subject of care charges, he felt that if the Council could continue providing such essential charges as cheaply as possible, then it should.

The Chair drew attention to the Draft Minutes of the recent Corporate Performance and Resources Overview & Scrutiny Panel (including notes of the debate about the budget), which had previously been provided to Cabinet members. Copies of the Draft Minutes were available in the public gallery [and are attached to these Minutes as Appendix 9]. She asked Cabinet members to bear in mind the Panel's comments when considering the issue.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the proposals by agreeing with Councillor Crossley that there had been difficult pressures on portfolio holders. The amounts referred to by previous speakers totalled £674K which if funded would have added 1% to Council Tax.

He suggested to Councillor Inker that he should ask his local Member of Parliament to explain why the government had failed to fund £2M of the grant which government itself admitted the Council needed in order to deliver its statutory services; and why, in addition, there was already a cumulative funding shortfall of £1.74M for concessionary bus fares which the government had claimed would be fully funded. He said that, if government had provided to the Council those funds now being denied, he would have been able to deliver all the things being asked for and more.

He said that the Cabinet was committed to reducing energy use in the Council by 2% over 10 years; but this did not show in the budget because the saving was offset by rapidly rising energy costs.

He explained the Cabinet's intention to pilot a scheme which would provide funds for use by ward Councillors (to be agreed with the Resources Cabinet member) on discretionary schemes within their wards. The scheme would start at £4K per member but it was anticipated that it would build up over 3 years.

He commended the proposed budget as a balanced budget with a very large capital programme, although allowing only a limited amount of headroom. He moved a slightly different proposal from that shown in the report, by the introduction of paragraphs (12) and (13) below and by a slight change to paragraph (9) so as to include the Cabinet member for Customer Services to the list of those charged with authorising regeneration expenditure.

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal. She said that those who had argued against the proposed cuts should support the Cabinet by lobbying government to re-instate the under-funding referred to by Councillor Hanney.

Councillor Chris Watt said that Councillor Hanney had not mentioned in his introduction that government had further failed to pay the Council the £3M locked into the Direct Source Grant. He commended the Labour Group for making constructive points and agreed to explore ways to address their concerns. He would be pleased to meet with those members who had expressed their discontent about the Youth Service funding so that together they could explore how the Cabinet proposals might be improved.

He responded to the comments in the notes of the Overview and Scrutiny meeting relating to the proposed reduction of £40K due to the Department for Children, Schools and Families grant not being realised. He pointed out that this had been the decision of the Head Teachers at the Forum, which he said had been the right body to make that decision.

He pointed out that the commitment to protect frontline youth services had been a commitment for 1 year and must now be reconsidered. He emphasised that funding for the new financial year must be within the budget available. He felt that the debate should be about how the available Youth Service budget should be spent to maximum effect and that this could be achieved by reprioritising after a full needs analysis had been conducted. He felt that funds spent on Youth Clubs would reach only a small number of the least disadvantaged young people whereas funds allocated to outreach workers would reach larger numbers of disadvantaged young people more effectively.

Councillor Charles Gerrish said that he was responsible for the biggest spending portfolio and had made some very difficult decisions. He had needed to respond to the need for Gershon savings; salary pressures; and pensions pressures. Despite all these revenue pressures, he was pleased to announce that significant capital investment would be made to provide Radio Frequency Identification monitoring of books and other resources in libraries. He also felt that the volunteers scheme would enable libraries to stay open for longer hours.

In response to the point made by Councillor Tim Ball, he said that there was in fact no guarantee at all of the income from the Bus Gate and he had been cautious about the anticipated income because was unwilling to face a shortfall leading to unwanted cuts elsewhere. He emphasised that parking charges applied to all, not only to residents of Bath, so were not unfair as suggested by Councillor Ball.

In respect of the West of England Waste Partnership, he responded to Councillor Crossley's suggestion by saying that he felt that recycling could be increased more by collaborating with neighbouring authorities through the Partnership during the first phase at least.

Councillor Vic Pritchard said that he had been unwilling to consider the proposed increases in home care charges but that the budgetary pressures had made this unavoidable. He emphasised that only those with savings over £21,500 would be affected. In past years, charges had not always been increased in line with neighbouring averages and must now be brought into line. The intention was to remain on "neighbouring average" charges. He explained that the subsidy for the home care service had been £5.4M and the proposed charges would bring in only £555K. It had been necessary to find some savings by way of income. He regretted that in the draft notes of the recent Overview and Scrutiny meeting, the Panel had made no suggestions for alternative ways of making the necessary savings.

He responded to the point made in the O&S Panel notes relating to the proposal to reduce the funding of the Employment Development Service by £14K by saying that this amount was a result of Gershon savings already achieved.

Councillor David Hawkins responded to Councillor Jackson's comments about Radstock being ignored by saying that only that morning, he had met with the Team Leader (Economic Development) to visit sites in Keynsham, Radstock and Midsomer Norton in preparation for the tour by the Development Board which was scheduled for 25^th February. He invited Councillor Jackson and any other interested members to join him on that tour. The plans would then be available for discussion. He therefore felt that it was not true that the Cabinet was Bath-centric - in fact, 5 of the 6 Cabinet members represented wards outside of Bath.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney said in summing up that the proposed budged made a significant investment in the future for Bath, the key urban areas and of the villages. Creating a vibrant economy would present tough challenges but the budget balances the various priorities under conditions of quite severe external pressures.

Rationale

The rationale for the recommendations was contained in the supporting agenda papers.

Other Options Considered

The Other Options Considered were also contained in the supporting papers.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

To recommend to Council:

(1) That Council:

(a) Approves the General Fund net revenue budget for 2008/09 of £110.720M and the associated Council Tax increase of 3.95%;

(b) Agrees that no Special Expenses be charged other than Town and Parish Council precepts for 2008/09;

(c) Approves the working balances statement, with un-earmarked revenue balances set at £8.6m, with a programme of additions to bring the level to £11.5m by the end of 2010/11;

(d) Agrees that no further use be made of non-earmarked revenue reserves in 2008/09 to finance General Fund revenue expenditure;

e) Approves the individual service cash limits for 2008/09;

(2) That Council includes the Local Precepts of Town and Parish Councils and those of the Fire and Police Authorities in its Council Tax setting;

(3) That Council notes the Section 151 officer's report on the robustness of the proposed budget and the adequacy of the Council's reserves; and approves the conditions upon which the recommendations are made;

(4) That in relation to the capital budget, Council:

a) Approves a capital payments budget of £61.631m for 2008/09 (excluding further slippage from 2007/08), including the proposed additions to the programme;

b) Notes the indicative capital payments budgets of £56.268m in 2009/10 and £65.492m in 2010/11 £17.684m in 2011/12 and £17.654m in 2012/13, and planned funding, and agrees that any further additions to the programme are subject to additional capital resources (government or third party funding and/or capital receipts) and an evaluation of the balance of benefits from additional capital investment and further reducing unsupported borrowing in the light of future years' revenue budget pressures;

(5) That Council instructs Cabinet Members to finalise their revenue and capital budgets for 2008/09 within the cash limits and amounts set by Council for inclusion on the weekly decision list no later than mid April 2008 (as part of the approval of Service and Resource Plans);

(6) That Council authorises the Assistant Director of Support Services (Finance), in consultation with the Cabinet Member (Resources) to amend the cash limits set out in Annex 1 of Appendix 2 to take account of the final re-allocation of budgets in respect of the actual pay award, when this is known;

(7) That Council instructs the Strategic Directors Group to work on ideas for reducing the overall cost base of the Council's services in order to protect essential service delivery into 2009/10 and beyond, with an initial report back to the Cabinet in July 2008, recommending actions to pursue in this and future years;

(8) That Council authorises the s151 Officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member (Resources), to drawn down on the exceptional risk reserve, if required, consistent with the purposes originally set out in the February 2007 Budget Report as amended in Section 3 of Appendix 2 to the report;

(9) That Council agrees that the programme of regeneration expenditure (both revenue and capital) be subject to scrutiny by the Bath & NE Somerset Development Board, taking into account potential funding that might be available from the growth points and/or CIVITAS initiatives, and that authorisation of such expenditure be subject to the joint agreement of the Cabinet Member (Resources), the Cabinet Member (Development and Major Projects) and the Cabinet Member (Customer Services);

(10) That Council agrees the costs of the Bath Package and the Waste Relocation Capital Projects and the financial implications of the council's position in relation to the emerging sub-regional waste strategy, and elements thereof, be subject to review by the Cabinet Member (Resources) and the Cabinet Member (Customer Services) taking into account the potential funding that may be available from the growth points and/or CIVITAS initiatives and the Council's capital contingency.

(11) That Council agrees that £350k of the General Reserves be earmarked for the purpose of responding rapidly to regional and sub-regional issues that directly help progress and/or deliver the Council's objectives - use of the Reserve to be authorised by the Council's Section 151 officer in consultation with the Chief Executive and Cabinet Member for Resources;

(12) That Council asks the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Group Leaders and Cabinet member for Resources develop proposals for a `local member initiative' scheme which, in line with the Local Government White Paper, will provide a mechanism to empower Ward Members to respond quickly to local needs that may need a small amount of financial support to make a big difference locally.

That the Cabinet agrees:

(13) That the recommendation to Council be amended so that the £167k for "headroom" be allocated as follows:

a) An increase of £73k in the cashlimit for Children, Young People and Families towards the new responsibility for Children's Care Proceedings Court Costs;

Is minded to allocate:

b) £40k to allow for a pilot `local member initiative' scheme in 2008/09;

c) An increase of £54k in the Libraries & Information cash limit with resources to be focused, in particular on the book fund.

(14) To authorise the Assistant Director of Support Services (Finance), in consultation with the Cabinet Member (Resources), to make any necessary presentational improvements to the draft Budget Proposal prior to submission to Council.

71 REPORT ON A FINDING OF MALADMINISTRATION CAUSING INJUSTICE (Report 14).

Councillor Vic Pritchard introduced the item by saying that the report described the events which led up to the Ombudsman's ruling. He wished to emphasise that the finding had not criticised the Council on any matter relating to care; but that the finding challenged the administrative processes. The Council had fully co-operated with the Ombudsman; had accepted the findings in full; had compensated the complainant; and had already taken steps to check that all similar cases were being administered fairly.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The Council has a duty to respond to the findings of the Ombudsman and to ensure fairness in its dealings with clients.

Other Options Considered

None.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To endorse the actions being taken as described in this report; and

(2) To instruct the Monitoring Officer to prepare on its behalf a draft report to issue to all members of Council.

The meeting ended at 6:35pm

Prepared by Democratic Services