Meeting documents

90 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

91 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair(person) drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda.

92 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Paul Crossley declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 11 (Options Appraisal for Southside Youth and Community Centre) as a member of the BCP Board and Chair of the South West triangle.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

94 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

7 questions had been submitted from the following people;

Councillor Nigel Roberts, Councillor Brian Barrett, Councillor Colin Barrett, Councillor Bryan Chalker, Councillor Chris Watt (x2) and Councillor Charles Gerrish.

[Copies of the questions and responses have been placed on the Council's Minute book and are available on the Council's website.]

95 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Statements (for which due notice had been given) were made by Brian Gane (Item 11) and Councillor Rosemary Todd (Item 12). Both of these were made at the relevant item (minute numbers 99 and 100 refer).

96 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 2ND NOVEMBER 2005

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2nd November 2005 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person).

97 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE (Report 9).

There were no items on this occasion.

98 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES (Report 10).

There were no items on this occasion.

99 OPTIONS APPRAISAL FOR SOUTHSIDE YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTRE (Report 11).

Brian Gane made a statement raising various issues of concern over the openness of the process thus far.

Councillor Tim Ball commented that it was vital to address the needs of the young people in this community and urged that proper consultation be carried out.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced this item and explained that, since this item had been brought to the October Council Executive, a meeting had taken place between Councillors Paul Crossley, Malcolm Hanney and the Regional Development Agency (RDA) and Bath Communities Partnership (BCP) to progress this issue. It was agreed that all options needed to be considered so that BCP could confidently pursue a feasibility study should they decide to do so.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney welcomed the willingness of the RDA to proceed and link with the work that the Council was doing.

Councillor Jonathan Gay asked a question about whether and when consultation would take place as community engagement will be vital. This view was echoed by Councillor Gerry Curran. In summing up, Councillor Paul Crossley confirmed there would be wide consultation on the feasible options.

Rationale for the decision

The future of the Southside Youth and Community Centre needs examining and this proposal is a good way for the thorough examination of options to take place.

Other Options considered

All options are considered within the report.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously),

(1) To note the options for the future of Southside Youth and Community Centre;

(2) To approve the response to Bath Communities Partnership as detailed in Section 4 of the report; and

(3) To support the principle of investing in improved community facilities subject to a sustainable and financially affordable project being developed.

100 CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL SCHEME (Report 12).

Councillor Rosemary Todd made a statement regarding recent comprehensive data obtained from a Parish Council survey showing that rural transport needs were not being met. She called for improvement to community transport by extending the Midsomer Norton and Keynsham Dial a Ride schemes. [At the request of Executive Members, Councillor Todd agreed to circulate the survey data to them.]

Councillor Caroline Roberts welcomed the introduction of free transport but expressed concern about the shortfall, and wondered how this funding gap would be met in future years.

Councillor Sarah Bevan also urged for the extension of the Dial a Ride scheme and gave some costings in support of this view.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins introduced the report by welcoming this Government initiative but highlighting some of the associated problems. He welcomed both pieces of local analysis that had been done and looked forward to seeing them. With regard to the extension of the Dial a Ride scheme, Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins explained that he would be undertaking a thorough analysis of need and accessibility in all areas to bring a report back to the Executive.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney acknowledged that the loss of tokens would have a detrimental effect on some people but reminded Members that any options regarding community transport would need to be looked at as part of the budget setting process.

Rationale

The introduction of the free travel scheme from April 2006 is a statutory duty of the Council. The introduction of free bus travel for residents over 60 and people with disabilities would largely mitigate the withdrawal of Travel Tokens. This mitigation would be further enhanced by reallocating the travel token budget to high social value transport schemes, such as extending Dial a Ride across the whole authority area.

Other Options considered

An alternative option considered to the joint free travel scheme was four separately managed free travel schemes. Four separately managed schemes would not realize the efficiencies and saving identified in paragraph 4.2 of the report. The only potential area where savings could be made would be in retreating to the more restrictive scheme boundaries that were in effect prior to August 2004. However, experience has shown that the actual level of additional travel undertaken as a result of the wider scheme boundaries has been relatively small. Therefore, only very modest savings could be potentially obtained and these would need to be set against the perceived loss of scheme benefits by pass holders.

Deferral of a decision until the full financial implications of the free scheme can be assessed has been considered but all the current bus passes in circulation expire on 31st March 2006. It will therefore be necessary to re-issue bus passes in advance of this date. Officers need to know whether travel tokens will be continued or not in order to make arrangements for publicising the scheme and re-issuing bus passes.

On a motion from Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That the current joint bus pass arrangements be extended and a single jointly managed off peak free travel scheme be introduced from 1st April 2006 in line with Government requirements, retaining the current 9.00am start as agreed in principle by the Executive Members of the four unitary authorities;

(2) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Transportation and Highways to agree details of and make decisions in respect of the implementation of the scheme with the Executive Member for Transport and Highways, including the possibility of extending the life of the pass for 3 years;

(3) That the use of discretionary powers to allow bus pass holders to receive the current concession of half fare travel on Community Transport services such as Dial a Ride be continued; and

(4) That the issuing of travel tokens be discontinued and the resulting financial resources be reallocated to:

(a) meet the projected shortfall in funding of the free bus travel scheme

(b) improve community transport such as an expanded Dial a Ride provision and provide a possible contribution towards the financial plan headroom savings requirements of £160,000, subject to the budget setting process in April 2006;

(5) That the possible improvement ideas for community transport be escalated and brought back to the Executive for further consideration.

[The underlined wording at resolution (5) above was proposed by Councillor Paul Crossley and accepted by the mover of the motion.]

101 DELIVERY OF WASTE STRATEGY ACTION PLAN - INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES (RELOCATION OF FACILITIES FROM MIDLAND ROAD DEPOT) (Report 13).

Councillor Gerry Curran introduced this report and explained that the relocation provided an opportunity to improve the infrastructure as well as facilitating the Bath Western Riverside development.

Councillor Colin Darracott added that the depot was in the middle of a World Heritage site and was close to capacity so it was right that it should be relocated.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney agreed that this had to be done but noted that it was a major capital expenditure and had to be managed within a range of projects.

Councillor Paul Crossley welcomed this paper allowing the Executive to endorse this project which would contribute to the Council achieving good recycling targets.

Rationale for the decision

The activities that are currently operated at Midland Road are understood to be required to relocate in order for the Council to deliver development in the Bath Western Riverside area.

The Council is required to meet targets laid down by the Government to reduce the amount of bio-degradable waste that is disposed of to landfill. The achievement of these targets will depend on developing our services, engaging the public and investing in new collection, treatment and disposal infrastructure. Non-achievement of these targets will result in significant fines and a significant rise in the cost of landfilling waste.

The Council's Waste Strategy sets out the direction of travel which the Council will take in order to achieve these targets, including the development of new service specifications, a market test of front line waste services and the requirement for access to new waste treatment infrastructure.

Other Options considered

The redesign of existing facilities at Midland Road to expand and improve the public Recycling Centre in order to achieve waste strategy targets. This has been proved possible but is not being pursued further at this time as the Bath Western Riverside project has indicated that the relocation of the waste activities currently operated at Midland Road is critical to the delivery of its objectives.

The potential for the development of larger scale waste treatment facilities to serve the sub-region. This is being pursued through a project board consisting of Waste and Planning Executive Members from each of the 4 Unitary Authorities but will not impact on the requirement to develop new local facilities to replace Midland Road, specifically local Recycling Centre facilities.

On a motion from Councillor Gerry Curran, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously), subject to financing and a feasibility report being prepared;

(1) That all waste services activities be relocated from Midland Road, Bath, subject to suitable alternative facilities being provided;

(2) That priority be given to the development of one or two new public Recycling Centres to serve the residents of Bath and the surrounding area as close to the centre of population as possible;

(3) That the potential for relocation of the Recycling Centre and cleansing depot facility to all possible sites, including those identified in the Local Plan as having potential for redevelopment, be pursued;

(4) That the potential for the development of an additional Recycling Centre facility to serve the population to the east of Bath be pursued;

(5) That the potential for expanding existing operations at the ECT recycling facility at Ashmead Road Industrial Estate, Keynsham is examined in detail to allow early access for developers to the land adjacent to the Midland Road facility, and that the increased revenue implications of running all recycling operations from this base be identified within the Leisure and Amenity Services Service and Financial Plan;

(6) That a report be considered by the Council Executive early in 2006 on the potential for the development of a new waste transfer station, materials recycling facility and refuse collection depot on land identified within the Local Plan at Broadmead Lane Keynsham, as replacement facilities for Midland Road and options for the expansion or relocation of waste transfer facilities at Old Welton, Midsomer Norton;

(7) That options for the expansion of the existing public Recycling Centre at Old Welton are progressed;

(8) That the waste procurement strategy (which includes the market testing of all front line services and consideration of revised specifications to support the delivery of targets agreed in the Council's Waste Strategy) is approved; and

(9) That the implications of transferring activities from the Midland Road site and the development of further recycling facilities be reviewed as part of the Council's Capital Programme Review, currently being prepared to support the Financial plan process.

102 REQUEST BY THE SOUTH WEST REGIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR FIRST DETAILED PROPOSALS ON PROVISION OF SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS (Report 14).

David Redgewell called for the Council to address this at the sub-regional level, along with housing issues.

Councillor Gerry Curran explained that the timescale had been too short for a full response at this stage, as the work that needed to be done could not be rushed.

Rationale for the decision

This will enable a comprehensive needs assessment to be undertaken which can be submitted as evidence to the Panel at the Examination in Public for the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy, as well as informing the Housing Strategy and local planning policies on meeting the needs of Gypsies and Travellers.

Other Options considered

The alternative would have been to meet the Regional Assembly's request but it would not have been possible to carry out the necessary surveys, consultations and analysis in the time allowed by the Assembly. Not carrying out an assessment would be contrary to the provisions of the Housing Act 2004.

On a motion from Councillor Gerry Curran, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That the draft letter of response attached as appendix 4 to the report be approved as the Executive's response to the Regional Assembly in answer to the request for First Detailed Proposals on provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers; and

(2) That the assessment of need for gypsies and travellers accommodation required under the Housing Act 2004 should proceed as soon as possible to be undertaken jointly with the other Unitary Authorities in the West of England sub-region.

103 REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING, CASH LIMITS AND VIREMENTS (Report 15).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the report and updated the Executive on the latest position regarding the projected overspend and the additional pressure that was being put on this by Social Services placements.

Rationale for the decision

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

Other Options considered

No other options were considered as this is a monitoring report.

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To note the revenue expenditure and income position for the Council for the financial year to date as at the end of September and the year end projections detailed in Appendices 2 & 3 of the report;

(2) To confirm the management actions outlined in the report to manage spending within the overall revenue budget for 2005/06;

(3) To note that the slow down in the capital spending identified to date amounts to £7.9m, slippage in capital income amounts to £5m in 2005/06 and that income from Right to Buy capital receipts is likely to be £1-2m compared to the budgeted £6m. This is consistent in slowing down the programme to available resources and using the opportunity to raise capital receipts to substitute for unsupported borrowing;

(4) To approve the virements listed in Appendix 4 and note the changes in the capital programme listed in Appendix 6;

(5) To note the current position of available capital resources and that the review of the capital programme as approved by Council on 17^th November 2005 is now underway; and

(6) To approve the allocations from the Headroom capital provision.

104 THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (PLANNING POLICY) (Report 16).

Councillor Gerry Curran introduced the report and drew the Executive's attention to paragraph 3.2 regarding the need for future Annual Monitoring reports to be broader in scope meaning possible future resource implications.

The Executive noted the forthcoming retirement of Keith Goodred (Team Leader, Planning Policy); they wished him well and thanked him for the exceptional work that he had done for the Council.

Rationale for the decision

The Council is statutorily required to prepare an AMR and to submit it to the Secretary of State by 31^st December 2005. Its satisfactory submission influences the award of Planning Delivery Grant to the Council.

Other Options considered

As this is a statutory requirement, alternative options have not been considered.

On a motion from Councillor Gerry Curran, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the 2004 to 2005 Annual Monitoring report be approved for submission to the Secretary of State.

105 WORKSMART BUSINESS CASE (Report 17).

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced this report which was the next step in the Council delivering better services.

Rationale for the decision

Other Options considered

In regards to technology and property, a considerable number of options have been and are being considered for solution.

Research and experiences that inform this project in regards to time and location flexibility indicate that the two need to be introduced synonymously with new technology in order to realise benefits for the customer.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To agree that the recommendations contained within the project summary (under the heading Recommendations) attached to the report are approved in principle subject to the identification of the necessary funding;

(2) To agree that the expenditure requirement for the project be noted, and that this is firmed up by mid-February 2006 before final decisions are made, but that the principle that this will be funded from capital receipts and prudential borrowing be agreed, and that funding is considered on that basis in the financial plan review;

(3) To agree that the first call on revenue savings as a result of productivity increases delivered as a result of the programme will be the repayment of the capital investment; and

(4) To agree that decisions on the revenue impacts beyond current budgets will need to be made in the forthcoming financial plan and use of revenue savings above the repayment of the investment, will also need to be made as part of the corporate and financial planning process in future years.

106 GAMBLING ACT 2005 - CASINOS (Report 18).

The Head of Economic Development gave the Executive an update and explained that the Casino Advisory Panel would be consulting Regional Development Agencies so it would be worth setting out the Council's position to them.

Rationale for the decision

Under the existing legislation, the number of licences for casinos is not restricted but casinos can be located only in certain areas of the country known as permitted areas. Bath and North East Somerset is not a permitted area. The Gambling Bill will allow applications to be made to open casinos in all local authority areas and provides an opportunity for the Council to register interest, or not, in having a casino in Bath and North East Somerset. In view of the Council's regeneration and economic development aims, particularly for the City of Bath, it is considered appropriate to register an initial expression of interest and to investigate the potential opportunities and impacts further.

Other Options considered

Consideration has been given to not registering any interest in a casino. This has been dismissed on the basis that a regeneration and economic development opportunity for Bath and North East Somerset may, as a result, fail to be properly considered.

On a motion from Councillor Colin Darracott, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To note that Council has previously indicated its agreement with these proposals at its meeting on 17^th November 2005;

(2) To agree to submit an initial expression of interest to the Government/appointed independent Advisory Panel for licensing a new casino in Bath and North East Somerset;

(3) To agree to instruct the Head of Economic Development to investigate further the case for a casino in Bath and North East Somerset as set out in this report and report back to the Executive; and

(4) To ask the Executive Member to write to the Regional Development Agency expressing our interest.

107 AVON CORONERS ACCOMMODATION (Report 19).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the report and explained that this was consistent with the Council's responsibilities as set out in paragraph 4 of the report.

Rationale for the decision

At the time of local government reorganisation in 1996, Bristol City Council became responsible for appointing coroners for the former County of Avon area. This was on the basis that all the former Avon authorities make a contribution to the coroner's employment costs, based on their respective population figures.
This report brings to the attention of the Council Executive the steps and expenditure necessary for Bristol to continue to provide this service.

Other Options considered

Alternative options are considered in the Bristol City Council Report Appendix 2

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To agree the proposal for Avon Coroners' Accommodation, subject to funding of essential works only; and

(2) To agree to include a recommendation to Council in its budget to build in the additional revenue costs arising from 2006/07 into their proposed budget.

108 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR JULY - NOVEMBER (Report 20).

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced this report and explained he would be pursuing the performance indicators to ensure that there was no slippage.

Rationale for the decision

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

Other Options considered

The new system allows for a wide range of flexible reporting analyses. The report is presented in this format as it explains progress against complex targets in a simple fashion.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) to note the contents of the report.