Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 12th July, 2006
BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE
Wednesday 12th July 2006
PRESENT -:
Councillor Paul Crossley - Leader
Councillor Francine Haeberling - Social Services
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE - Transport and Highways
Councillor Jonathan Gay - Children's Services
Councillor Gerry Curran - Sustainability and the Environment
Councillor Colin Darracott - Economic Development
Councillor Malcolm Hanney - Resources
Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty - Tourism, Leisure and Culture
Councillor Vic Pritchard - Community Safety, Housing & Consumer Services
18 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Chair was taken by Councillor Paul Crossley, Leader of the Council.
The Chair welcomed every-one to the meeting.
19 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE
The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda.
20 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest as a Governor of St Mary's CofE Primary School and St John's Catholic Primary School.
21 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)
a) The Chair announced the following items of urgent business:
Agenda Item 21 Backward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement;
Agenda Item 22 Bath Spa District Auditor's Position Statement;
BOTH these items had been added to the Agenda under the Council's Urgency Rule 15 and due notice had been given in the Agenda.
Bath Quays South
This item had been added to the Agenda under the Council's Urgency Rule 16 and the item was likely to be heard in exempt session.
b) The Chair announced that Agenda Item 20 (Building Schools for the Future: One School Pathfinder) would be heard after Agenda Item 12 (Review of Home to School Transport).
22 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS
There were 8 questions from the following people; Councillor Caroline Roberts; Councillor Brian Webber; Councillor Tim Ball; Councillor Sean McGall; Chris Beezley (3); Deborah Porter.
[Copies of the questions and responses have been placed on the Minute book and are available on the Council's website.]
23 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS
Due notice had been given of 6 statements. All speakers indicated that they wished to speak before the item to which their statement referred.
[Copies of the statements, when provided, have been placed on the Council's Minute book and are available on the Council's website.]
24 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 7TH JUNE 2006
On a motion from Councillor Colin Darracott, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney, it was
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7th June 2006 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
25 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE (Report 9).
There were no such items on this occasion.
26 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES (Report 10).
There were no such items on this occasion.
27 THE REPLACEMENT OF ST JOHN'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, BATH AND THE SEARCH FOR A NEW SITE (Report 11).
Peter Daly (Chair of Governors of St John's Catholic Primary School) made a statement in which he welcomed the anticipated decision to agree arrangements for the building of the replacement school. He said that the new building had only been made possible because of the generosity of the Diocese and the congregation of St Alphege's Church and appealed to the Executive to ensure that the new pitch would be properly served by changing rooms.
There were no factual questions from Executive members.
Councillor Sean McGall made an ad hoc statement in which he expressed his satisfaction that his local community would benefit from the new facilities.
Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced the item and, in moving the proposal, he pointed out that this differed from the proposed recommendations in the report.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney pointed out that the Council's investment was larger than originally envisaged. He said that the inclusion of the value of Hillside Hall into the proposal added substantial benefit for the community.
Following the debate during which Executive members welcomed the proposals, Councillor Jonathan Gay in his summing up apologised for the error in paragraph 2.2 which attributed responsibility for the school to the Anglican Diocese of Bath and Wells instead of to the Catholic Diocese of Clifton.
Rationale
DfES approval to the overall scheme will be is required in order to release any funding that has been awarded under the Targeted Capital Fund. In light of the failure to achieve a site following the original funding approval in 2000 the DfES will not unreasonably expect to see progress on this issue and have recently asked for a progress report.
The Council Executive had adopted the St Alphege's site as the preferred site for St John's Catholic Primary School. This proposal seeks to provide a level of accommodation and play space on this site which meet the essential requirements of the school.
A large number of potential sites have been considered in the last 5 years, several in considerable detail. For various reasons none have proved acceptable and there have been strong objections from local communities to some proposals. There is no evidence that any of the alternative sites would be acceptable if they were to be reconsidered. Previous consultation has shown that a large numbers of St John's parents favour this site.
The proposal will require a significant financial commitment from the Council but this should be seen in the context of the Council's duty to provide a site. Overall scheme costs are £5m approximately, the majority of which will be met from Government grant and governors funds. The outcome will be the provision of high quality facilities for children in Bath & North East Somerset with potential for wider community. This will be a major improvement in the environment for learning, which is a key Council priority.
Other Options Considered
Alternatives to the St Alphege's site have been considered at an earlier stage in the process. Various design options have been considered for this site as set out in the report.
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney it was
RESOLVED (unanimously):
(1) To agree that the proposed scheme offered a way forward and has the potential to meet the accommodation and play space needs of the school;
(2) To confirm the increased cash commitment to £1,239,000 to meet costs associated provision of the site, playing field, highways works and parish hall as per the Council's statutory duty;
(3) To instruct officers to explore the possibility of selling Hillside Hall and to bring a further report on the possibility of improving the facilities in the new parish hall including changing rooms so as to increase the capacity for greater community use;
(4) To request Somer Housing Trust to give sympathetic consideration to the use of its land to enable highways alterations to improve traffic management for the school users and the wider community whilst protecting the interests of its residents; and
(5) To authorise officers to consult with local residents on the proposals for the new school and associated highways proposals.
28 REVIEW OF HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT (Report 12).
David Byrne (Diocese of Clifton) made a statement in which he said that the agreement to provide free transport to children at denominational schools was longstanding and placed children on the same footing as those at non-denominational schools. He said that the proposals would introduce unfairness and would affect some families so that they will be unable to send their children to the school of their choice.
There were no factual questions from Executive members.
Raymond Friel (Head Teacher of St Gregory's RC School) was asked by the Chair whether he considered himself to be an employee of the Council. He replied that he was an employee of the Diocese of Clifton. The Chair therefore agreed that Mr Friel could make a statement. Mr Friel said that in the view of legal counsel this proposal, if implemented, would be illegal. The school could seek judicial review if the proposal were to be adopted. He urged the Executive either to defer the decision until the new Bill came into effect or, preferably, to vote against the proposals now.
There were no factual questions from Executive members.
Ann Beck (a parent of Hayesfield School and a member of the school's Safe Routes to School group) made a statement in which she emphasised the need for more school bus routes as an alternative to the car and asked the Executive to improve school transport facilities for all pupils and to reject recommendation 2.2 which would say that no further work was to be done on additional routes to school.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE asked Ann Beck what was the outcome of the recent visit to the school by First Bus. Ann Beck was unable to report on the outcome of that meeting but said she understood that there was no positive news.
Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement in which he said that transport to school should be free for all children who need it and that the existing system discriminates against children attending denominational schools who have not been baptised.
Councillor Caroline Roberts made an ad hoc statement in which she pointed out that in paragraph 2.2 of the report, it refers to paragraph 3.5 but this should read 3.2.
Mike Brownbill (Diocese of Bath and Wells) made an ad hoc statement in which he agreed with the comments of David Byrne and Raymond Friel. He urged the Executive to adopt the same view as the majority of other Councils and to uphold the spirit of the 1944 Act or at least to defer the issue until after the Overview and Scrutiny Review is completed.
Antonio Corrigan (Parent Governor at St Gregory's RC School) made an ad hoc statement in which he said that he felt very strongly that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of his religious beliefs. He appealed to the Executive to vote against the proposals or at least to defer decision.
Mr McCarthy made an ad hoc statement in which he said that, as a lawyer, he contended that the issue of charging for transport to the appropriate school is a legal matter under the 1944 Education Act and probably under the Human Rights legislation. He advised the Executive not to consider breaking the law.
Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced the item and said that the Council's education budget was in fact controlled by the Schools Forum, not by the Council. The Council has £12M to spend of which £3M goes on transport. The alternative to the proposals could be redundancies. He explained that he personally preferred to set a charge of £60 per term, but had been persuaded to propose a charge of £45 per term. He agreed that the reference to paragraph 3.5 should read 3.2.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney pointed out the particular relationship between the 2 diocese and the Council but said that as a result of the delegation of school budgets, the Education department had much smaller funds from which to provide services such as school transport.
The Council Solicitor advised the Executive that they must when making their decision take account of whether they considered that the provision of transport to denominational schools was necessary in terms of s.509(1) of the Education Act 1996.
Councillor Paul Crossley expressed reservations and said that the Executive should make a clear statement of aspiration and a route map for implementing their decision. The bus company and the local community must be involved in determining the school transport arrangements. He said he would have preferred to have seen a proposal that some of the funds freed up would be used to increase the number of new school bus routes.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE expressed a number of reservations including his view that the proposals did not address the whole issue; the reason for the proposals was based not on what is best for the pupils but on budget issues; the proposals were unfair to the churches; the proposals pre-empt the Bill which is currently before parliament; 90% of local education authorities are not introducing such charges. He urged the Executive to agree to defer the decision.
Councillor Francine Haeberling expressed reservations about the issue but said she felt it should be resolved if possible at this meeting and that a fair policy must be in place before the Bill becomes law.
Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty said that the proposals were not about discrimination but rather were about treating all children on the same basis.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE said that the way to ensure fairness was not to remove a benefit from some but to make it available to all.
Rationale
On the 15th May 2006 the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel recommended that a charging policy should be introduced for the provision of denominational transport and that that officers start to develop plans to establish a sustainable school transport strategy in response to the current Education and Inspections Bill. The Council Executive took the view that, having regard to other demands on resources and priorities, that it no longer considered the provision of denominational transport necessary under Section 509 of the Education Act 1996.
Other Options Considered
In relation to denominational transport the other options considered were not to charge for the provision of denominational transport or to charge full cost recovery.
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney it was
RESOLVED (5 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstaining)
(1) To note the valuable work of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel (EYCL OSP);
(2) To note the work of the panel on additional routes but given the current overspend on Home to School Transport to decide that no further work to be undertaken at this time [see para 3.2 of the report];
(3) To request that officers start to develop plans to establish a sustainable school transport strategy in response to the current "Education and Inspections Bill" [see para 4.8];
(4) To confirm that charging should be introduced for denominational transport from September 2007, on the basis that the provision of transport to denominational schools is not considered necessary in terms of s.509(1) of the Education Act 1996;
(5) To set the level of charge on a six term year at £45 a term (approximately £1.50 a day). For families with more than one child the second and third child would pay 50% of the cost up to a maximum of 3 children. To be reviewed annually in line with other Local Authority charging policies; and
(6) To agree that the charges for denominational transport will not be applied retrospectively and that an exemption will be made for low income families in receipt of free school meals, income support or Working Tax Credit. Pupils who are in attendance at a denominational school and receive free transport before September 2007 will not be charged while they remain at that school.
29 BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE: ONE SCHOOL PATHFINDER (Report 20).
Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced the offer of funding and thanked the education officers for their hard work. He said that the offer, if taken up, would free up other funds which could then be used in other schools.
Councillor Colin Darracott in seconding said that the decision must be made on an added-value basis.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney outlined three issues which should be carefully considered:
The offer came with a high risk of financial overspend if not managed tightly and might prevent us from doing other priority things;
The Major Projects team and the Education department are both already very stretched;
The Bath Schools Review is not yet completed; Keynsham might have additional housing; yet if we are to accept the funding we must decide very soon where to spend it.
Councillor Paul Crossley said that the offer was recognition from the government that this Council delivers and has always spent more on education than the government gives.
Other Executive members expressed their concern that we should make this decision in the full knowledge of the Council's current financial situation and that the eventual choice of school must be made openly and transparently.
Councillor Jonathan Gay in summing up agreed that there were risks and that the timetable for opening the new school was very tight but said that the outcome would be that we have a new school.
Rationale
The acceleration of the BSF pathfinder scheme provides an opportunity for the Council to make an unprecedented level of investment in a single secondary school in advance of further significant funding for other secondary schools in future years. This is in line with the key Council priority of improving the learning environment and will supplement the major capital investment being made by the Council in our primary and special schools.
Other Options Considered
Not to take up the offer of funding.
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Colin Darracott it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
(1) To note the offer of funding in respect of one-school pathfinder;
(2) To note the risks implicit in a buildings scheme of this scale and timescale;
(3) To authorise the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council to advise the DfES that the Council wishes to take up the offer of funding; and
(4) Pending further clarification by the DfES on timescale, to instruct officers to bring a report to a future meeting of the Council Executive with recommendations for the pathfinder school based on the DfES criteria set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report.
30 HOUSING STRATEGY FOR BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET 2005 - 2010 (Report 13).
Councillor Vic Pritchard introduced the item and explained that the draft strategy had been developed in collaboration with the Local Strategic Partnership and that while some of the figures were a little dated, they still accurately reflected the situation at the time.
Rationale
The 2003 Local Government Act requires local housing authorities to have in place a strategy in respect of housing related matters. Criteria issued by Government set out the format and standards to be achieved.
In 2004, Bath & North East Somerset decided to take a new direction in how local housing issues should be addressed, using the LSP as the vehicle for formulating the strategy and ensuring its delivery. This was seen as an opportunity to develop a Housing Strategy that is more closely integrated with other local, sub-regional and regional plans and strategies.
This approach to the development of the Strategy will strengthen the existing partnership structures, both within the LSP and other forums. This is particularly important for the Council, as the body responsible for taking a strategic lead on housing issues.
Other Options Considered
None.
On a motion from Councillor Vic Pritchard, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
(1) To agree that the Local Strategic Partnership has played a key role in the development of the Housing Strategy for Bath & North East Somerset 2005 - 2010;
(2) That the Housing Strategy be approved with the following amendments to Section 5 - What Are the Strategic Objectives for Bath & North East Somerset?:
a. Under Affordable Housing add the following bullet point:
The Council will promote diversity in the affordable housing market by working with a wide range of housing providers including but not limited to private sector providers (including landlords and builders of student accommodation), co-operatives, the higher and further educational institutions and key worker employers;
b. Under Housing Conditions and the Private Rented Sector add two new bullet points to read:
Initiatives for improving access to the private rented sector by people in housing need, such as the Homefinders Scheme, will continue to be supported and developed.
Council officers will continue to take a strategic approach to the improvement of properties in the private rented sector through pro-active, risk-based and targeted enforcement.
c. Under Section 6, Strategic Choices, remove the section below:
"On larger developments, greater emphasis will be placed on the provision of affordable housing than other facilities. Affordable housing is a corporate priority for the Council. Whilst strenuous efforts will be made to address sustainability issues, in order to ensure the needs of residents are met, affordable housing has to take priority over other valuable aspects of larger developments. The Council seek to use both its planning powers and its asset base to support this priority".
Replace with:
"On larger developments, the importance of facilities other than affordable housing will be acknowledged. Whilst affordable housing is a corporate priority for the Council, communities must be sustainable. This means that consideration to a range of facilities may be appropriate on larger developments"; and
d. It should also be noted that the target for new affordable housing built under s106 will remain at 30%, subject to the outcome of any directive arising from the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan Enquiry Inspector's Report (May 2006).
31 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH WEST 2006 - 2026 (Report 14).
Councillor Charles Gerrish made a statement in which he said that the choice of Exeter for all the meetings of the Examination in Public (EIP) was not appropriate and that some public meetings should be moved to the sub regions. He challenged the location of some of the proposed new housing at Hicks Gate and appealed to the Executive to strengthen the wording relating to protection of the green belt. He also said that the projected economic growth was unattainable so the Council's position should be not to commit to all the proposed housing without evidence of economic growth to sustain the increase in population.
There were no factual questions from Executive members.
[After the meeting officers advised that a typographical error in the report had inadvertently suggested that housing was proposed to the east of Hicks Gate roundabout when in fact this should have read west. No housing is proposed to the east of the roundabout. Councillor Gerrish has since been informed of this.]
Councillor Peter Edwards made a statement in which he said that one of the conditions of the proposed new housing must be the full completion of the Avon Ring Road within the Bristol City Boundary, and that the proposed building of 6,000 houses in Whitchurch would be directly under the flight path of Bristol International Airport which was not constructive 21st Century forward planning.
There were no factual questions from Executive members.
Councillor Gerry Curran introduced the item. He agreed that the Exeter location for all the Examination in Public was a concern and said that the sub region had taken up this point. He pointed out that the Council was already committed to the building of 15,500 new houses and said that our comments had been made not only via the sub region but also directly to the EIP.
A number of Executive members expressed the view that the Council's position must be presented very clearly and in writing so that there is no doubt that the commitment to new housing is conditional upon delivery of the planned infrastructure and economic growth.
Rationale
The report outlines areas of key concern and detailed comments that it is recommended should be made on the draft RSS.
Other Options Considered
None.
On a motion from Councillor Gerry Curran, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE, it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
1. That the comments on the draft Regional Spatial Strategy set out in Appendix 1 of the report are submitted to the Examination in Public Panel;
2. That the comments on the draft Regional Spatial Strategy and the accompanying Strategic Sustainability Assessment and Implementation Plan set out in the report to the West of England Partnership Planning, Transport and Environment Group (attached as Annex 1 to Appendix 1) are endorsed; and
3. That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Executive Members and Administration Group Leaders, is authorised to agree further comments on the Draft RSS (except in relation to the spatial strategy referred to in recommendation 1), the Strategic Sustainability Appraisal and Implementation Plan.
[At this point, Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE left the meeting]
32 CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006/07 (Report 15).
Councillor Colin Darracott introduced the item. He indicated that his proposal would differ from the published recommendations.
Rationale
The adoption and maintenance of an Asset Management Plan is a requirement for achieving an acceptable score under Comprehensive Performance Assessment. Anything other than the existence of a working and effective plan would result in larger areas of the Council's assessment being marked down.
Other Options Considered
1. The maintenance of an Asset Management Plan is a mandatory CPA requirement and therefore no other options have been considered in this respect;
2. In relation to the policy such mandatory requirements do not exist but, for the reasons set out in section 5.9 of the report, the option of not proceeding has been discounted.
On a motion from Councillor Colin Darracott, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
(1) That for the Corporate Estate, the Asset Management Plan is adopted;
(2) That the Property Policy is adopted subject to, in relation to the Commercial Estate, the outcome of the Commercial Estate Review;
(3) That further development and reissue of both documents is delegated to the Assistant Director Support Services - Property & Facilities in consultation with the Executive Member for Economic Development; and
(4) That a formal review of progress in implementing the Asset Management Plan will be made as part of the Corporate Plan / Financial Plan / budget process and the results reported to the Executive.
[At this point, Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE rejoined the meeting]
33 LETTING OF MOUNT BEACON LODGE, LANSDOWN, BATH (Report 16).
Councillor Colin Darracott introduced the report and said that he would be moving a motion to grant a lease to Bath Housing Co-operative.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney during the debate expressed his concern that the proposal would involve the use of Council estate for non-priority housing. He emphasised that should a lease be negotiated, the long-term future of the property must be resolved without delay.
Rationale
The future of this property needs to be resolved.
Other Options Considered
The options available to the Executive were:
a) Grant a lease to Bath Housing Co-operative; OR
b) Grant a lease at Market Value for residential use; OR
c) Sale.
On a motion from Councillor Colin Darracott, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard it was
RESOLVED (8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)
(1) That the original decision to negotiate a three year lease should now be implemented, with any resulting agreement to commence with effect from 12.07.06;
(2) That the Bath Housing Co-operative be invited to present and discuss proposals which may assist the Council's homelessness and housing policies; and
(3) That the future use of this property be decided no later than 6 months prior to the expiry of any lease granted.
34 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR JANUARY TO JUNE 2006 (Report 17).
Councillor Paul Crossley welcomed the fact that the report had been put into the public domain and proposed that the Executive note its contents.
Rationale
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 proposed is our preferred public report as we believe 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 Council Performance Report.
[At this point Councillor Gerry Curran left the meeting]
35 CAPITAL REVIEW AND VALUE FOR MONEY CHECK (Report 18).
Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the item and proposed the report.
In seconding, Councillor Colin Darracott recommended to the Executive the excellent explanatory diagram contained in Appendix 2, Annex 1.
Rationale
The proposals aim to:
- Strengthen the current corporate processes, further develop priorities and align resources to those priorities;
- Build in consideration and evidence of value for money more explicitly into priorities and resource allocation;
- Reflect best practice, including that contained in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.
Other Options Considered
Various options have been considered and tested by the officers involved in developing these proposals. The Council is required to undertake the Reviews.
On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Colin Darracott it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
In relation to the value for money check:
(1) To note that the Council has a consistent track record of being among the lowest 25% of unitary authorities in terms of spending per head with an average Council Tax and since the introduction of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment in 2002 has been continually assessed as a three star (good) Council by the Audit Commission;
(2) To recognise that differences in performance and cost can arise from differences in the needs, local circumstances and choices made by different authorities;
(3) To acknowledge the higher costs in Education and Waste and that this is intentional and results in higher performance;
(4) To acknowledge that further analysis needs to be carried out through the service planning process to link costs to performance and corporate priorities;
(5) To require all services to ensure appropriate and proportionate arrangements are in place to ensure and demonstrate value for money and that these be incorporated in service plans for 2007-08 onwards;
(6) To require services that appear to have higher costs to demonstrate that this is due to local circumstances, better performance and are a high priority in their service plans;
(7) To request the Overview and Scrutiny Panels to consider the high level value for money check relevant to their services with a view to initiating more in-depth consideration of selected service areas and functions as part of their work programme;
(8) To agree that Directors and Executive Members develop more detailed service and financial planning parameters to inform and provide focus to service and financial planning in 2007-08 onwards within the agreed corporate priorities of the Council;
(9) To note that the service and financial planning parameters aim to provide guidance over costs and service levels/performance over a period of time;
(10) To agree that the Directors' Group and Informal Executive identify 1-2 specific, discrete, self-contained and discretionary areas where zero-based budgeting can be further piloted with a view to reporting back in summer 2007;
In relation to the Capital Review - Part 2:
(11) To approve the Capital Strategy 2006-07 to 2008-09 at Appendix 2, Annex 1;
(12) To note that the Executive will approve the current Corporate Property Asset Management Plan elsewhere on the agenda for this meeting;
(13) To approve the updates to the Council's Capital Strategy and Corporate Property Asset Management Plan in the light of changing circumstances, priorities, resources and affordability as part of the corporate, service and financial planning process;
(14) To confirm the need for longer term, strategic capital programme planning and delegates to the Assistant Director - Support Services (Finance) in consultation with the Informal Executive, Project Programme Board and Directors Group to develop proposals for:
· The inclusion of a 5-year capital programme and indicative needs over 10 years and 20 years in service plans;
· A framework for decision-making in order to balance affordability of the capital programme in revenue terms, new projects, supporting the revitalisation of the area, and maintenance of current assets;
(15) To approve the project initiation and deliverability process as set out in Appendix 2, Annex 2 and notes the further detailed development work to be carried out in time for the next service and financial planning cycle;
(16) To approve the Terms of Reference of the Project Programme Board (PPB), Project Initiation and Deliverability Group, and the Capital Strategy and Asset Management Group (CS&AMG) as set out in Appendix 2, Annexes 3, 4 and 5;
(17) To request PPB & CS&AMG to develop formal criteria for prioritising capital projects and programmes;
(18) To note the proposals for improving reporting to the Project Programme Board by end of September 2006 and that the Assistant Director Support Services (Finance) reflect these new arrangements in reporting to Directors' Group and the Council Executive;
(19) To approve the approach to value for money within the future capital programme and that this is implemented for all new schemes due to start from 2007-08; and
(20) To note the draft timetable for capital programme planning as set out in Appendix 2, Annex 6, for incorporation into the overall service planning timetable.
36 MIDSOMER NORTON MARDI GRAS FESTIVAL (Report 19).
Councillor Jonathan Gay said that he wished to withdraw the item so that further information could be made available to the Executive at a future date.
Rationale
Further information is required which the Executive should consider when making their decision.
Other Options Considered
None
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
To defer consideration of this item until a further report can be submitted to a future Executive meeting.
37 ANNUAL EFFICIENCY STATEMENT 2005/06 (Report 21).
Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the report and drew the attention of the Executive to the good news that the Council had made significant efficiency gains in the period.
Rationale
The Council has always strived to improve its efficiency. This statement reports its achievements.
Other Options Considered
None - the Council is required to monitor its efficiency gains.
On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Colin Darracott it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
(1) To note that the Council has always taken efficiency seriously, prior to the Government setting efficiency targets; and
(2) To note that the Government target has been exceeded for 2004/05 and 2005/06
38 BATH SPA PROJECT - AUDITORS POSITION STATEMENT AS AT 31st JANUARY 2006 (Report 22).
Councillor Paul Crossley welcomed the report and asked the Executive should to note it.
Rationale
The Auditor's Report must be made public.
Other Options Considered
None
On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Jonathan Gay it was
RESOLVED (unanimously)
To note the Auditor's Position Statement
39 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC (Report 23).
Councillor Paul Crossley read to the Executive the Public Interest Test and asked Executive members to bear this in mind when deciding whether to exclude the public.
Rationale
Information contained within the report falls within paragraph 3 of the revised Schedule 12A of the 1972 Act. Disclosure of the information in advance of the conclusion of the negotiations would weaken the Council's negotiating position to the possible financial detriment of the Council with a consequent reduction in the availability of resources to provide services. This would be contrary to the public interest.
Other Options Considered
Not to exclude the public and to continue the meeting in open session.
On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Jonathan Gay it was
RESOLVED (7 in favour; Cllr Colin Darracott voted against)
That, having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended.
[The public were asked to leave the meeting at 1:05pm]
40 BATH
QUAYS SOUTH
On a motion from Councillor Colin
Darracott, seconded by Councillor Malcolm Hanney, it was
RESOLVED
That a certain action would be taken.
The meeting ended at 1.20pm
Chair(person)
Date Confirmed and Signed
Prepared by Democratic Services