Meeting documents

122 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

123 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

124 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Malcolm Hanney declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in agenda items 11, 13, 16, 17 and 19 as Chair of the Primary Care Trust.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

126 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

4 questions had been submitted from the following people;

Councillors Brian Webber, Tim Ball, Gitte Dawson and Andy Furse.

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

127 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Four statements (for which due notice had been given) were made by Councillors Betty Perry, Phyllis Gay, Lew Kew and Brian Webber regarding agenda item 15 "Edge of Property Refuse Collection" These statements were made at the item.

[Copies of the statements, when provided, have been placed on the Council's Minute book and are available on the Council's website.]

128 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 11TH JANUARY 2006

On a motion from Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 11th January 2006 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person).

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

There were no such items on this occasion.

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

There were no such items on this occasion.

131 COUNCIL REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2006/2007 (Report 11).

Councillor Tim Ball asked a question regarding the percentage of Council Tax which is uncollected and the reasons behind this. Councillor Malcolm Hanney undertook to provide Councillor Tim Ball with a response following the meeting.

Councillor Sarah Bevan asked a question regarding the amount spent on taxis by the Social Services department. Councillor Haeberling responded during the debate. Councillor Jonathan Gay added that consideration of this would be taken up in the wider review of school transport currently being undertaken.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced what he considered to be a very detailed and complex report. He thanked the Interim Head of Finance and Resource Planning and his team for their work in drawing this together in such a difficult budget year. Councillor Hanney outlined the major pressures the Council was facing and the actions being taken to minimise the impact on services. Councillor Hanney also thanked the Overview & Scrutiny Panels who had contributed their comments.

Councillor Paul Crossley, in seconding the motion, drew attention to the Council's record of improving efficiency while maintaining good service levels.

Rationale

The rationale for proposing this budget is contained within the report and appendices.

Other options considered

The other options considered in recommending this budget are contained within the report and appendices.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously) to recommend that the Council

(1) Approves the General Fund revenue budget for 2006/07 of £182.182m and the associated Council Tax increase of 4.95%;

(2) Approves that no Special Expenses be charged other than Town and Parish Council precepts for 2006/07;

(3) Approves that no use be made of non-earmarked revenue reserves in 2006/07 to finance General Fund revenue expenditure;

(4) Approves the individual service cash limits for 2006/07 contained in Annex 2 to the budget proposal;

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

(6) Acknowledges the Section 151 officer's report on the robustness of the proposed budget and the adequacy of the Council's reserves (Appendix 3, Annex 6) and approves the conditions upon which the recommendations are made as set out throughout Appendix 3;

(7) And, in relation to the capital budget

(a) Approves a capital payments budget of £42.206m for 2006/07 (excluding further slippage from 2005/06) as shown in Appendix 3, Annex 4, including the adjustments proposed in Appendix 2 (Table 2) and the additions to the programme proposed Appendix 3, Annex 3;

(b) Notes the indicative capital payments budgets of £30.062m in 2007/08 and £18.824m in 2008/09 as shown in Appendix 3 Annex 4, 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;

(c) Notes the continuing work on the Capital Programme Review due to be reported to the June meeting of the Council Executive as set out in paragraph 4.6 and 4.7 of Appendix 2 to the Report to the Executive;

(8) Approves a high level review of the cost and performance of services to be carried out and reported to the Council Executive in July 2006 to inform consideration of value for money and service and financial planning for 2007/08 onwards;

(9) Instructs Executive Members to finalise their revenue and capital budgets for 2006/07 within the cash limits and amounts set by Council, for inclusion on the weekly decision list no later than April 2006 (as part of the approval of Service and Resource Plans);

(10) Requests the Council Executive and the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Panel to consider how Councillors can be more involved in developing the budget in the context of the Council's Corporate and Financial Plan;

The Executive further RESOLVES

(11) To authorise the Interim Head of Finance and Resource Planning, in consultation with the Executive Members (Resources) and the Leader of the Council, to make presentational improvements to the draft Budget Proposal prior to submission to Council and to include an update on the EPH programme as required by the Council at its meeting in November 2005.

132 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2006/2007 (Report 12).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced this regular monitoring report and drew the Executive's attention to an amendment to the table in Appendix 1 regarding the upper limit for total principal sums invested for over 364 days - each percentage to read 80%, not 20%.

Rationale

This report is a statutory requirement.

Other options considered

None.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously) to

(1) Approve the actions proposed within the Treasury Management Strategy Statement (Appendix 1);

(2) Note the Prudential Indicators detailed in paragraph 5.2 of Appendix 1 and delegate authority for updating the indicators prior to approval at Full Council on 21^st February 2006 to the Resources Director and Executive Member for Resources;

(3) Approve the borrowing strategy as detailed in paragraph 5.6 of Appendix 1; and

(4) Approve the investment strategy as detailed in Appendix 2.

133 CORPORATE & FINANCIAL PLAN REVIEW (Report 13).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced the report and welcomed this structured approach and longer term view, making it easier to deal with pressures and identify improvement priorities.

Councillor Paul Crossley commended the cross-service work that had contributed to the production of the Review and welcomed the key part this work played in building partnership relationships across the region and sub-region.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty welcomed the review which demonstrated that corporate values were being achieved and suggested an addition to the benefits column of the Elderly Person's Home Reprovisioning section (para 3.1, page 9/37) to reflect that it contributed to achieving the Council's sustainable housing targets.

Rationale

The Corporate Plan is intended to be the means by which the Council and its Executive ensure that the priorities are clearly set out and adequately resourced. The Plan enables a strategic approach to planning and resource allocation, supports the achievement of longer term and more complex goals, and ensures an integrated move towards service and financial planning.

Other options considered

None.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To recommend to full Council to approve the Corporate Plan Review (attached as Appendix 1) which will incorporate the Financial Plan; and

(2) To authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Executive Member for Resources and the Leader of the Council, to make presentational improvements to the Corporate Plan review prior to submission to Council.

134 JOINT WASTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT FOR THE WEST OF ENGLAND (Report 14).

Councillor Gerry Curran introduced the report which addresses the waste infrastructure on a sub-regional basis and demonstrates good co-operation between the four Unitary Authorities.

Rationale

The Government has introduced the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) to act as a mechanism for achieving the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill. It is likely that the West of England authorities can meet their targets for the next few years but thereafter if there is no change in practice the authorities will start to incur fines of £150 for every tonne by which they fail to meet their target.

The ability of the authorities to meet LATS targets necessitates provision of new facilities and a sub regional approach, building on the existing commitment to a sub regional waste strategy (agreed by the former Joint Strategic Planning and Transport Committee), is considered to offer the best way forward as recommended by the West of England Waste Project Board.

There is a need to develop a co-ordinated waste strategy which deals with commercial and industrial as well as household waste.

It is considered that a Joint Waste DPD can provide:

B7 A co-ordinated approach to waste planning in the West of England sub region;

B7 A joint approach to determining the range of facilities needed;

B7 The opportunity for shared use of facilities and complementary facilities within different authorities

B7 Provide a level of certainty to the waste industry to assist them in bringing forward development proposals in the right place at the right time.

Other options considered

Do nothing - this would rely on the submission of planning applications to meet the need for new waste management facilities in the absence of any agreed sub regional framework and it would be down to each Unitary Authority to determine each application on a case by case basis. This is not considered to provide the required certainty for delivering waste management facilities in the right place at the right time.

Prepare a joint waste core strategy and individual UA sites allocation documents. This option was initially preferred. However, officers advised the Project Board on 6th January that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had indicated via Government Office for the South West that this approach would not meet with their approval. The reason for this is that Core Strategies are intended to deal with a range of planning issues rather than with one issue. Whilst advice in PPS12 is, in the opinion of officers, ambiguous on this point, the advice of ODPM has been accepted by the Project Board in the interests of making progress with this project.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously) to agree that the Bath and North East Somerset Local Development Scheme is amended to include the preparation of a Joint Waste Development Plan Document (DPD).

135 EDGE OF PROPERTY REFUSE COLLECTION (Report 15).

Statements (for which due notice had been given) were made by Councillors Betty Perry, Phyllis Gay, Les Kew and Brian Webber in opposition to the recommendations. Councillor Brian Barrett also made a statement opposing the recommendations and calling for this to be deferred and considered in line with longer term solutions mentioned.

Councillors Tim Ball and Steve Hedges made statements in support of the recommendations.

Gordon Rawlings made a statement asking the Executive to reconsider.

Rae Harris, as the local contact for Living Streets, commented that the public realm could suffer if rubbish was left out the evening before collection.

Councillor Gerry Curran indicated that the proposals sought consistency across the district, as most areas already operated with edge of property collections. Councillor Curran also mentioned the improvements it was hoped this would bring to recycling targets, and referred to the health and safety concerns. These proposals were also in line with the recommendations of the Planning, Transportation, Economy and Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, in seconding the motion, remarked that these proposals were in line with national trends and would achieve financial savings, while improving recycling targets.

Councillor Francine Haeberling expressed reservations about having one system for a diverse range of households, but hoped that people with difficulties would get the assistance they needed.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney commented that this would contribute to the Council getting closer to the 50% recycling target.

Councillor Jonathan Gay felt that more education and awareness was needed to improve recycling. He felt that awareness should be raised about ID theft and the consequent care needed regarding disposal of personal information. He felt the issue of insurance needed to be clarified and that there was a need for a strategy for dealing with the rubbish from split bags. He informed the meeting that he would be abstaining.

Councillor Paul Crossley thanked the Overview & Scrutiny Panel for their assistance with consultation and in developing the recommendations. He also thanked those people who had written to him and indicated he would be responding to them all in due course. He stressed that the key issue was that there should not be much residual waste needing collection if effective recycling was taking place. He also added that the Council needed to move to same day collection as quickly as possible.

Councillor Vic Pritchard regretted that the service offered to residents under Wansdyke District Council was being withdrawn; purely for financial reasons in his view.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty agreed with the comments made regarding recycling but expressed concern that the emphasis of this proposal seemed not to focus on service provision and the needs of residents, but on the best solution for the Council as service provider. For this reason, Councillor O'Flaherty would vote against the proposal.

Councillor Gerry Curran, in summing up, assured the meeting that he had considered the genuine issues that had been raised. He pledged to work hard with Councillors and their residents to iron out any problems.

Rationale

Introducing edge of property rubbish collection reduces many health and safety risks and introduces a consistency of approach across the Council's refuse and recycling collection services which should have the effect of encouraging higher levels of recycling.

A further likely benefit of this change is that, in the area of households affected, levels of litter are likely to be reduced. This is due to the likelihood that refuse presented in an unacceptable condition will be reduced, whilst staff will be required to carry bags of refuse less distance.

Other options considered

To remain with back door collection - the health and safety issues that this presents for operatives are no longer acceptable. This was clearly stated during a recent inspection by the Health & Safety Executive. This option would continue the inconsistency of approach between the green box service and the composting collection service which already require the containers to be placed edge of property.

To implement wheeled bin collections, edge of property to ease manual handling and cleanliness issues - this will be addressed through the development of new service specifications which will be market tested to ensure affordability and to ensure the achievement of the Council's Waste Strategy targets.

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

RESOLVED (6 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) to agree that:

(1) The point of collection for rubbish is moved to the edge of property;

(2) That residents are made aware of the availability of the existing assisted collection service which is available for those who have difficulties in placing their rubbish at the edge of their property; and

(3) That staff work with residents in specific areas with access and storage difficulties in order to identify the most appropriate collection point (as outlined in paragraphs 3.2 and 4.9).

136 PASSPORT TO HEALTH (Report 16).

Councillor Steve Hedges made a statement strongly supporting the scheme and suggesting it could be publicised more widely.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty introduced this interesting initiative which had involved a developing partnership between Bath & North East Somerset Sports Development Team, the PCT and Aquaterra. This was the first practical joint scheme between the PCT and the Council. Councillor O'Flaherty explained that it currently involved every GP practice in Bath and was being rolled out to Midsomer Norton in April.

Other Executive Councillors also welcomed the initiative.

Rationale

Obesity is a preventable condition in the majority of cases (source : PCT) but addressing it is both complex and challenging. The national and local objective is to enable the population to undertake more physical activity and to adopt healthy diet habits. This involves individuals, families, education, domestic and workplace settings. Coordinating action requires a cross agency approach and a timetable which is patient yet persistent. Transport, leisure, food procurement and availability, health promotion, lifestyle and education all need to be addressed in order to reach targets.

Other options considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) to

(1) Welcome the development and expansion of the partnership with the PCT to implement the Passport to Health referral scheme; and

(2) Endorse the aims of the programme and note the financial implications.

137 PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPING A LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT IN BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET (Report 17).

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced this report and welcomed the involvement of the Corporate Issues and Partnerships Overview & Scrutiny Panel. He explained the rationale for proposing the composition of the Project Board (as set out below) as being to allow a greater equity between the Council and its partner bodies.

Rationale

The Council Executive agreed on 5th October 2005 that the Council, working with its partners, start work on developing a Local Area Agreement (LAA) for Bath and North East Somerset to begin in April 2007. GOSW have now invited Bath & North East Somerset to work with its partners to negotiate a Local Area Agreement. This process has the potential to improve services for our local community and address local priorities.

Other options considered

Alternative project governance structures have been considered. However, these would not enable the high-level engagement necessary for such a key initiative and would not facilitate links to the integration agenda.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously) to

(1) Establish an LAA Project Board as follows:

(2) Agree Council Executive representation on the Board and invite representation from the bodies indicated; and

(3) Note and agree the LAA development timetable as set out in Appendix 1.

138 RADSTOCK TOWN CENTRE: REGENERATION PRINCIPLES (Report 18).

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced this report.

Councillor Jonathan Gay, in seconding the motion, expressed some concern about whether shopping and arts based enterprises would be able to significantly contribute to regeneration in the way that a large employer relocating to the area would do.

Rationale

A coherent and co-ordinated approach is vital for successful regeneration of Radstock town centre. The draft Local Plan allocates the former railway and associated land in the town for development. Whilst there is not currently a physical regeneration framework or masterplan for the town centre, a significant amount of regeneration work and consultation has been undertaken. Drawing upon this work to establish a set of regeneration principles will provide a starting point for development of a physical regeneration framework for the town centre. These principles can be fed into any subsequent production of formal planning documents for the town.

Other options considered

The option of relying on current policies and strategies has been considered. This has been rejected because the lack of a forward looking and holistic context for physical regeneration risks failure to realise opportunities and the town's potential. It would also fail to build upon the regeneration work and consultation undertaken. Consideration has been given to deferring further work until commencement of formal planning documents within the Local Development Framework process. However, this has been rejected because of the need to facilitate regeneration in the shorter term and given the fact that work undertaken now can feed into development of any subsequent planning documents.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Jonathan Gay, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) to agree the regeneration principles for Radstock town centre, as set out in the report, as a basis for consultation and subsequent development of a physical regeneration framework for Radstock town centre, subject to the removal of the words "and complementary to Midsomer Norton town centre" from the `Economy, Uses & Activity' section of paragraph 4 of the appendix.

139 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LOCAL SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN BOARD FOR BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET (Report 19).

Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced the report as one of the first key steps in meeting the Children's Services agenda.

Rationale

The Council is required by the Children Act 2004 to have a Local Safeguarding Children's Board in place, and operational, from 1st April 2006. The Council and its partners can build upon the strong and effective arrangements already in place for its Area Child Protection Committee.

Other options considered

None. The Council is required by the Children Act 2004 to have introduced a Local Safeguarding Children's Board in place, and operational, from 1st April 2006. The Council and its partners can build upon the strong and effective arrangements already in place for its Area Child Protection Committee.

On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) to

(1) Approve plans for the establishment of the Local Safeguarding Children Board for Bath and North East Somerset and that this is introduced by 1st April 2006 to replace the Area Child Protection Committee; and

(2) Ask the Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children's Board to report on the effectiveness of these arrangements.