Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 1st September, 2004
Services\office97\template\minutes\minutes.dot
BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE
Monday 5th July 2004
Councillor Paul Crossley - Leader
Councillor Francine Haeberling - Social Services
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE - Transport and Highways
Councillor Jonathan Gay - Lifelong Learning
Councillor Rosemary Todd - 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
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
-
21 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE
The Chair(person) drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda.
22 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Malcolm Hanney declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 13 as Chair of the Primary Care Trust.
Councillor Paul Crossley declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 14 as he had submitted a proposal to the Local Plan process.
Councillors Paul Crossley, Colin Darracott and Nicole O'Flaherty each declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 17, as Bath Rugby Club season ticket holders.
23 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)
There were no items of urgent business.
24 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS
The following people had given the appropriate notice of their request to ask a question of an Executive Councillor. The text of the questions and responses is contained in a Q&A document which is attached to the minutes electronically once finalised.
- Peter Marsden
- Councillor Sarah Webb
-
25 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS
Copies of the statements (when they have been provided) have been placed on the Minute book.
Brook Whelan presented two petitions, each requesting a new litter bin; one at the junction of Perrymead and Ralph Allen drive and the other towards the upper end of Holloway.
All the other statements made are referred to within the main agenda items below.
26 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE
There were no such items on this occasion.
27 THE FUTURE OF KEYNSHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL AND TEMPLE PRIMARY SCHOOL
Statements were made by the following people (copies, if provided, have been placed on the minute book);
- Ian Knights made a statement in support of the Kelston Road site.
- Chris Metcalfe (Governor, Temple Primary School) made a statement in support of the St John's Court site.
- Sue Bracey (parent Keynsham Primary School) made a statement in support of the Kelston Road site.
- Mark Hyde (Parent Governor, Temple Primary School) made a statement in support of the St John's Court site.
- Corinne Clifford (Governor, Temple Primary School) made a statement in support of the St John's Court site.
- Councillor Tony Crouch, (Keynsham Town Council), made a statement in support of the Kelston Road site.
- Margaret Waring, (Chair of Keynsham Governing Body), made a statement in support of Keynsham Primary School.
- Anita Burford, (Chair of Governors Temple Primary School) made a statement in support of the St John's Court site.
Councillor Jonathan Gay thanked all the speakers for their comments and acknowledged that it was a passionate debate. Councillor Gay stressed the need for a long-term view that would allow as much flexibility as possible. Councillor Gay then drew attention to the advantages and disadvantages of the Kelston Road and St John's Court sites, as set out in paragraphs 4.18, 4.19, 4.21 and 4.22 of the report. He stressed the most significant advantage of the Kelston Road site as having enough space for future expansion, if necessary. Councillor Gay moved the recommendations.
Councillor Paul Crossley, in seconding the motion, thanked officers and the Overview & Scrutiny Panel for their work on this. Councillor Crossley wanted to stress the positive element of this decision; that a new school would be built that would be fit for purpose.
Councillor Francine Haeberling commented that we must look forward to the new school and move forward to ensure the future co-operation and close working between Temple and Keynsham Primary schools.
Councillor Rosemary Todd hoped that the new school would be sustainable in design, construction and operation so as to ensure a benign impact on the environment.
Rationale for the decision
The opportunity to remove unfilled places and simultaneously create a high quality school environment meets two Council priorities.
The Kelston Road site is readily available for development.
The value of the St John's Court site for other uses is such that its use as a school site cannot be justified.
Kelston Road is located closer to the homes of most children.
A substantial investment in community facilities such as a school can only serve to improve the perception of, and reality in, the area. The potential and actual regenerative benefits of a school in more deprived areas are well documented.
Other Options considered
Taking no action has been considered but rejected as it will fail to remove surplus places.
The closure of Keynsham Primary School has been considered but rejected as this will not lead to the creation of a new school and would also not address the split-site nature of Temple Primary School.
The closure of Temple Primary School has been considered but rejected as there is no pressing need to remove unfilled places at this school.
The closure of Keynsham Primary School and the replacement of Temple Primary School on the Kelston Road site has been considered. This option formed part of the original review exercise in December 2003 and was rejected by the Executive at that time. It should also be noted that there is no discernible support for this option.
On a motion from Councillor Jonthan Gay, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To note and welcome the responses to the discussion paper;
(2) To agree that Keynsham Primary School and Temple Primary School should be closed on the day immediately preceding the beginning of the 2007/08 academic year, and that the necessary legal notices be published in September 2004;
(3) To agree that the Kelston Road site represents the most suitable location for a new primary school and that the necessary notice to establish a school for 210 pupils be published in September 2004 with the new school to open on the first day of the academic year 2007/08;
(4) To agree that a robust costed plan be prepared in order to assess the cost of a new school on the Kelston Road site;
(5) That all necessary arrangements be made to dispose of the sites and buildings currently occupied by Temple Primary School and that the estimated proceeds of disposal be used to fund, in part, the construction of the new school; and
(6) To note the very small number of unfilled places likely to be available in the Keynsham area immediately following the implementation of this scheme and acknowledge the potential requirement to provide additional capacity on a temporary basis at another school or schools.
28 THE FUTURE OF PARKSIDE INFANT SCHOOL
Councillor Gerry Curran made a statement in support of keeping Parkside Infant school open and criticising the process which had resulted in the cluster of Parkside, St Swithin's and Swainswick not being considered in conjunction.
Linda Graham, Headteacher of Parkside, made a statement outlining many positive aspects of the school and the improvements to the buildings.
Amie Knight made a statement in support of keeping Parkside Infant school open.
Bruno Elliot made a statement against the closure of Parkside Infant school.
Councillor Andy Furse, Chair of the Education, Culture, Youth & Leisure Overview & Scrutiny Panel which had considered this issue, stated that the Overview & Scrutiny Panel's recommendations were formulated in terms of the cluster of Parkside, St Swithin's and Swainswick schools and should be considered as such. These schools should not be considered in isolation and this would not be perceived as a fair and open process.
Councillor Jonathan Gay thanked all the Speakers and explained that hard decisions sometimes had to be made for the good of all the children in Bath & North East Somerset. The falling birth rate meant that the Authority was funding places for children that did not exist and this situation needed to be addressed. Councillor Gay moved the recommendations.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, in seconding the motion, explained that it was the job of the Council Executive to address the £2 million it was costing across the Authority to keep schools open for surplus places. Objective analytical decisions were needed which might be unpopular.
Councillor Paul Crossley agreed that an objective view was needed but expressed his view that this should be considered with the other schools in the `cluster' (St Swithin's and Swainswick) so moved an amendment as detailed under the resolution below. This was seconded by Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty and subsequently lost.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney noted the comments that had been made but did not feel that the decisions to be made would be changed as a result of deferring this decision today. Surplus places are a serious problem and the Council Executive needed to make difficult decisions when necessary.
Councillor Colin Darracott expressed his unease that this proposal affected one of the few remaining non-denominational schools in the City and the effect this would have on parental choice; he had wanted to take a single `cluster' based decision and for these reasons, felt he had no alternative but to abstain on this item.
Councillor Jonathan Gay, in summing up the debate, clarified that there had been no error in process regarding the progress of this and the other `cluster' school reviews; it was important that this review should move forward and right that Swainswick should be handled differently due to its rural status.
Rationale
Closure of Parkside Infant will ensure a more effective use of financial resources and there is no reason to believe that educational standards cannot be maintained in other schools.
At January 2004 Parkside Infant has approximately 40% unfilled places. This would indicate that sufficient local demand does not exist for places at the school. It should also be noted that one of the performance indicators against which the Council is judged relates to the number of schools which have 25% or more (and at least 30) unfilled places. Furthermore, DfES require LEAs to report annually the rationale for maintaining such schools
Other Options considered
The only option other than taking action is to take no action. This would conflict with one aim of the review process which is to ensure that resources are used effectively.
Maintaining the school pending the development of the Western Riverside has been considered and rejected. The timescale for this development is such that it would mean maintaining very high numbers of surplus places for, in all likelihood, a further five years at least. This is not justifiable.
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To note the responses to consultation; and
(2) To instruct the Education Director to publish the necessary legal notice, in September 2004, for closure of the school on the last day of the academic year 2004/05.
[An amendment by Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor O'Flaherty, to defer consideration of this issue until whatever process for Swainswick is completed so that the three schools in the `cluster' could be considered together was unsuccessful; 3 for, 5 against, 1 abstention]
29 THE FUTURE OF ST SWITHIN'S CE INFANT SCHOOL
Katherine Jarvis (Headteacher of St Swithin's) made a statement in support of St Swithin's School . (A copy of this statement has been placed on the Minute book).
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins asked how many pupils were in the school. Katherine Jarvis replied that there were 21 pupils in the school and 9 in the Reception class this year.
Stephanie Hobbs (Parent Governor at St Swithin's) made a statement in support of St Swithin's School.
Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced this report. He stated that he had previously voted with his heart over the future of this school but this time he would vote on the facts. He acknowledged the distress caused by a school closure but pointed out that his concern was for all the children in the Authority. This school had further declined and was not supported by all the children living in the immediate area. Councillor Gay moved the recommendations.
Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty stated that this was a difficult decision. She was concerned at a speaker referring to St Swithin's school as being `not just council estate children' - she stated that the same level of opportunity should be given to all children in the Authority. She stated that she would vote for the recommendations but expressed her regret to the school.
Councillor Paul Crossley stated that he would prefer to vote on the schools as a cluster, but that this school had had an opportunity and had not improved.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, on seconding the motion, stated that the catchment area for this school was diverse and that it should not matter where pupils came from, as all children should be educated to the same standard.
Councillor Jonathan Gay summed up by saying that he had read all the letters and submissions sent in regarding this school and considered them all.
Rationale for the decision
The costs of maintaining St Swithin's are unjustifiable.
Very small schools often find it difficult to offer the widest possible range of educational experiences for children and development opportunities for staff.
At January 2004, St Swithin's CE Infant has approximately 87% unfilled places. This would indicate that sufficient local demand does not exist for places at the school
Other Options considered
The only option other than taking action is to take no action. This would conflict with one aim of the review process which is to ensure that resources are used effectively.
Taking no action would also fail to address one of the performance indicators against which the Council is judged specifically the number of schools which have 25% or more (and at least 30) unfilled places. OFSTED state that a characteristic of an effective LEA is that there should be no schools in such a position. Furthermore, DfES require LEAs to report annually the rationale for maintaining such schools.
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To note the responses to consultation; and
(2) Instruct the Education Director to publish the necessary legal notice, in September 2004, for closure of the school from the last day of the academic year 2004/05.
30 SWAINSWICK CE VC PRIMARY SCHOOL - THE IMPACT OF CLOSURE ON THE COMMUNITY
The following people had given the appropriate notice of their request to make a statement to the Council Executive:
Louise Cripps (Head teacher of Swainswick School) spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Anna Grayson spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Councillor Tony Cox spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Mark Lechmere spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Lia Wood spoke in support of Swainswick School.
John Miles spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Rachel Leigh-Wood spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Joanna Cacanas spoke in support of Swainswick School.
Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced this report. He stated that the Diocese had indicated that they would oppose the closure before they had seen the consultation results. He stated that he believed that all schools should be treated fairly and all the information should be in place before a decision is made. He moved the recommendations and stated that, while it may prove fruitless to go ahead with the consultation in light of the indication from the Diocese, he felt that it was at the School Organisation Committee that the Diocese should make their views known and not at this early stage.
Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty stated that she could see that there were concerns at every level - parents, teachers and local Councillors. She stated that she was baffled that a worldwide Church was only concerned for the education of some children and expressed that her concern was for the welfare of every child in the Authority.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney stated that, while the views of the Church are important, an indication of their views should not prevent the Council proceeding on this issue. He also stated that there was a need to explore this issue carefully as the school numbers had doubled in the last 3-4 years, along with the issue of transport costs for the Authority if the school were to close. He stated that the School Organisation Committee was the place for the Diocese to give a view.
Councillor Francine Haeberling asked if the consultation would be taking place based on the figures in the report that was before the Executive today, Mike Young, Education Director, stated that this was the case.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, on seconding the motion, stated that a large number of bodies contributed to education and the Church was one of them. He stated that there was no doubt that there was community involvement in this school but that the decision must be made objectively.
Rationale for the decision
Unit costs at this school are higher than at other schools in the area.
Closure of this school would assist in the filling of unfilled places at other schools in the area.
Other Options considered
The option to take no further action was considered but rejected as it would eliminate the possibility of more detailed analysis, wider consultation and further discussions with the Diocese of Bath & Wells.
On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was
RESOLVED
(1) That formal statutory consultation be undertaken in the first term of the 2004/05 academic year for closure.
31 RECESS
The Council Executive broke for lunch and resumed the meeting at 2pm.
32 CSCI INSPECTION OF SOCIAL CARE SERVICES FOR OLDER PEOPLE
David Horne from the Commission for Social Care Inspection presented the Commission's report on Bath & North East Somerset Council's Social Care Services for Older People to the meeting. Members of the Health & Social Services Overview & Scrutiny Panel were also present to hear the presentation and ask questions.
Councillor Francine Haeberling thanked the Commission for their report and presentation. and noted that it was comforting that most of the areas suggested for improvement had already been highlighted internally and were being addressed. Councillor Haeberling welcomed the Commission's conclusions that Bath & North East Somerset `was serving most people well' and that prospects for improvement were `promising'.
Rationale
CSCI's objectives in inspecting Social Services for Older People were to evaluate:
§ Bath & North East Somerset's implementation of national and local objectives relating to older people's social care needs
§ The quality of service outcomes experienced by users and carers.
Inspection findings contribute to the judgments made by CSCI in their annual assessment of social care performance (star) rating.
CSCI social care ratings inform each council's comprehensive performance assessment (CPA) rating, and their improvement planning for the council as a whole.
Other Options considered
There are no other appropriate options for reporting the outcomes of the Inspection.
On a motion from Councillor Francine Haeberling, seconded by Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To note the Commission for Social Care Inspection's (CSCI) report and their assessment of performance within Bath & North East Somerset Older People's Services; and
(2) To endorse the proposed Action Plan to address the recommendations for improvements.
33 BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET LOCAL PLAN INCLUDING MINERALS & WASTE POLICIES REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT 2003 - RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Paul Crossley asked Keith Goodred, Team Leader Planning Policy, to run through the process so far and the next stages including the public inquiry.
Councillor Stephen Willcox presented a petition from 120 households requesting the Council to `Remove the Route' protecting the land in Clutton which is identified for an A37 bypass stating that the protected route prevents important buildings from being extended and proposes a bypass through Clutton which would be inappropriate for the village. (This petition was presented at the start of the meeting under item 7.)
Deborah Porter, Cam Valley Wildlife Group, made a statement regarding various sustainabiltiy issues. (This statement was made at the start of the meeting under item 7 - a copy has been placed on the minute book.)
Gail Doswell, from Local Action for the Community, made a statement regarding various ecological aspects of the Local Plan.
Chris Beezley made a statement regarding land at Claverton Down to facilitate undefined expansion of the University of Bath. [A copy has been placed on the minute book.]
Nick Morgan made a statement against the planned change to the green belt boundary at the University of Bath. [A copy has been placed on the minute book.]
Nigel Whitehead from WPB made a statement regarding the process of ratification of brownfield sites.
Councillor Sarah Bevan made a statement regarding St Gregory's Catholic College and their need to expand. Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins asked whether the college had formally submitted comments into the Local Plan process. This was subsequently confirmed by John Ilott from Crest Nicholson who had been working with the school.
Councillor Rosemary Todd, in introducing this item, explained the stages that had led to this point. She ran through the recommendations and reasons for them. Councillor Todd drew attention to one area where further consideration was being given; that of gypsy sites. She explained that, due to the quashing of Joint Replacement Structure Plan policy 37, specific sites now had to be allocated.
With regard to the comments from the Cam Valley Wildlife Group, Councillor Todd explained that an addendum had now been included to Annex 6 to include their representations. (This had been circulated at the meeting).
With regard to the deletion of routes via Temple Cloud, Councillor Todd explained that the eastern route had now been deleted. A route was still needed but this would be discussed at the public inquiry.
With regard to Mr Beezley's statement, Councillor Todd recognised that this was a point of continued disagreement for which the proper forum for resolution would be the public inquiry. Councillor Todd also referred to the other comments that had been made and reiterated that the public inquiry would be where these issues would be resolved.
With specific regard to the comments from Councillor Bevan regarding St Gregory's school, Councillor Todd explained that the circumstances were not exceptional to change the green belt boundary as this would set a precedent. Councillor Rosemary Todd moved the recommendations.
Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins referred to the statements that had been made about the process and asked whether it was possible for these people to meet with officers to discuss these points. Keith Goodred, Team Leader Planning Policy, gave an indication that he would be happy to do this.
Rationale
The rationale for all decisions set out in section 2 of the report are explained in section 4 of the report.
Other Options considered
In responding to representations made on the Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft the alternative options that were considered were those put forward by objectors. Where the Council does not agree these alternatives they will be tested by the Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry and the Inspector will make recommendations to the Council on these issues.
Before moving to the vote, Councillor Paul Crossley asked Executive Members to confirm that they were satisfied that a proper and adequate process had been carried out to analyse, evaluate and determine how to deal with the issues raised in the report. This confirmation was given.
On a motion from Councillor Rosemary Todd, seconded by Councillor Jonathan Gay, it was
RESOLVED
That the Council Executive recommends to Council (and in doing so confirms that due account has been taken of the representations and responses referred to in the report):
(1) the approval of the process that is being followed in the preparation of the Local Plan as outlined in paras 4.2.1-4.2.13 of the report and the steps for further publicity and consultation as set out in paras 8.1-8.3 of the report;
(2) the approval of the approach taken on non-duly made representations as set out in Annex 2 to the report;
(3) the approval of the responses to duly made representations and proposed pre-Inquiry changes to the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan including minerals & waste policies Revised Deposit Draft 2003 set out in Annexes 4 and 5 of the report;
(4) the approval of other internally generated pre-Inquiry changes to the Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003 set out in Annex 5 of the report;
(5) the approval of the errata to the Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003 set out in Annex 5 of the report;
(6) the approval of the responses to representations omitted at the Local Plan Deposit Draft 2002 stage and consequential pre-Inquiry changes set out in Annex 6 of the report;
(7) the approval of the pre-Inquiry changes including errata referred to under resolutions (3), (4), (5) & (6) for use for Development Control purposes;
(8) that in the light of the quashing of Policy 37 of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan Adopted 2002, Policy HG.16 of the Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003 is reviewed as set out in Annex 7 of the report;
(9) the approval of the responses to the comments made on the Local Plan Deposit Draft 2002 Sustainable Development Appraisal set out in Annex 8 of the report;
(10) the approval of the approach to sustainable development appraisal and strategic environmental assessment of the Revised Deposit Draft 2003 as set out in paras 4.2.32 - 4.2.43 of the report and that the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment is delegated to prepare a statement under Regulation 6 of the Draft Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 explaining why it is not feasible to carry out an environmental assessment under the terms of the European Directive 2001/42/EC;
(11) that the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment is delegated to prepare Statements of Agreement as set out in paras 4.2.44 - 4.2.46 of the report;
(12) that the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment is delegated to agree further amendments to responses to representations and pre-Inquiry changes as set out in paras 4.2.47 - 4.2.48 of the report; and
(13) that the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment, is delegated to agree further changes during the course of the Public Local Inquiry as set out in paras 4.2.47 - 4.2.48 of the report.
34 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REVIEW
Deborah Porter, Somer Valley Friends of the Earth, made a statement regarding the conflict between the economic and ecological aspects of the Capital Programme Review. (This statement was made at the start of the meeting under item 7 - a copy has been placed on the minute book).
Rae Harris asked a question regarding the Norton Radstock Regeneration mentioned in paragraph 4.4 of the report.
Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced this report by explaining that the Council had a sizeable programme with associated financial risks and steps were needed to ensure a good grip on these projects. In response to the question from Rae Harris, Councillor Hanney confirmed that it referred to the Norton Radstock Regeneration Company, but had to take into account wider issues.
Councillor Hanney explained that the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Panel would be considering this on the 8th July and he welcomed their earlier comments. Councillor Hanney moved the recommendations.
Councillor Darracott, in seconding the recommendations, referred to the ambitious programme the Executive had launched last year and hoped that the £300,000 unallocated capital could be kept. Councillor Darracott explained that the potential capital requirement might be more than was currently provided for but paragraph 2.2 of the report gave flexibility and there would be work to be done after the 15th July Council.
Councillor Rosemary Todd welcomed the extra amount for development control.
Rationale
The Review has followed a structured methodology in accordance with its terms of reference. The conclusions arise from evidence regarding current project management arrangements when compared against a "best practice" standard, and from an assessment of the Council's capital resources, commitments and plans, and risks.
Other Options considered
The Review draws interim conclusions from a structured methodology and does not, as such, explicitly consider options. The financial plan review will consider funding and programming options.
On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Colin Darracott, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To note the report and recommendations of the Council's external auditors, Price Waterhouse Coopers (Appendix 2)
(2) To note actions already taken by the Projects Programme Board (para 5.3)
(3) To receive and consider the comments of the Resources O&S Panel (Appendix 3)
(4) To endorse the ongoing work of the Projects Programme Board with measures aimed at improving member/public confidence in the Council's management of major projects and require the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Executive Members (Economic Development & Resources) to put in place the measures set out in Appendix 5 together with additional measures necessary to address the recommendations of the external auditor and the Resources O&S Panel.
(5) To confirm that the Council Executive wishes to retain the £300,000 unallocated capital sum in the 2004/05 approved budget for schemes arising from the Budget Resolution (see para 6.6 j)
(6) To note the assessment of the financial exposure set out at para 6 and note that any capital cost pressures or new proposed schemes highlighted in the next financial plan review will have to be met from existing resources or from additional revenue provision
(7) To note that no additional provision is available to finance current service programmes, and that all future reviews must be contained within the context of their own programmes and priorities
(8) To note that additional revenue funding is required to relieve resource pressures in highways control and to establish a project team in respect of the Council's input to the Southgate development (additional information to be provided) and that a recommendation be made to Council
And to recommend to full Council:
(9) An interim assessment of an adequate level of contingency (including adequate risk assessment) for schemes within the current programme of £10.5M
(10) The contribution to the EPH project from the Council's housing budget should be fixed at £2.84M, with the remaining shortfall of £1.9M to be funded by the Council as additional unsupported borrowing, with the additional revenue financing costs to be borne by Social Services from within its financial planning targets
(11) The £250,000 of additional programme management costs approved by Council in March should be funded in 2004/05 by virement from uncommitted funds (see below) and in future years should be treated as an oncost on each major project and their overall funding needs then addressed within the financial plan review
(12) To note the accumulation of major projects, including those undertaken directly by the private sector but which are likely to affect the Council's area significantly over the next few years, all point to a shortfall in key skills and resources, and to
(a) grant authority for the Executive Member (Sustainability & the Environment) to approve the engagement of additional urgent development control resources on a time-limited basis of up to £250,000, to be met from revenue balances.
(b) (see resolution (8) above) To consider a recommendation to seek additional revenue funding to relieve resource pressures in highways control and to establish a project team in respect of the Council's input to the Southgate development (additional information to be provided)
(13) To approve the proposal in para 6.6 (g) to increase, over time, the risk contingency funding via cash, short-term borrowing and liquid assets, towards the recommended level, and to earmark specific capital receipts for this purpose
(14) To approve that specific long leasehold properties with short timescales to lease renewal should be additionally earmarked as further financial protection against emergency or other unplanned events
(15) To note that any capital cost pressures or new proposed schemes highlighted in the next financial plan review will have to be met from existing resources or from additional revenue provision
(16) To note that options for scheme deferral or cancellation are not recommended at this stage, but that no further pressure should be added to the programme at this time, and this should be kept under review.
(17) To note that the Council Executive wishes to retain the £300,000 unallocated capital sum in the 2004/05 approved budget (see resolution (5) above)
(18) Endorse the general conclusions in para 6.7 for inclusion in the action plan as appropriate
(19) Approve the action plan for measures to improve member/public confidence in the Council's management of major projects and to improve the integration of risk assessment within the Council's financial planning processes set out at Appendix 5.
35 REVENUE AND CAPITAL OUTTURN 2003/04
Councillor Malcolm Hanney explained that this was a good result for the revenue budget and was consistent with the views of the Director's Group. Councillor Hanney made specific mention of the carry forward proposals regarding the overspend on the public conveniences budget. There had been no alternative but to write this off. Councillor Hanney stated that where an Overview & Scrutiny Panel requested changes, they needed to recommend an alternative budget solution. Councillor Hanney moved the recommendations.
Rationale
The recommendations made in section 2 of the report are based upon the budget management scheme and a consideration of the Council's latest financial position.
Other Options considered
Appendix 3 of the report lists all options that can be considered in making a decision on carry forwards and write offs in 2003/04 budgets. The options for the capital programme for 2004/05 and balances are being considered in a separate report elsewhere on the agenda.
On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To note the provisional revenue Outturn for 2003/04 in Appendix 1at £273,000 under spent, rather than the previously reported and expected overspend of £193,000 in January and £67,000 in February 2004;
(2) To agree the carry forward proposals in the tables in Appendix 3 of the report as exceptions to the budget management scheme. In particular, as part of that to consider the request to write off the over spend in the Public Conveniences budget.
(3) To agree the virements in Appendix 4 of the report and the subsequent effects upon cash limits (included as Appendix 5 of the report);
(4) To agree that any resulting surplus arising from decisions made should be set aside and carried forward into the 2004/05 revenue risk contingency budget for potential additional unavoidable costs in 2004/05. Notes the final position of the 2003/2004 capital programme (Appendix 6 of the report);
(5) To approve the adjustments to and incorporation of additional funding to the 2003/2004 programme as detailed in paragraph 4.12 of the report;
(6) To note the final position of available capital resources.
36 BATH RECREATION GROUND TRUST
Councillor Malcolm Hanney confirmed, in response to a query from Councillor Jonathan Gay, that the proposed numbers and proportionality of the Trust Board would be reviewed should the Membership of the Executive change.
Rationale
To delegate day-to-day management decisions to a Committee of the Executive acting as trust board to make more efficient use of the full Executive's time resource, and to improve the speed of decision making for the Trust
Other Options considered
Leaving matters in the hands of the full Executive.
Delegating some matters to an officer in consultation with certain members.
On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was
RESOLVED
(1) To establish a Committee of the Council Executive comprising 3 Members of the Executive (1:1:1) to be known as a Trust Board, to deal with ongoing management issues on behalf of the Trustees.
37 RESOURCES FOUR MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
The meeting ended at 4.00pm
Chair(person)
Date Confirmed and Signed
\\Cyclops\shared$\Democratic Services\WordDocs\Council Exec\Min\040705.doc
Prepared by Democratic Services