Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 2nd November, 2005
1. Question from Ian Thorn
What will be the cost to the Bath economy if Cllr Chalker's campaign to save Churchill House succeeds in stopping the Southgate development?
Answer from Executive Councillor Malcolm Hanney
This question is not materially different from that asked of Cllr Darracott at the Council Exec meeting on 6th September 2005 and, in order to remind the questioner, the answer then given was :
"This is impossible to quantify, but there is no doubt that it would be very significant and have a serious impact on delivering the long-held aspirations of the Council to re-vitalise the Southgate area of Bath and provide the much needed transport interchange. The Council has already invested staff resources over many years, and Morley has shown its commitment to the scheme by investing many millions of pounds. In the unlikely event of the campaign succeeding, it would cause considerable delay and, more importantly, could render the entire regeneration unviable. If the project did not proceed, incalculable economic damage will arise from the failure of the Council to secure this much needed redevelopment, and would frustrate other development opportunities".
I would also point out that Cllr. Chalker is acting in a personal capacity in connection with his involvement with Churchill House and not as a Councillor or in a party-political role.
2. Question from Ian Thorn
What has Banes spent so far on the Southgate development?
Answer from Executive Councillor Malcolm Hanney
Please note that this scheme is led by CGNU/Morley Fund Management, and it has been the Council's intention throughout that the principal risks and financial exposures should rest with them. Accordingly, the considerable costs in progressing the development scheme and in negotiating legal agreements to protect the Council's position have been borne by CGNU via an indemnity agreement.
Similarly, the very substantial costs of developing, making, defending and publicising the Compulsory Purchase Order (needed to underpin the development scheme and the Council's aspirations for the area) have also been borne by CGNU.
As a result of this quite deliberate strategy regarding costs and risk, the Council's financial commitment to date approaches £152,000, made up very largely of in-house staff time to project-manage and administer the Council's interests.
This figure does not take account of the costs to the Council of its regulatory role (ie in responding to scheme proposals) principally as regards Planning and Highways aspects, which costs it would have to bear irrespective of the property interests in the site
It should be borne in mind that the value of the scheme is of the order of £200,000,000
3. Question from Cllr Colin Barrett
I refer to the following motion unanimously passed by Council members in March 2005:
MOTION ON ENCOURAGING OLDER PEOPLE
TO RECYCLE (Report 15).
On a motion from Councillor Colin Barrett seconded by Councillor
David Hawkins it was RESOLVED that:
This Council notes:
(a) The improvement priority of reducing landfill from 58,000 tonnes per annum to 52,000 per annum between 2003-2007. A reduction in the volume of waste going to landfill will result in a significant reduction in the amount of landfill tax this Council has to pay.
(b) The costs of recycling equipment can be discouraging for all households regardless of income.
This Council REQUESTS:
(c) The Executive Councillor for Sustainability and the Environment to:
(i) Consider providing recycling equipment, like the garden waste and cardboard recycling bin, at a 50 per cent discounted rate for all-pensioner households to encourage increased recycling participation across the area as part of any future review of waste management strategy.
(ii) Consider providing the garden waste and cardboard recycling bin and collection service to all households for a one-off payment.
The success of this pilot scheme has been demonstrated by the numbers who signed up to the scheme and the above should ensure continued and increased recycling participation by all households within Bath and North East Somerset. The budget implications of this motion should be considered as part of the future review of waste management strategy.
(Note: An amendment from Councillor Dine Romero was accepted by the mover and seconder of the motion the effect of which was to - remove the reference to older people from the title; refer in paragraph (b) to the impact of costs on all households and not only those on fixed incomes; and to add paragraph (c) (ii).
What has the Executive Member done to date to meet the requirements set out by this motion?
Answer from Executive Councillor Gerry Curran
As a point of clarification in section (a) of the motion, the reduction in waste to landfill at the quantities quoted in the Corporate Plan will NOT lead to a reduced cost in landfill tax. Landfill tax is increasing by £3 per tonne per annum - therefore landfilling 58,000 tonnes at the current tax of £18 per tonne = £1.044M in landfill tax. Landfilling 52000 tonnes at next years tax level of £21 per tonne = £1.092M. On top of that, landfill gate fees are also increasing due to new legislative requirements. The overall cost of waste disposal will continue to rise significantly.
The Executive Councillor is considering an officer report on charging options for the green waste & cardboard scheme and projected future costs of running the scheme. Any changes to the existing arrangements will need to be considered as part of the Service Planning & budgetary process. The report recommends that the issue of differential charging for low income households be reviewed corporately to ensure a consistent approach is taken throughout the Council.
4. Question from Cllr Colin Barrett
a. Could I please have the downtime for the Johnson sweepers over the past three months?
b. Could I have the repair costs for the current financial year to date?
Answer from Executive Councillor Gerry Curran
There are 6 mechanical sweepers in the fleet of various sizes. The total hours in downtime, including normal servicing for these machines over the last three months is 408 hours, which is approximately 12% downtime.
The total costs for all of the machines YTD are £63,635.
For information, 4 of these machines are due for replacement in the next financial year, officers are currently evaluating a number of different machines and looking at the operational life to be placed upon these machines in the future.
5. Question from Cllr Brian Barrett
Concessionary Local Bus Travel for Older and Disabled People in England
In light of the statutory obligation to introduce free bus travel for people aged 60 and over and people with disabilities, from April 2006 will you continue to allow concessionary travel from 9.00am as is the current practice?
Will you allow free travel for blind people at all times as is currently practiced by Bristol City Council?
Can you confirm that you are committed to the maintenance of a joint scheme with adjacent travel concessionary authorities?
Will you continue to operate the travel token scheme which allows for taxi travel?
If not, what are the Executive's intentions respecting the above and what are the estimated alternative costs of having the enhancements to the statutory scheme and not having them?
Answer from Executive Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE
We are committed to continuing the joint concessionary travel scheme with our neighbouring unitary authorities. The Council is still working on the financial details with the other authorities because the Department for Transport have only recently issued detailed guidance. We are also looking at the issues of free travel for the blind and travel tokens. This is a complex exercise which is why we do not have more detail at the moment. We want to ensure that we come up with the most beneficial scheme possible. A report will come to the Executive on the 7th December dealing with all of these issues.
Supplementary question from Councillor Brian Barrett
Will the cross-boundary scheme include West Wiltshire and parts of Radstock adjacent to Midsomer Norton? If not, would you consider raising the extension to include these areas?
Answer from Executive Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE
Yes, I will certainly raise the issue.
6. Question from George Bailey
If it is true that NRR are now asking for Council-owned land to be included in their remit with the attendant growth in housing, is the Executive aware that their most recent proposal appears to remove any possibility of rail transport (heritage and commuter) being operated at any time in the future?
Answer from Executive Councillor Colin Darracott
The land owned by NRR potentially provides an opportunity for a new 'civic building' to improve provision of services to the community. This in turn raises the possibility of existing land and buildings being released. It is in the interests of achieving the long-term regeneration of Radstock to consider all these opportunities in an integrated manner. The Council's Local Plan requires provision of a sustainable transport corridor and this will be a material consideration in relation to any future planning application for development of the land owned by NRR.
7. Question from Lynn Royse
It is the opinion of many of the residents of Radstock that the principal means to regenerate the heart of Radstock is through its tourism potential. Radstock is one of the best preserved examples of a coal mining town in England. Radstock's railway heritage is an important and integral part of that mining heritage.
I would like to ask how the character of the Conservation Area is to be protected. A residential development of the size proposed would undoubtedly encroach on the hillside at Foxhills to the detriment of the special character which is its natural linear form (paragraph 4.9.3 of the Conservation Area Assessment). The views into the character area, which are so important to an understanding of Radstock's heritage, will be obliterated by a housing development. Tourists will visit the museum to find that Radstock's heritage has in fact been destroyed. The extant rails and rare example of an early engine shed will no longer be visible in their original environment.
Answer from Executive Councillors Colin Darracott and/or Gerry Curran
The land owned by NRR is allocated in the draft Local Plan for a mixed use development. However, the Council does not currently have before it a planning application for consideration in relation to this land. It is therefore premature to comment on possible development proposals. The impact of any development proposals upon the character of the Conservation area will be a material consideration in determining any planning application for development of this land.
8. Question from Lynn Royse
I am sure that you share the opinion of many of the residents of Radstock that the principal means to regenerate the heart of Radstock is through its tourism potential. Radstock is one of the best preserved examples of a coal mining town in England. Radstock's railway heritage is an important and integral part of that mining heritage.
The views into the character area of the valley, which are so important to an understanding of Radstock's heritage, will be obliterated by a housing development of the size proposed. Tourists will visit the museum to find that Radstock's heritage has in fact been destroyed.
The extant rails and rare example of an early engine shed will no longer be visible in their original environment.
After visiting the Radstock Museum, the tourist should be able to examine the original site of the railway station possibly reconstructed, ride on a steam train or make a walking tour of the site and the Engine Shed. Lottery money could be obtained to help fund the reconstruction of these heritage tourist sites.
My question is - how is the Bath and North East Somerset Council Executive going to protect this precious and historic area from a development which will undoubtedly destroy much of its tourist potential?
Answer from Executive Councillors Colin Darracott and/or Gerry Curran
The land owned by NRR is allocated in the draft local plan for a mixed use development. The site is within a Conservation Area. However, the Council does not currently have before it a planning application for consideration in relation to this land. It is therefore premature to comment on possible development proposals. The urban design quality and its impact upon the historic character of the Conservation Area will be a material consideration in determining any future planning application for development of this land.
9. Question from Lynne Royse
In view of the risk of flooding in Midsomer Norton, due to global warming, highlighted in the recent study published by the South West Climate Change Impacts Partnership, I would like to ask whether the Council Executive have considered adequately the environmental impact of the housing development proposed?
Water run-off from the hard surfaces created by the proposed development on the Radstock Railway Land will enter streams and add to flooding risks in other areas e.g. Wellow and Midsomer Norton.
Parts of the Radstock Rail Land itself are designated a flood plain by the Environment Agency.
Answer from Executive Councillors Colin Darracott and/or Gerry Curran
Flood risk and hydrological factors will be material considerations in relation to determination of any future planning application for the former railway land. It would not be appropriate for the Executive to comment on matters that are properly dealt with by the Development Control Committee once a planning application is submitted.
10. Question from AndrE9 Fournier
Cam Valley Wildlife Group asks the Executive member whether the NRR/Bellway proposal to incorporate council owned land into their development proposals is made with the intention to:
make the proposals commercially viable, or,
to free up land on the old railway land in order to save the bulk of the land for wildlife in accordance with the views of English Nature (2003) and the B&NES Environmental Practice Team (1999) ?
Answer from Executive Councillor Colin Darracott
The proposal is to explore opportunities that might be afforded through creation of a new 'civic building' on the NRR land and consequent release of Council owned land, in terms of maximising regeneration of the town centre.
11. Question from Stephen Porter
Is the Executive member aware that NRR requested in 2002 that the council owned land, Radstock Youth Centre, Library and school sites, some of which is now put before the Executive, be zoned for residential development in the local Plan whilst leading the people of Radstock to believe that it was only interested in the railway land site itself; and does the Executive member know that NNR also requested at that time that the adjacent sites Rymans Engineering, Gassex and Charltons World of Wood be zoned for mixed use development; and does the Executive think it likely that this move to incorporate council owned land in their plans could be the tip of the iceberg that will eventually severely adversely affect this historic town?
Answer from Executive Councillors Colin Darracott and/or Gerry Curran
I am aware that NRR made comments in relation to the wider planning of the town centre through the Local Plan process and that these comments were publicly available and were considered by the Council in public session. My view is that it is in the interests of Radstock to explore the regeneration opportunities that might be afforded through provision of a new 'civic building' on the NRR land and resultant release of land owned by the Council.
.
12. Question from Dr. Eleanor Jackson
a) How will the proposed plans impact on the Victoria Hall and its proposed development?
b) How will the proposed plans impact on the former Infants School at St Nicholas' Church and its planned development?
Answer from Executive Councillor Colin Daracott
I am not aware of any specific proposals coming forward to date for either Victoria Hall or the former Infants School. The concept of the proposed 'civic building' is to improve provision of services to the community. This should complement any future uses for Victoria Hall and the former Infants School. When proposals are developed for these sites it will be necessary for them to consider and demonstrate how they can help ensure a sustainable town centre taking account of other facilities, existing and proposed.