Meeting documents

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

156 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

157 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

159 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 7 questions from the following people; Councillor Nigel Roberts (x2), Rae Harris, one joint question from Councillors Shirley Steel, Colin Barrett, Martin Veal, Bryan Chalker and Marie Brewer, Councillor Sharon Ball (x2) and Councillor Caroline Roberts.

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

160 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Councillor Gitte Dawson made a statement regarding the cut in funding to the Citizen's Advice Bureau and answered questions from Executive Councillors regarding her statement.

161 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 1ST MARCH 2006

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 1st March 2006 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person).

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

There were no such items on this occasion.

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

There were no such items on this occasion.

164 CARDBOARD AND GARDEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE CHARGES FROM APRIL 2006 (Report 11).

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad-hoc statement in support of the need for charges.

Councillor Gerry Curran introduced this report and explained the reasons behind the need to charge in order to continue to provide this popular service, while highlighting the increase in subsidy to the tune of £200,000.

In response to points raised during the debate, Councillor Curran clarified various points including household versus business waste, realistic forecasts for future tonnage, involvement of the Environment Agency.

Garden waste is defined by legislation as household waste for which a charge for collection may be levied by local authorities. The collection of household cardboard cannot be charged for by the local authority.

This authority has always had a policy of charging for the collection of garden waste - initially through the sale of green plastic bags at a charge of £1.25 each (1996). The waste was disposed of to landfill before composting facilities became available.

The charge levied for the service must increase to the stated levels to enable the service to be operated within existing waste services budget allocation.

Authorities which have introduced free of charge collections for garden waste have invariably seen a significant increase in their total waste arisings as they divert waste away from home composting, and collect waste which was never previously present in the household waste stream. Collecting and processing this additional waste inevitably leads to increased costs. Home composting is to be encouraged as it offers the most economic and sustainable method of disposal.

The policy of charging for garden waste collections is common throughout the country and has the effect of continuing to encourage home composting where practical. Examples of charges levied in other authority areas are shown in Appendix C of the report.

(1) To increase the annual subsidy (i.e. budget) for this service from £355K to £548K;

(2) To implement a service charge in 2006/07 of £20.00 per annum plus a delivery charge of £2.50 per bin for new wheeled bin customers. These charges to be subject to review in subsequent financial years;

(3) To implement from June 2006 a charge of 75 pence per paper sack; and

(4) To promote and publicise the Council's new home composting scheme in partnership with WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme) selling home composting bins delivered to the door from £4 each.

165 CASH LIMITS & VIREMENTS 2006/07 (Report 12).

(1) To approve the virements listed in Appendix 1 of the report and note the changes in the capital programme listed in Appendix 3 of the report.

166 COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT - USE OF RESOURCES (Report 13).

Councillor Hanney introduced this report and explained that there was work to be done on internal self-assessment to enable better information for the Auditors to meet their key lines of enquiry. He also highlighted that changes were expected to the key lines of enquiry, which made any prediction regarding future years difficult.

Councillor Paul Crossley, in seconding the report, mentioned how the new CPA regime was significantly harder than previously; the Council would need to look more carefully at how to respond in order to achieve the `3' of which it was capable.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty queried why, against the targets that were not achieved, there was no indication of an expected date for completion. Councillor Malcolm Hanney acknowledged this omission and agreed with the principle that, for any monitoring reports, clarity was needed regarding realistic future dates for meeting a target: if the target could not be met due to limited resources, a clear statement to this effect should be given.

(1) To approve the proposed actions and review progress again in six months time; and

(2) To note the Audit Commission's proposals to make further changes to the `Use of Resources' Key Lines of Enquiry in 2006 and that this makes predicting future years' scores difficult.

167 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER - JANUARY (Report 14).

Rae Harris made a statement regarding the lack of reference to the public realm within the Performance report and outlined some of its key strategic aspects, including being critical to the Future for Bath initiative and being one of the Council's Corporate Improvement Priorities.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced the report and acknowledged the important point made by Rae Harris. He mentioned that the Council was considering the Legible Cities review and undertook to specifically address how public realm issues could be incorporated within the Performance report. Councillor Crossley explained that the Council's performance was coming in line with the its strategic objectives and priorities which was crucial leading in to the CPA inspection in 2008.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, in seconding the motion, hoped that private money could be attracted to assist in driving forward the Council's vision.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney acknowledged the concerns that had arisen during the Corporate Plan review regarding the Council's ability to invest sufficient resources into the public realm. Where the Council was unable to invest in the short-term, innovative measures were needed.

Councillor Colin Darracott agreed that the local indicators within his portfolio were not an accurate measure of current performance. He raised various useful indicators within Economic Development and Property Services which were not yet incorporated into the balanced score card. Councillor Darracott offered to pull together some indicators that related to the public realm.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty welcomed this helpful system and raised a specific issue from her portfolio regarding the impact across the local economy of a drop in hotel room occupancy.

Councillor Gerry Curran referred to his responsibilities for the daily maintenance of the public realm and accepted there was always room for improvement.

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 was the preferred public report as it explains progress against complex targets in a simple fashion.

168 BATH WESTERN RIVERSIDE DEVELOPER STATUS & COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER - FUTURE FOR BATH COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (Report 15).

Councillor Colin Darracott introduced this report.

Rationale

With regard to BWR CPO, this decision would rationalise the Council's earlier decision with changes to powers set out in the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.

In terms of delivering other developments pursuant to the Vision for Bath and other emerging plans, early consultation and masterplanning work that has taken forward the spatial framework element of the vision has demonstrated the importance of land assembly to deliver key objectives. The Council's Executive's explicit willingness to ask Council to use CPO powers will assist the land assembly processes.

The rationale for entering the Development Agreement with Crest Nicholson is set out below;

Since July 2005 the Council, Crest Nicholson and SWRDA have been negotiating and working to bring forward a more detail masterplan for BWR (West), sharing the costs equally. Work has reached the stage where the Council is willing to enter into a development agreement with Crest Nicholson as sole preferred development partner for certain sites within the western part of the original BWR Special Planning Guidance area. This agreement would help to ensure delivery of a comprehensible development overall.

Negotiations over Heads of Terms have been proceeding and are programmed to be complete by May 2006. Negotiation of the Development Agreement would be subject to agreement of those terms.

Other Options Considered

No other options are considered relevant at this stage. Others will emerge as work proceeds.

(1) To accept Crest Nicholson as preferred development partner for Bath Western Riverside (BWR) West, subject to agreement of Heads of Terms for a Development Agreement;

(2) To confirms the Council Executive's willingness to ask Council to use its statutory powers of compulsory acquisition in relation to Bath Western Riverside (West) should other means of land assembly prove unsuccessful, or unresolved title issues remain in the context of the revised criteria which were introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Use of these powers would be subject to a) the developer entering into an appropriate indemnity agreement for the costs of promoting and implementing compulsory purchase powers; and b) adoption by Council of a Special Planning Document for BWR;

(3) To delegate authority to the Director of Development and Major Projects and the Executive Member for Economic Development to obtain all necessary further information and to resolve any outstanding actions and due diligence necessary formally to introduce Crest Nicholson as preferred development partner; and

(4) To express willingness to ask Council to use its statutory powers of compulsory acquisition at the appropriate time (ie; as and when schemes are developed) should other means of land assembly prove unsuccessful or unresolved title issues remain in developing key sites throughout the local authority area in order to facilitate implementation of the Vision for Bath and other emerging development plans.