Meeting documents

57 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair was taken by Councillor Francine Haeberling, Leader of the Council.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

58 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

59 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were none.

Apologies had been received from Councillor David Hawkins.

60 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

There were none.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest relating to Agenda Items 15 and 16, as Chair of the Primary Care Trust.

Councillor Terry Gazzard declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest relating to Question 11, as a season ticket holder for Bath Rugby.

Councillor Charles Gerrish declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest relating to a statement made by Councillor Tim Ball about nursery education in Twerton, because he had himself in the past been a client of The Hub.

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

There was none.

62 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 17 questions from the following people: Councillor Caroline Roberts; Councillor Shirley Steel; Councillor Ian Gilchrist (2); Councillor Cherry Beath; Councillor Nigel Roberts (2); Councillor Will Sandry; Councillor Nathan Hartley; Councillor Sharon Ball (4); Councillor Paul Crossley; Councillor Tim Ball; Councillor Dr Eleanor Jackson; Gail Coleshill.

[Copies of the questions and responses, including supplementary questions and responses if any, have been placed on the Minute book as Appendix 1 and are available on the Council's website.]

63 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

Leila Wishart made a statement about "Bath As It Might Have Been" appealing to the Cabinet to consider the points made on the "public comments" board at the "Bath As It Might Have Been" exhibition. She offered copies of her report collating the public comments to Councillors Francine Haeberling, Charles Gerrish and Terry Gazzard for their consideration and offered copies to any other Cabinet members who were interested.

The Chair said that she would consider Leila Wishart's statement.

Councillor Tim Ball made a statement about nursery provision in Twerton [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2] in which he expressed concern at the withdrawal of funding from one nursery which was then given it to another nursery.

Councillor Charles Gerrish expressed a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the issue because he had in the past been a client of The Hub.

The Chair referred the statement to Councillor Chris Watt for his consideration.

64 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 15^th November 2008

On a motion from Councillor Francine Haeberling, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 15th November 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair

65 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were none.

66 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES

There were none.

67 SINGLE MEMBER CABINET DECISIONS PUBLISHED SINCE PREVIOUS CABINET MEETING

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

68 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME REVIEW (Report 12).

Jane Brown, a Trustee of Bath Preservation Trust, made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3] in which she appeal to the Cabinet to remove the Urban Extension Supplementary Planning Documents from the Local Development Scheme; to include a Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Document; and to ensure that officers would engage with the Bath Preservation Trust over the substance of the Regeneration Delivery Plan for Bath.

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement in which he expressed disappointment that it was being proposed to remove the Locally Important Buildings Supplementary Planning Document from the Local Development Scheme; he also felt that it was premature to add the Urban Extension Supplementary Planning Documents to the Local Development Scheme. But overall he welcomed the report.

Councillor Charles Gerrish, in proposing the item, said that he noted the comments made. He emphasised that the proposed Local Development Scheme would not commit the Cabinet to any particular policy - it was merely an indicative timetable which was required by government and must show when each issue would be considered. It was anticipated that the government would publish its response to the Regional Spatial Strategy in time for that to be brought to a Full Council meeting potentially in June, but if government proved tardy in publication of the guidance, the Council meeting would inevitably be delayed as would the Local Development Scheme timetable itself. He would consider the points made about the Locally Important Buildings Supplementary Planning Document. He agreed that cross-party engagement was essential and emphasised that the long-term policy would be for the whole Council to agree.

Councillor Vic Pritchard seconded the proposal. He observed that the Local Development Scheme was still a working document and would not be finalised until later.

Councillor Francine Haeberling said that the timetable was dependent on government meeting its own deadlines and if there was delay the Council meeting might need to be delayed until July.

Rationale

A review of the current Local Development Scheme is necessary to ensure the council has an up-to-date planning framework to guide the development and take account of climate change.

Other Options Considered

None - preparation and review of the Local Development Scheme is a mandatory responsibility.

On a motion from Councillor Charles Gerrish, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To agree the revised Local Development Scheme, subject to necessary budgetary provision being made by Council in February 2009, for submission to the Government Office for the South West;

(2) To delegate authority to the Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Customer Services, to make minor consequential and editorial amendments to the Local Development Scheme and to agree the date for which the Local Development Scheme comes into effect; and

(3) To agree that a Member Local Development Framework Steering Board be established.

69 REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING, CASH LIMITS & VIREMENTS - APR 2008 TO NOV 2008 (Report 13).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, reminded the Cabinet that all Strategic Directors were seeking to manage their services within the available budget. He assured the meeting that the Council continued to be supportive of the Transportation budget and the Bath Western Riverside but said that commitment was needed from all parties in order to succeed. He was conscious that the government's assumptions of 3.3% growth were unrealistic and some of the Council's budget areas would therefore be adversely affected by the economic downturn

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The report is presented as part of the reporting of financial management and budgetary control required by the Council.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That Strategic Directors should continue to work towards managing within budget in the current year for their respective service areas, and to manage below budget where possible by not committing unnecessary expenditure, through tight budgetary control;

(2) To note this year's revenue budget position as shown in the report;

(3) To note the capital expenditure position for the Council in the financial year to the end of November and the year end projections detailed in the report;

(4) To agree the revenue virements listed for approval in the report;

(5) To note the changes in the capital programme listed in the report.

70 REPLACEMENT COUNCIL OFFICES OPTIONS ANALYSIS (Report 14).

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement in which he said that there had been a number of years of cross-party collaboration on the transformation agenda. He agreed that working practices must be modernised but was eager to ensure that all options must retain a presence in all 3 major centres (Bath, Keynsham and Midsomer Norton). He had hoped that the renovation of existing buildings might have been considered as a viable option and asked the Cabinet not to commit to any one approach too soon. He emphasised that whatever approach was adopted, the Keynsham Town Centre regeneration must be addressed. He asked the Cabinet not to consider options 1, 3 or 4 from the report. If option 2 were selected, then he asked the Cabinet to say that there would be a full evaluation of the sustainability issues in advance.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, emphasised that office accommodation was only one part of the transformation programme - the delivery of services was an essential part of the programme. The proposals before the Cabinet reflected the fact that leases on some of the buildings would come up for renewal in the next couple of years, so this was an opportune time to address the issue of office accommodation. He said that the option to move to a single office was not financially viable - nor in his view was the proposal to refurbish existing buildings, because the buildings themselves were not energy efficient and they would be very difficult and expensive to refurbish. Furthermore, refurbishment would not address the need for sustainable regeneration of Keynsham Town Centre. He agreed with Councillor Crossley that all assumptions would be double-checked before committing the Council to any course of action.

Councillor Hanney pointed out that the proposals had been reworded, and that a clause had been added which asked the Corporate Performance & Resources Overview & Scrutiny Panel to play a role in scrutinising the proposals within the next 9 months.

Councillor Chris Watt seconded the proposal. He was delighted that the proposal would enable the Cabinet to deliver on at least two of its manifesto commitments: the transfer of 200 jobs to The Hollies (Midsomer Norton); and the provision of attractive retail facilities in Keynsham Town Centre.

Councillor Charles Gerrish added that the proposal would also contribute to the Council's aim of reducing carbon emissions. He reminded the Cabinet that many of the buildings in existing use are highly energy inefficient; the proposals would therefore be more sustainable; and would reduce travelling time by officers and members. He was delighted that the Cabinet would be giving a clear indication of its commitment to Keynsham and its Town Centre.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney in summing up added that an additional benefit of adopting Option 2 would be that it would support the developing partnership between the Council and the PCT.

Rationale

Having regard to the options and financial analysis work, the selected option demonstrates that it is the most affordable and deliverable option that will meet the Council's Vision.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Chris Watt, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To pursue Option 2 of the report (Keynsham Town Centre New Build plus retention of Lewis House) as the Council's Preferred Option;

(2) To note that this option includes:

(3) To instruct the Chief Property Officer to report back to Cabinet within 9 months with a detailed viability appraisal of the chosen option having completed a market assessment and market test;

(4) That the office rationalisation project be referred to Corporate Performance & Resources Overview & Scrutiny Panel for review over the next nine months to enable scrutiny of the proposals as they are worked up in detail, in particular:

71 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT - CHILDREN'S SERVICES (Report 15).

Councillor Andy Furse made an ad hoc statement in which he referred to the Ofsted letter, which had already been discussed at the Children and Young People Overview & Scrutiny Panel. He asked the Cabinet to give consideration to the following points:

Councillor Chris Watt acknowledged the contribution made by Councillor Furse and the Children and Young People Panel. He said that the comments about areas for improvement were very timely, because a report would soon be presented to the Panel exploring ways of better engaging the Panel in scrutiny of Children's Services. He hoped to see the service held to account for its record of delivery. He felt that the service should be judged on what it delivered for those who were most vulnerable - ie, those in care. The Council's fostering service was acknowledged to be outstanding. He was also delighted to announce that the authority's GCSE results had improved dramatically so that whereas in 2007 50% of children gained A*-C grades, in 2008 that had risen to over 57% and the authority was now the best in the south west. This improvement had been after the inclusion of maths and English - two subjects which most challenged pupils. He wished to answer those who in recent months had expressed concern about the Council's youth provision. He pointed out that the report referred 3 times to the youth service as "good". He congratulated all staff and students who had achieved this, and made specific mention of Gail Quinton, the outgoing Divisional Director (Learning and Inclusion Service), for her major contribution to this impressive improvement. He wished Gail well in her future career at Worcestershire.

[There were indications of support from the Cabinet and public gallery]

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney highlighted one area of concern, expressed on page 3 of the Ofsted report, which said that there were "delays in provision of wheelchairs to children and young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities." He said that the Council must not tolerate this situation but must prioritise resources to address it urgently. He also felt that it was right that the Overview & Scrutiny Panel should be fully involved in delivering the "Staying Safe" agenda.

Rationale

It is a statutory duty to provide a Joint Area Review Action Plan. Given the Annual Performance Assessment was a `desktop' review following so quickly after the Joint Area Review and drawing heavily on evidence from the Joint Area Review the most appropriate method of tracking progress in terms of identified areas from Children's Service is the Joint Area Review Action Plan.

Other Options Considered

Providing a separate Action Plan was considered but rejected for the reasons given in the Rationale.

On a motion from Councillor Chris Watt, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To note the Annual Performance Assessment;

(2) To note that it recognises that Bath and North East Somerset Council consistently delivers good services for Children and Young People across all five of the Change for Children outcomes and has good capacity to improve;

(3) To adopt the Joint Area Review Action Plan as the main mechanism for addressing the weaknesses and areas for development identified in the Annual Performance Assessment.

72 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT - ADULT SOCIAL SERVICES (Report 16).

Councillor Paul Crossley made an ad hoc statement in which he asked the Cabinet, as the PCT/Council partnership developed, to be alert to the challenges of the safeguarding agenda. He felt that the Cabinet could make better use of the two Champions - one Conservative and one Labour - and that they should be fully involved in policy and delivery decisions. He welcomed the fact that a "good number of people" with learning difficulties were "employed or in employment related schemes and training" and reminded the meeting that people with learning difficulties can perform many rewarding and fulfilling jobs (eg, in the health service) as well as some of the more obvious roles. He was particularly concerned that the Council should address the Equalities agenda, given the award of only 2 stars (out of a possible 4) in the Corporate Performance Assessment. Overall, he welcomed the report and felt that it was a basis for opportunities to move forward with consensus.

Councillor Vic Pritchard, in proposing the item, said that Adult Social Services warranted the 2 stars (out of a possible 3) which it had earned. He congratulated all the staff for this achievement. He agreed that the safeguarding agenda was extremely important and confirmed that it was being taken seriously.

Councillor Francine Haeberling, in seconding the proposal, also congratulated the Adult Social Service staff for their contribution to gaining such a good rating.

Rationale

To fail to provide and implement an improvement plan would risk a lowering of the external assessment for 08/09.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Vic Pritchard, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To note the Annual Performance Assessment and improvement in the overall star rating for Adult Social Services;

(2) To agree the Council's Improvement Plan.