Meeting documents

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and announced that he intended to take Agenda Items 17 and 16 early in the meeting because of the large number of registered speakers.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Councillor Bryan Chalker made a statement relating to the Tin Church, Bailbrook Lane. The Chair referred Councillor Chalker's statement to the Executive member for Sustainability and the Environment.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Councillor Chris Watt made a statement relating to Agenda Item 14 in which he asked the Executive to consider prioritising the replacement of The Hollies, Midsomer Norton, in order to provide new jobs in the town and to counteract the recent bad economic news in the area.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Councillor Chris Watt made a statement relating to Agenda Item 15 in which he asked the Executive to appreciate the difficult timing issues of choosing one school for rebuilding before the results of the Schools Review had completed. He also emphasised that the authority had an arrangement with Somerset that some of their children will attend Writhlington School. Should the school be rebuilt, it is likely to attract a greater number of Somerset children and this would need to be reflected in anticipated school rolls.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Councillor Jonathan Gay asked whether he could make clear to Helen that there were no plans to close Wansdyke School.

Andrew Vinall, speaking on behalf of "It's a Super Rip Off", made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 1) in which he appealed to the Executive not to agree the re-zoning of the St Martin's Garden Primary School land.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Councillor Roger Symonds made a statement in which he emphasised that the re-zoning of St Martin's garden Primary School happened over the summer without consulting local people. He contended that it was not acceptable for the Inspector to say that she had overlooked to include this area within the zoning. He said that he supported the upgrading of Hayesfield School, but not at the expense of another local school. He called upon the Executive to protect St Martin's Garden Primary School for the future.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Cherry Beath made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 2) in which she appealed to the Executive to recognise the crucial local issues by removing Hayesfield School and St Martin's Garden Primary School from the threat of development. She suggested that the slogan "Keep Bath Distinctive" would serve as an encouragement to the people of Bath to promote sustainable and healthy communities.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Peter Allerhand of Claremont Residents Association made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 3) in which he appealed to the Executive to ensure that the Visually Important Open Spaces in Bath were adequately protected.

Councillor Paul Crossley observed that Peter Allerhand's comments were not relevant to the item now being considered but asked all Councillors present to bear the comments in mind when considering the Draft Local Plan at Council.

Richard Cross, Chair of Governors of St Martin's Garden Primary School, made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 4) in which he said that despite the recent Call-in there had still not been adequate time for the community to respond to the proposals. He asked the Executive to remove St Martin's Garden School from the proposals.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Councillor Caroline Roberts made an ad hoc statement in which she asked the Executive to acknowledge that the decision, if confirmed, would have an adverse knock-on effect on the Lidl development and elsewhere.

Councillor Gerry Curran introduced the item by explaining to those present the route by which this document would eventually become adopted as policy. In particular, the statutory 6-week public consultation period would be the opportunity for local people to make their views felt most clearly to the Government Inspector. He agreed with Councillor Caroline Roberts that any new supermarket was bound to have an impact on existing local shops.

Councillor Curran thanked all who had contributed to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting and explained that this was not a proposal to close schools or to build shops - it was rather to determine the Council's response to the Inspector's Report. The final decision about the Local Plan would not be made until February, after the statutory public consultation period. He proposed that the Executive confirm their earlier decision to put the Draft Local Plan out for statutory public consultation.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE, in seconding the proposal, said that he objected to the use of school children to call out slogans in the street. He said that the school was not in fact under any threat. He warned against overstating the impact of any future retail development on local shops. He believed it was possible that a supermarket in that area might reduce the mileage travelled by shoppers.

Rationale

Other Options Considered

If the Executive were to disagree without good reason with the Local Inspector on these issues, the risk of possible challenge to the plan would increase. The most effective way to express concerns would be for local people to comment during the statutory consultation period.

That the Council Executive:

1. Notes the decision by the Planning, Transportation and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Panel to uphold the Call-In of the Executive's earlier decision on the Inspector's Report on the Draft Local Plan, specifically the proposal relating to the development of land at St Martin's Garden Primary and Hayesfield School sites; and

2. Upholds the original decision that was taken at the earlier Council Executive meeting on 6^th September.

[Note: An amendment proposed by Councillor Colin Darracott and seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley to the effect that the Council would disagree with the Inspector's recommendations for the St Martin's Garden Primary and Hayesfield School sites and would instead support mixed-use development, was not adopted when it was lost 4 voting in favour, 5 against.]

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

June Player made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 5) appealing to the Executive to bear in mind the social, psychological and health consequences of creating housing which is too tightly packed.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

David Knight made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 6) in which he emphasized the need for the SPD to ensure high quality urban design given the unique World Heritage status which he felt might be at risk if the wrong kind of development were allowed.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Andrew Newnham made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 7) in which he objected to the anticipated housing density (more than double the government guideline of 50 dwellings per hectare) and car parking ratio of 0.7 per dwelling (less than half the government guideline of 1.5).

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Elizabeth Freeman, speaking on behalf of Bath Preservation Trust, made a statement appealing to Executive members to reject any proposal to allow building heights greater than 6 storeys and asking them to consider the consequences for the city of losing World Heritage status.

Councillor Colin Darracott asked what the consequences were of the city losing World Heritage status.

Elizabeth Freeman replied that it would bring bad publicity for the city with a consequent loss of tourism.

Samantha Elwin made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 10) in which she urged the Executive to withdraw the proposal for a footpath through Lower Common and a bridge at Norfolk Crescent because of the impact they would have on the local community.

Councillor Brian Webber made an ad hoc statement in which he said that the car parking ratio if adopted would bind future Planning Committees. There were many valuable schemes to persuade people to leave their cars at home but people will still want to own cars. He urged the executive not to bind future Development Control committees with this guidance.

Councillor Andy Furse made an ad hoc statement in which he welcomed the fact that the two proposed paths across the allotments and the play area had been deleted from the guidance. He expressed his preference for the new school to be nearer to green space than currently planned; and said that any buildings over 6 storeys would cast shadows over existing local buildings. He also appealed to the Executive not to allow the proposed bridge which would channel a flow of people late at night from local clubs and bars past residential areas.

David Redgewell of Transport 2000 made an ad hoc statement appealing to the Executive to enable the redevelopment of the area which had been undeveloped for 20 years.

Not considering the consultation responses regarding the SPD and not giving the SPD any further status at this stage would mean that the Council would not have a robust, detailed planning policy for BWR, against which it could assess existing and emerging development proposals.

Other Options Considered

The relative merits of adopting the SPD or approving the SPD for development control purposes at this stage were set out in the report.

1. The Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Document, as amended in accordance with the revised Appendix 2 (revised) of the Report, be approved for use for Development Control purposes immediately upon the Council agreeing the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and the proposed modifications to the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan (in so far as they relate to Bath Western Riverside) in accordance with the Report prepared for and to be considered at its meeting on the 12th October 2006;

[A copy of the revised appendix 2 has been placed on the Council's Minute book and is available on the Council's website.]

2. That in the event that the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and the proposed modifications to the Local Plan insofar as they relate to Bath Western Riverside are not agreed fully in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Report, the Council Executive would receive a further Report on the implications of such variations for this Supplementary Planning Document at the next available meeting;

3. The Council Executive is minded to adopt the SPD following the adoption of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan in due course, subject to due consideration of any issues arising during the course of the modifications process;

4. That, whilst the evidence base demonstrates that development of 4 - 6 storeys in height would be acceptable, the Council will consider development of a greater height that is of appropriate design and meets the criteria set out in para 2.9.3 of the SPD; and

5. To grant delegated authority to the Director of Customer Services, in consultation with the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment, to make necessary amendments to the SPD consequent upon the above resolutions.

[The Chair at this point announced a short break in the proceedings]

Councillor Jonathan Gay wholeheartedly seconded the proposal.

Other Executive members expressed some concern that not all issues arising out of last year's usage of the car park for a Christmas Market had yet been resolved.

During the debate, Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty said that she would prefer agreement in principle for 3 years subject to annual monitoring and all conditions being met.

During the debate, Councillor Paul Crossley proposed an amendment which would, if adopted, have given agreement for one year only, with a request for the officer to bring a further report to the Council Executive early in the new year proposing terms for a 3-year agreement in principle. The amendment was accepted by the mover and seconder, so became the substantive motion.

Rationale

A market was held in the car park during the period of the Christmas Market in both 2004 & 2005 when planning permission was granted and the Council's consent as landowner was given to the use for a limited period.

The car park is in a sensitive location surrounded by listed buildings including residential accommodation in the Empire and offices, including the Register Office, in the Guildhall itself. There is a public footpath through the car park which must be kept clear at all times and there is parking for the disabled, and access for the disabled to the Guildhall from the car park.

The Council Executive would be able to consider a 3-year in principle agreement if officers could report back to an Executive meeting early in the new year with information on any problems encountered in running this year's agreement.

Other Options Considered

None.

2. Consent is given subject to the following conditions:

a) That planning permission and all other statutory consents are obtained and all conditions (if any) are complied with fully before the market is set up;

b) That all necessary street trading licences are obtained before the market is set up;

c) That the GMTA enter into a licence with the Council documenting the agreed covenants and obligations of each party

[The underlined section in resolution (1a) above was proposed by Councillor Paul Crossley and accepted by the mover and seconder of the motion.]

[At this point Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE gave his apologies and left the meeting]

Major Tony Crombie made an ad hoc statement in which he appealed to the Executive members to consider the many lives which are ruined by gambling when they make their decision.

Councillor Colin Darracott, in proposing the recommendations, said that he had been surprised to see the paper because it did not ask for any further authority to proceed than was previously given.

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal.

Some Executive members expressed the view that the report from the Licensing Committee should have been provided to Executive members.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked for the advice of the Council's Solicitor on the implications of not providing the paper to members before their decision.

The Council Solicitor said that there were no implications but that, if Executive members wished, they had the option to defer the decision to the next meeting of the Council Executive.

Cllr Paul Crossley and other members expressed the view that copies of the Licensing Committee report should be distributed to Executive members in the near future. On this understanding, the debate continued.

Rationale

In view of the Council's regeneration and economic development aims, particularly for the City of Bath, it is considered appropriate to develop a proposal for a small high quality casino in Bath.

Other Options Considered

Consideration was given to not progressing a proposal for a casino in Bath. This was dismissed on the basis that a significant regeneration and economic development opportunity for helping to deliver the Future for Bath Vision may, as a result, fail to be properly considered.

To agree that the proposal for a small high quality casino in Bath continue to be developed as an early action in taking forward the Future for Bath Vision, on the basis set out in the report.

[At this point Councillor Colin Darracott gave his apologies and left the meeting]

Councillor Paul Crossley in moving the proposal pointed out that there had been wide public consultation. He said that the draft Local Area Agreement (LAA) would be the best way to meet the differing needs of different parts of the community.

Councillor Francine Haeberling seconded the proposal.

Rationale

Bath & North East Somerset Council is the accountable body for the LAA and, through its Community Leadership role, has a key interest in ensuring that the LAA outcome framework and potential stretch targets are robust. It is important therefore that the Council Executive considers the first draft LAA at this stage

Other Options Considered

None

2. That officers negotiate with GOSW to achieve the best possible outcomes for the local area, based on the stretch targets set out in the report and other indicators set out in the draft;

3. The Project Board be requested to

(a) Undertake work on options for the potential alignment and pooling of funding streams to ensure delivery of the LAA;

(b) Consider options for the detailed governance arrangements for the performance management of the Local Area Agreement; and

Councillor Jonathan Gay, in seconding, also emphasised his agreement with the comments made by Councillor Watt.

Councillor Vic Pritchard said that he was delighted that a pilot for WorkSMART would be undertaken by Environmental and Consumer Services officers.

Rationale

The original premise for WorkSMART was approved by the Council Executive in December 2005. This report makes recommendations for how to proceed regarding the affordability of this project.

The rationale for rephrasing the project over 5 years was explained in the report.

Other Options Considered

A number of different ways of implementing the project were considered. These included looking for alternative sources of funding e.g. extracting value from a long term lease arrangement to pump prime the whole project; to doing work over both shorter and longer timescales.

2. As a result, the phasing of various workstreams of people, technology & property in the project, is amended to reflect the 5 year phasing.

Councillor Jonathan Gay, in making his proposal, said that the provision of the new school must be delivered within government guidelines and within the funds provided by government.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal and said that he regretted the way in which government had obliged the Council to proceed with this project before the Secondary Schools Review had been completed by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel. He agreed that the project would have to be delivered within the funds provided.

Rationale

The assessment process has identified Writhlington School as the school which most closely meets the DfES mandatory criteria and offers the least risk.

Other Options Considered

The assessment process undertaken considered the needs of all secondary schools set against the DfES criteria.