Meeting documents

1. Question from Chris Beezley (not present at the meeting)

Noting that a number of major developments are proposed within B&NES which would result in the loss of substantial areas of Green Belt land (e.g. University expansion, new Park & Ride sites and thousands of new homes to meet Government house-building targets), will the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment please advise how B&NES intends to comply with ODPM policy which states that the area of designated Green Belt land is to be maintained or increased?"

Answer to be given by Executive Councillor Gerry Curran

In its Sustainable Communities Plan: Homes for All (published January 2005) the Government re-iterates its commitment to extending the opportunity for people to have a home whilst also protecting and enhancing the environment. This includes making the most efficient use of land e.g. by maximising the re-use of brownfield sites and increasing the density of development. Allied to this the Government states that it is committed to maintaining or increasing the Green Belt at a regional level.

Government guidance set out in RPG10 (covering the period to 2016) already requires that the Green Belt is reviewed in the West of England in considering sustainable urban extensions. Work is currently underway on the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which will replace RPG10 and will, under the new planning system, form part of the statutory development plan. It covers the period to 2026 and will include a sub-regional spatial strategy (SRSS) for the West of England. The first detailed proposals for the SRSS (which are being considered for approval by this meeting of the Council Executive) refer to the need to review the Green Belt in order to accommodate sustainable urban extensions. These first detailed proposals refer to the need to consider not only taking land out of the Green Belt to accommodate development but also to extending the Green Belt in order to help secure the long term sustainable development strategy and protect the countryside.

With regard to the proposed removal of land from the Green Belt in the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan at Claverton Down for University related uses and at Newbridge for the park & ride these changes are considered to be justified by `exceptional circumstances' in accordance with PPG2. These `exceptional circumstances' are summarised in the Reasoned Justification of the Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft and Pre-Inquiry Changes) and have been thoroughly debated at the Public Local Inquiry.

2. Question from Ian Thorn (not present at the meeting)

What would be the financial cost to Bath & NE Somerset Council if Bryan Chalker's Save Church Hill House Campaign succeeds?

Answer to be given by Executive Councillor Colin Darracott

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 the developer of the site, CGNU/Morley, has shown its commitment to the scheme by investing many million 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 also arise from the failure of the Council to secure this much needed redevelopment, and would frustrate other development opportunities

3. Question from Councillor Nigel Roberts (not present at the meeting)

In light of the recent court cases brought for back pay due to the delay in paying single status, what impact would the Executive Member think this would have on Bath and North East Somerset Council?

Answer to be given by Executive Councillor Malcolm Hanney

The court cases which have been the subject of recent publicity were Equal Pay for Equal Value cases - not cases brought due to the delay in implementing Single Status Job evaluation. The `back pay' element of these claims relates to the back pay awardable under the Equal Value legislation.

These particular cases were supported by a 'no-win, no fee' lawyer in an action which was neither supported by the local Trade Unions nor the trade union movement nationally.

The National Agreement to which this authority has committed requires us to implement single status job evaluation by April 2007. We are well on course to achieve that date and are working closely with the Trade Unions in doing so. We have no equal pay claims pending.

4. Question from Councillor Nigel Roberts (not present at the meeting)

What is the total cost of paying single status in Bath and North East Somerset Council, and how will the Executive Member be making allowance for this in next year's budget?

Answer to be given by Executive Councillor Malcolm Hanney

Officers are in the process of undertaking the detailed work which will allow us accurately to calculate the potential cost of single status.

The cost of implementation will be dependent upon a number of factors including both the date any increases are effective as well as any protection arrangements that may be agreed in cases where a reduction in grade will result. Measures to offset the cost of Single Status at both service and corporate levels are also being considered. It has been made clear to Heads of Service that they should plan on the basis of absorbing any costs within Service Budgets. Officers are mindful of the need to minimise the impact on Council Tax Payers of any increases in the total salary bill due to the implementation of single status.

Implementation is, understandably, an extremely sensitive issue and at this stage no detailed discussions / negotiations have taken place with Trade Unions representatives. These will commence once a clearer picture of the impacts of the evaluations are known. It is anticipated that this will take place during the early months of 2006 in order to meet the implementation requirements of the national agreement.

5. Question from Councillor Nigel Roberts (not present at the meeting)

There have been a number of people mis-using the one way system to get out of the Park and Ride at Odd Down. What steps is the Executive Member using to stop this happening?

Answer to be given by Executive Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins

We have recently installed alligator teeth at Lansdown Park and Ride, to allow people who are late back to their cars to leave the site more easily. We are investigating alligator teeth as a possible solution to one problem at the Odd Down site but the problem there is not exactly the same as that of the Lansdown site. We are aware that there will be some works carried out on the site in conjunction with the creation of a compound for the Stone Mines project and would prefer to carry out any necessary work at the same time.

6. Question from Councillor Tim Ball

At what time did the Executive member for Housing first become aware of the review of sheltered housing schemes for older people being conducted by Somer Community Housing Trust?

Answer given by Executive Councillor Vic Pritchard

A strategic review of Somer sheltered housing stock was carried out by an independent consultant, commissioned by Somer, in early 2005. A working group was convened in May 2005 to consider the review recommendations. The review was prompted by a number of factors including:

I became aware in June 2005 that a considered approach to the future delivery of Somer sheltered housing was being taken by Somer but was not aware until last week that proposals concerning future delivery were due to be put to the Somer Board in October.

Supplementary question from Councillor Tim Ball

What measures will the Executive Member put in place to monitor and ensure the care and safety of residents and that Somer Community Housing Trust would maintain its obligations?

Answer given by Executive Councillor Vic Pritchard

I'll look at this closely and see what action is required to be taken.