Meeting documents

109 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

110 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

111 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

113 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

11 questions had been submitted from the following people;

Councillor Shaun McGall (x5), Councillor Colin Barrett (x2), Councillor Gordon Wood, Councillor Chris Watt, Councillor Gail Coleshill and Councillor Tim Ball.

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

114 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

One statement (for which due notice had been given) was made by Councillor Chris Watt regarding the Regional Spatial Strategy. This statement was made at the item.

115 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 7TH DECEMBER 2005

Councillor Gerry Curran informed the meeting that, with regard to the Southside item (minute number 99), he had intended to declare a personal, non-prejudicial interest for that item and had forgotten to do so. In raising it today, he wanted to place on record his intention to be open about this.

On a motion from Councillor Francine Haeberling, seconded by Councillor Jonathan Gay, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7th December 2005 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person)

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

There were no such items on this occasion.

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

There were no such items on this occasion.

118 PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN 2006/07 ONWARDS (Report 11).

Councillor Tim Ball asked a question regarding the impact of the Southgate development not proceeding. Councillor Colin Darracott later responded that any delay to the project would be expensive and he was anxious that it should be completed as soon as possible.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced this report and apologised for the late arrival of Appendix 1. He explained that efforts were being made to reduce the level of Council Tax increase to below 5%.

Councillor Paul Crossley, despite expressing concern about the new formula to decide local authority grant, was pleased that the Council had managed to look at some tough decisions and work hard to improve efficiency.

Executive Members lamented the impact of the funding shortfall and the difficulties this caused for the Council.

Rationale

In order to inform the Executive of the current known context for the review of the financial plan, progress to date and the process and timetable going forward to February 2006.

Other options considered

The report contains information about the Council's financial outlook in the context of the corporate planning process. The options to meet the targets are considered as part of the service planning and consultation process within those plans. The results of this consultation will be included in the recommendations made by this Executive to Council in February. Options considered at that time will be concerned with the level of changes to the level of Council tax and the level of services provided by the Council

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED to

(1) Note the key issues and pressures (contained in Appendix 1) to consider when recommending a Financial Plan and budget to Council in February 2006 in the context of the Council's Corporate Plan and the further work required to facilitate decision making;

(2) Note that Resources Overview and Scrutiny Panel will wish to consider the progress on the Corporate Plan and Financial Plan at its meeting of 26 January;

(3) Approve the response to the consultation by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) on the provisional financial settlement as contained in Appendix 2; and

(4) Endorse, at this stage, the revised approach to the WorkSMART initiative as set out in Appendix 3.

119 "FUTURE FOR BATH" (Report 12).

Rae Harris made a brief statement and called for a clear identity to be reached before the initiative is taken out for public consultation.

Councillor Colin Darracott introduced this report and explained the evolution of the project thus far. He acknowledged that, up to this point, it had been an informal process under various titles; however, it now needed a clear branding and Executive support to widen the discussion to relevant stakeholders.

Councillor Francine Haeberling, in seconding the recommendation, welcomed the report and hoped the public would feed in to make this a living document.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins mentioned that the University were supportive of close working with the Council to strengthen their position and contribute to the economy of the city. This initiative was important to build on the city's distinctive heritage and international reputation.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty welcomed this exciting project, thanked all those involved in the work so far and looked forward to the contribution of the public.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney commended the work of the Consultants in bringing forward these documents that created drivers for the whole of the area and enabled Members to understand key issues for the future. Councillor Hanney also recognised the cross-party support that had been achieved so far and which would be key for the long term future success.

Councillor Paul Crossley applauded the leadership and drive of Councillor Colin Darracott as a model for future working.

Councillor Colin Darracott commended the work of the Major Projects team and also the support of the Major Projects Overview & Scrutiny Panel. He welcomed the comments and support of his Executive colleagues.

Rationale

The creation of a focused vision for Bath will ensure that the Council can plan for the future. Without a vision, the Council would find it difficult to deal with planning applications and without a properly adopted Planning framework, the Council would not be in a position to maximise contributions from each development towards the investment required in the city centre. The production of a vision will also help to support financial applications to government bodies and agencies

Other options considered

Various options have been appraised during the production of the Vision and it is considered that the present proposal offers the best option for the strategic development of the city.

Other delivery options have also been considered but it has been concluded that the production of a Supplementary Planning Document or a Local Development Framework Document has to be the first step in delivering the Vision

On a motion from Councillor Colin Darracott, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED that the Council Executive accepts the two reports (Ernst & Young Business Plan and Terence O'Rourke Spatial Framework) as the basis for;

(1) Engagement with members of the Council;

(2) Key inputs into the development of a planning policy framework within the context of the Regional Spatial Strategy exploring the potential for a tariff structure for developments within the city centre, including the SPD for BWR;

(3) Engagement of the public on the overall vision and priorities on the understanding that affordability may be an issue;

(4) Further financial modelling and the development of a funding strategy for the vision which is consistent with funding opportunities; and

(5) Production of the forthcoming Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Planning Document in the context of the outcome of the local plan enquiry.

120 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE SOUTH WEST (Report 13).

Councillor Chris Watt raised concerns about potentially unreasonable housing proposals to the south of Bath outside the green belt.

Councillor Keith Kirwan made a statement regarding concerns that the boundary between Keynsham and Bristol would be lost.

Councillor Tim Ball raised a query regarding aspects of the consultation.

Councillor Colin Barrett mentioned the need for the South Bristol ring road to be completed before any development in the Keynsham area could be considered.

Vaughan Thompson presented the update report and latest position.

Councillor Gerry Curran responded to the points raised so far and confirmed his position that infrastructure was key to any development plans.

Sir Elgar Jenkins, in seconding the motion, commented on the need for an adequate rail system to support any extra housing and expressed concern that the South Bristol link was not being pursued.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney expressed concern that these proposals did not seem to be based on comprehensive research.

Councillor Colin Darracott echoed the concerns of his Executive colleagues and mentioned the shortage of employment sites.

Councillor Vic Pritchard commented on the unrealistic nature of the proposals which were being imposed upon the Council. He added that this discussion had no bearing on the Council's efforts to meet the affordable housing needs of the area.

Councillor Paul Crossley acknowledged all the comments raised and stressed that the Council was actively responding to maintain the viability of all sections of the community. Some growth was necessary, as well as a strong transport infrastructure. He gave a commitment that no areas of green belt would be lost without discussion with the community.

Councillor Francine Haeberling commented that the plans seemed to have no regard to Bath's World Heritage status, or that it contained two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In summing up the debate, Councillor Curran referred to the considerable work that had already taken place to defend the Council's position and that further efforts would be made to influence the Regional Assembly on the Council's behalf.

Rationale

This report updates progress on preparation of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) by the Regional Assembly. Recommendations reflect concerns about the content of the RSS.

Other options considered

The alternative spatial strategy for Bath & North East Somerset as proposed by the Regional Assembly in the emerging Second Draft RSS has been considered and is not acceptable for the reasons set out in the report.

On a motion from Councillor Gerry Curran, seconded by Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins, it was

RESOLVED to agree, subject to the overriding priority of infrastructure being put in place, early periodic review and the comments and endorsement of Council;

(1) The spatial strategy for Bath & North East Somerset as set out in the update report para 2.5 as a basis for submission to the West of England Partnership and Regional Assembly for inclusion in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West;

(2) The comments on the First Draft Regional Spatial Strategy as set out in Annex 2 of Appendix 1 of the main report which have previously been forwarded to the Regional Assembly;

(3) that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Executive Members and Administration Group Leaders, is delegated to agree further comments on the Draft versions of the Regional Spatial Strategy not relating to the spatial strategy referred to in recommendation 1; and

(4) that this matter be referred to Council on 19th January for comment and endorsement.

(The underlined wording above was suggested by Councillors Jonathan Gay and Malcolm Hanney (respectively) and accepted by the mover of the motion.)

121 MANAGEMENT OF CLAIMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BATH SPA PROJECT (Report 14).

Councillor Malcolm Hanney introduced this report which proposed arrangements for dealing with claims arising in connection with the Bath Spa project.

Rationale

To place the management of claims on an official footing.

Other options considered

An option considered by the project board was for there to be a small dedicated committee of the Executive comprising three members. Whilst it was recognised that this would be the more usual method of managing claims of this nature, it was not considered that there was any particular advantage in terms of public transparency in so doing (given the likely exempt nature of the proceedings) and that there were disadvantages in terms of the efficient administration of the claims.

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

RESOLVED to

(1) Note the proposed internal performance management and monitoring arrangements outlined in paragraph 4.4 and the existing delegations to officers outlined in paragraph 4.5; and

(2) Delegate to the Executive Member for Resources, in consultation with the Executive Member for Leisure and Tourism, authority to deal with all matters relating to claims in connection with the project subject to the limitations outlined in paragraph 4.4 and 4.5.