Meeting documents

CABINET MEETING 9^th January 2008

REGISTERED SPEAKERS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - PUBLIC

01

Question from:

Chris Lamb

Can the relevant executive members on the B&NES Cabinet report on progress over the provision of a foyer or YMCA type accommodation for the young homeless in the Radstock and Midsomer Norton districts? In particular, can a report be made on meetings to date within B&NES council which have deliberated upon this issue and meetings between B&NES and voluntary bodies and/or government agencies to advance provision of a foyer?
Finally, can the relevant executive members outline future plans and action they intend to take to facilitate provision of this amenity for the young homeless?

Answer from:

Councillor Chris Watt

At present there are no plans for the development of a `foyer' or YMCA - type accommodation for the Norton Radstock area. There have been no discussions between Officers from the Children's Service and the Housing Team with the Adult Social Care and Housing Service on this matter.

Discussions on the development of such provision would have to commence with clear evidence of demand for such accommodation and would then require a feasibility study and strong business case to evidence the sustainability of such a project. A Homelessness Sector Review undertaken in June 2007 did not identify a lack of supported housing for young people in the Norton Radstock area and a number of Supporting People funded projects delivering housing related support are already available for young people to access. These include:

• Pathways Floating support service, which is run by Bath Self Help Housing Association and supports 15 young people in their own homes for up to 2 years. Several current service users live in the Norton Radstock area. Support plans are holistic and the key worker will work with the young person to link them into education, training, and employment opportunities
• The Hawthorns provides 4 units of supported accommodation for young people and is situated in Midsomer Norton. This is also run by Bath Self Help Housing Association and funded by Supported People.
• The Council's Supported Lodgings project currently provides 11 young people with supported housing throughout B&NES and 4 of these placements are in the Norton Radstock area. The aim is to have 20 places available by 2010.
• Off the Record runs a Young Parents Project and works with people throughout B&NES in their own homes.

In addition young people from the Norton Radstock area are also able to access the 31 units of supported housing at Bath Foyer (Twerton), and the 13 units at Frome Foyer.

06

Question from:

Michelle Drew

1. Does the Cabinet member with responsibility for waste accept that Mass Burn Incineration is completely against the Council's policy of Zero Waste?
2. Why did the Cabinet Member with responsibility for waste allow this Council to vote with the WEP partners in favour of an Incineration option for residual waste?
3. Now that this Cabinet seems to be in favour of Mass Burn Incineration can the Member with responsibility for waste tell me what sites he is considering, how many incinerators he wants to build and whether any of these are in the B&NES area.

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

1. Our Zero Waste Policy will not eliminate the need to plan to dispose of a proportion of the residual waste stream in the medium term. Any waste treatment facility will need to be designed for appropriate tonnages taking into account future increases in recycling and the targets of our Zero Waste Policy. A commitment regarding the amount of waste to be supplied and treated will be an essential component of any waste treatment or disposal contracts (including landfill in the future).

2. Neither the Cabinet Member nor the Council has voted in favour of an incineration option. Energy from waste is one of a number of options being considered by the West of England Partnership to tackle landfill waste along with Mechanical Biological Treatment and Biological Mechanical Treatment type technologies in a phased approach as part of an overall joint waste strategy which will also include commitments and targets on waste minimization and recycling/composting.

3. The Cabinet has not voiced support for Mass Burn Incineration.

08

Question from:

Roger Crouch

I understand that the previous Executive member for waste was exploring with staff how to introduce same day collection of all waste streams. I think this would be popular with residents, make waste separation easier for residents and increase recycling rates.

Is work still progressing to implement a `same day' collection service? If it is can the Cabinet member give an indication as to when it will start and if it is not can he explain why he has stopped work on this idea?

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

The Council has a policy to introduce same day collections. Work is ongoing into developing the methodology of collection and it is likely that the implementation will be programmed at the time of introducing Food Waste Collections.

Following evaluation of the cost of implementing collections and the required start date to ensure avoidance of LATS penalties, it is anticipated that food waste collections will be introduced no later than April 2009.

15

Question from:

Gail Coleshill

In my conversations with the previous Executive Member for waste last year I understood that there were plans to introduce a cooked food waste collection service for the spring of this year. Is that still on schedule?

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

We still intend to introduce a food waste collection service but no schedule to introduce this by Spring 2008 was agreed. Introduction is planned for the point when it will become less expensive to collect and process this waste separately than to send it to landfill (and incur landfill charges, Landfill Tax and LATS penalties). We are therefore planning to introduce a food waste collection scheme at the start of 2009/10 financial year.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - COUNCILLORS

02

Question from:

Councillor Alan Hale

How many primary schools there are in B&NES and of that number how many held a Nativity play?

Answer from:

Councillor Chris Watt

There are 62 Infant, Junior and Primary Schools in Bath and North East Somerset. All of these schools will have held schools held a Christmas production. The precise format of the production or play is at the discretion of individual schools. Voluntary Aided and Voluntary Controlled Church schools (34 schools) will have held a traditional nativity play. Many Community schools (28 schools) will also have held a nativity play, but others may have held a Christmas Production with a Christian theme not based on the story of the birth of Jesus.

03

Question from:

Councillor Ian Gilchrist

In my question to Council on Sept 13th, I asked what the timetable might be for the proposed installation of a biomass boiler for the Guildhall. This question was in part deflected by reference to a pilot scheme for the replacement of boilers at the Victoria Park Nurseries. Can Cllr Hanney please provide any more detailed plans for this scheme?

Answer from:

Councillor Malcolm Hanney

The Project Initiation Document (PID) for the Royal Victoria Park boiler was passed by the PID Group on 5th December. The initial stages of discussions with Planning are due to commence on 24th January through the Property Planning Liaison Group. Discussions with the Building Regulations Team are also due to commence shortly. Assuming the relevant permissions are granted and the necessary funding is identified, the project will be progressed. At this stage, bearing in mind that the technology and associated markets are still in their infancy, the progress of the Guildhall boiler project should be dependent on the experience gained from the Royal Victoria Park project over at least a one year period.

04

Question from:

Councillor Ian Gilchrist

From 2009 under the Climate Change Bill, 'larger local authorities' will become subject to the CRC, a mandatory CO2 emissions cap-and-trade scheme. The definition of 'larger' is those organisations with annual electricity consumption in excess of 6000 MWh (approx equivalent to electricity charges > £600K/annum). Can Cllr Hanney please say whether B&NES Council is likely to fall into this definition? If so, what steps are currently being considered to learn more about the details of the council's obligations and opportunities under the scheme?

Answer from:

Councillor Malcolm Hanney

As stated in Cllr Gilchrist's question, organisations consuming in excess of 6,000MWh, on mandatory half hourly meters, will be subject to CRC. The Council's mandatory half hourly meters do not consume over 6,000MWh hours; as such the Council does not qualify within the legislation as it currently stands. It should be noted, however, that there are currently discussions ongoing regarding unmetered electricity supplies, specifically street lighting. If it is decided, ultimately by DEFRA, that street lighting should be included in the calculations, the Council will be included within the scheme. Until Central Government makes a final decision as to what will be included within the scheme, and therefore, whether this Council will be included, it would be premature to assess obligations and opportunities.

05

Question from:

Councillor Nathan Hartley

On November 27th I chaired the first ever Youth PACT meeting where young people in Midsomer Norton voted overwhelmingly, as one of their top priorities, for a youth centre/information point in Midsomer Norton. They were horrified that a building they went to seeking help and advice was closing down.
A week later I spent an evening on the streets of Midsomer Norton with some detached youth workers from Project 28 who showed me the demand there is from young people for a good and effective base for them to go of an evening and the number of derelict properties around the High Street that are currently an eyesore and would make excellent youth centres.

a) Does the Cabinet member recognise and acknowledge the strong views expressed by young people at the Youth PACT meeting?

b) Will the Cabinet member commit to re-looking at the youth centre situation in Midsomer Norton and in particular the use of some of these derelict buildings?

c) If lack of funding is still seen as a shortfall then will the Cabinet member look into the idea of the Youth Service, Connexions, Off The Record and Project 28 perhaps sharing a property in Midsomer Norton - thus saving the required amount of money but also investing in an initiative that I know all four organisations support.

Answer from:

Councillor Chris Watt

Point a) - Yes.

Point b) -The current review of the Council's Youth Work Services is based upon proposals to provide the Service through a combination of youth centre based provision, outreach and mobile services, and detached youth worker/street based services. We recognise that young people have been using Laterz in Midsomer Norton to access information through the Youth Service and through partner agencies, including Connexions. Alternative arrangements will be made to enable young people to continue to access information for the Youth Service and partner agencies. The limitations of Laterz premises have prevented the site from being used to provide a full range of Youth Centre activities. The number of young people who are recorded as using Laterz as a Youth Centre is very low, so consideration is already being given to alternative arrangements.

Point c) - the move to locality based working for the delivery of services to young people, children and families has already begun with the development of Children's Centres and school based extended services. It is envisaged that as the range of services delivered in localities increases the use of shared premises will also increase.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Nathan Hartley

What does Councillor Watt mean by "alternative arrangements"? What arrangements have been made?

Answer from:

Councillor Chris Watt

I said that alternative arrangements will be made. Consultation is still ongoing. I would welcome contributions from Councillor Hartley and any others with ideas.

07

Question from:

Councillor Tim Ball

Will the Cabinet member for responsibility for waste announce that this Council is now formally withdrawing from the West of England Waste Partnership and start negotiations with the Somerset Waste Partnership?

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

I do not intend to make any announcement at this stage.

We have previously discussed with Somerset the possibility of joint working with the Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) but they did not wish to pursue joint working at the time when we were considering our options in this regard.

The SWP is an integrated collection and disposal partnership operated by one collection contractor and one disposal contractor. Whilst I understand that they may in future be interested in expanding this partnership to neighbouring authorities, they have indicated that they would not be enthusiastic to simply import waste from other areas.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Tim Ball

Has the Cabinet member considered withdrawal from the Partnership, given the moves towards incineration which would be against the Council's Zero Waste policy?

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

The Partnership is fully aware of the position of this Council on the issue.

09

Question from:

Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Why are the Student Community Partnership meetings held in private? Who represents the `Community' in this partnership?

How do you justify calling a launch ceremony an AGM which has legal aspects around its operation?

Answer from:

Councillor Francine Haeberling

It is appropriate that Student Community Partnership meetings are, like many partnerships at this level, not public meetings but are for Partnership members and invitees. Minutes of meetings, work programmes, an Annual Report and other material will of course be made publicly available through the Partnership's website.

To further publicise the work of the Partnership there will be an Annual Event. The opportunity was taken to use the first of these events as a launch for the Partnership at the Guildhall on 1st November 2007.

The community is represented by the elected members who serve on the Partnership, currently the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet member for Children's Services. This mechanism also provides for clear accountability to the Council and wider community. The Student Community Partnership will also link with the work of the Local Strategic Partnership, which holds its meetings in public.

As with all such bodies, the Partnership will also elect on an annual basis a Chair and Vice Chair.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Has the website been launched? Have there yet been any meetings of the Student Community Partnership?

Answer from:

Councillor Francine Haeberling

The website was launched in November and since then, preparatory work has been ongoing to prepare for the first meeting which will be on 25-Jan.

10

Question from:

Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Apparently transport issues were on the agenda of the last Student Community Partnership meeting. Please can you tell me what clear action points have been agreed to:

• tackle congestion, illegal and inappropriate parking around Bath University;
  
• improve the reliability and affordability of the bus network;
  
• reduce overcrowding of buses and ensure that they stop for residents on Bathwick Hill.

Answer from:

Councillor Francine Haeberling

Cllr Coombes is correct there is an agenda item on Transport issues for the Student Community Partnership but this is for its next meeting on the 25^th January.

11

Question from:

Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Tesco were given permission to open a shop on Bathwick Hill providing that safe pedestrian crossing facilities were made available. Our Highway Officer's feasibility study shows that enough money is available only to:

a) Upgrade the existing central island including widening it to make it suitable for accommodation of cycles.

b) Install barrier or similar at the top of the tow path.

c) Regrade and build out the existing footpath on the tow path side.

d) Provide tactile paving at the dropped kerb crossing.

This is far short of the zebra crossing which locals want and does not address the safety issues of this stretch of road especially given that a man was killed crossing the road at this point last year.

• What do you plan to do about this situation?
  
• Why was the Tesco money insufficient to fulfil their planning obligation?
  
• How will the Council make up this shortfall to provide for the crossing facilities required?

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

In general commuted sums received as part of a legal agreement are only ever intended to contribute towards the provision of works required to make an otherwise unacceptable scheme acceptable in planning terms.

In this case the application was considered by an appeal inspector at a public inquiry in 18 April and 30 May 2007, following the refusal of planning permission. The inspector stated 93I cannot conclude that the case for a controlled crossing has been made out, or that the improvements that the appellants' contribution would facilitate would not be adequate to provide for the additional pedestrian movements generated by the appeal proposal94. The legal agreement includes a commitment for the developer to make contributions towards highway safety and traffic regulation in the area of£20,000 (£15,000 towards crossings improvements).

This agreement was available at the time of the public inquiry. The Council argued at the inquiry that a new controlled crossing would be required which would cost an estimated contribution of£50,000, however the inspector felt the evidence of the numbers of pedestrians crossing the road did not justify this and determined that improvement of the existing crossing facilities would be sufficient.

The works currently proposed are therefore sufficient to meet the inspector's requirements. We will monitor the traffic and pedestrian situation using established highway procedures once the store is open and, if appropriate, budget provision may be made for any further improvements deemed necessary.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Does the Cabinet member agree with the appeal inspector that there is no need for a crossing?

Answer from:

Councillor Charles Gerrish

I have not formed a view - that is the position of the inspector's report. If more work is necessary, then it will be conducted.

12

Question from:

Councillor Nicholas Coombes

Which council members and officers agree the responsibilities of the council for implementing the locally agreed PACT priorities?

Where does the extra expenditure come from and who authorises it when this is a priority that involves Council funding?

Answer from:

Councillor Vic Pritchard

The aim of Partners and Communities Together (PACTs) is to better address local priorities by improving partnership working, working closely with local ward members and local people.

The Council is committed to supporting the PACT process and therefore Council officers attend PACT meetings as appropriate. They ensure that priorities are communicated across the Council as required. Additionally, all PACT priorities are recorded centrally for ease of monitoring.

The Council currently does not allocate additional funds to carry out agreed actions raised through priorities agreed at PACT meetings. Where this can be met through deploying existing resources, officers within the relevant service take responsibility for delivery. The move of a number of the Council's Environmental Services to a neighbourhood management structure (with boundaries aligned to the Policing boundaries) has made this process even more responsive.

The PACTs are supported by a Bath & North East Somerset-wide "Safer and Stronger Neighbourhoods Action Group" which looks at the PACT priorities which are more difficult to address locally. It looks at all the evidence across the PACTs and adopts a "problem-solving approach" which often leads to better deployment of existing resources to address an issue. Where necessary it refers specific issues such as anti-social behaviour to the appropriate delivery group to consider appropriate action.

Where additional resources are identified as being required to meet a priority, this would need to be considered through the budget processes of the Council and partners, working with the members and officers appropriate to the service under consideration.

13

Question from:

Councillor Nigel Roberts

With the Government saying that "A youth club will be built in every neighbourhood to stop teenagers hanging about on street corners" Could the executive member responsible please say whether he agrees with this statement?

And if not what would he propose to reduce the levels of anti-social behaviour caused by young people?

Answer from:

Councillor Chris Watt

Whilst the Government has made this statement about youth clubs in every neighbourhood, we await confirmation about what is meant by this and how it would be resourced. The Council is currently reviewing the Youth Work Service within the development of Integrated Youth Support Services and the provision of services to children and young people within the developing Local Area Partnerships. A report was submitted to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel (26thNovember 2007) detailing proposals for the future provision, management and resourcing of the Youth Work Service. It will be delivered across the Authority through a combination of

• Youth centre based provision;
  
• Outreach services and mobile services;
  
• Detached Youth Worker services/street based services;
  
• Special projects (eg Youth Democracy);
  
• Partnership projects with voluntary sector organisations, other agencies and parishes.

Youth centres will be part of this provision. A substantial amount of centre-based work supports young people who are pre-disposed to such services. Operating a youth club or centre does not in itself remove or reduce anti-social behaviour as those who perpetrate such behaviour are normally not inclined to access such services. This is why we are seeking to provide more mobile and detached youth work programmes. These are designed to go to young people where they are congregating. Workers can then provide advice and support and try to 'tap into' other services/ places that can meet the needs of young people. A project could run for a very short period (i.e. weeks) or could be permanent - it will depend upon the needs of the young people and the area in which they live.

The Government has published the 'Youth Matters' policy which requires local Youth Work Services to become more flexible and responsive to both community and young people's needs. Each Council has to create an Integrated Youth Support Service bringing together Youth Work Services, Youth Offending Teams and other services targeted on young people. Locally these services will be delivered within the Local Area Partnerships. The long term aim is to develop a service that is more flexible and cost effective, where resources are available to respond to local need and where we can support innovative ideas that help young people to participate in activities that are positive for them and their communities.

14

Question from:

Councillor Eleanor Jackson

Is the Cabinet member minded to make provision for the urgent repairs to the Victoria Hall in the budget?

Answer from:

Councillor Malcolm Hanney

We are currently reviewing the extent of the emergency works required and a report will be produced by the end of January enabling the Cabinet Member to consider what further action is appropriate.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Eleanor Jackson

The engineer's report in 2005 identified that emergency repairs were required. Will the Cabinet member authorise those repairs now, without further delay?

Answer from:

Councillor Malcolm Hanney

I have asked officers to bring a report to March Cabinet and will consider the situation then, in the light of their recommendations.