Meeting documents

30 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

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

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

31 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

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

32 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were none.

33 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

Councillor Malcolm Hanney declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest relating to Agenda Item 11, as Chair of the Primary Care Trust.

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

There was none.

35 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

There were 25 questions from the following people: Councillor Nigel Roberts (4), Councillor David Dixon (4), Councillor Doug Deacon, Councillor David Speirs, Councillor Ian Gilchrist, Councillor Sarah Bevan, Councillor Nicholas Coombes (3), Councillor Cherry Beath (3), Councillor Roger Symonds, Councillor Caroline Roberts, Councillor Paul Crossley, Councillor Shaun McGall, Ian Thorn, Helen Woodley, Will Oulton.

[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.]

36 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

All speakers opted to speak immediately before the item in which they had an interest.

37 MINUTES: WEDNESDAY 5^th September 2007

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 5^th September 2007 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair(person)

38 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were none.

39 CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REFERRED BY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BODIES

There were none.

40 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE PLAN (Report 11).

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement in which he said that the Liberal Democrat Group welcomed the report. He was especially pleased that paragraph 7.4 of the report anticipated a "good provision" Ofsted Annual Performance Assessment judgement. He felt that the key determinant would be how the authority treated its NEETS (Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training). He asked for an assurance from the Cabinet that this provision would be given a high priority.

Councillor Chris Watt, in proposing the item, pointed out some of the very pleasing outcomes anticipated in the Assessment.

Councillor David Hawkins seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The Council is required to work with partners to produce an annual review of the Children & Young People's Plan 2006-9.

Other Options Considered

None. The Council is required to produce an Annual Plan.

On a motion from Councillor Chris Watt, seconded by Councillor David Hawkins, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To endorse the 2007 review of the Children and Young People's Plan and the key development items that have been identified for 2007-8 as part of the review.

41 COMMUNITY USE OF COUNCIL ASSETS (Report 12).

Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement in which he said that the Liberal Democrat Group welcomed the report and hoped that the Cabinet would unanimously endorse the recommendations, especially the transfer of many facilities into the stewardship of Community Trusts. He asked for assurances with regard the Cornmarket and the Cleveland Baths that the needs of the community would be given priority and said that Community Trusts would be an ideal mechanism for ensuring this. He asked for an assurance that local members would be fully consulted before any decisions were made about the future of the two properties.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, thanked Councillor Crossley for his contribution. He assured the meeting that proposals for each property would be looked at on an individual basis, bearing in mind that any arrangements with third parties must be able to be sustained. This would require that any partner organisation and any business case must be considered to be long-term viable.

With regard to the two properties mentioned by Councillor Crossley, Councillor Hanney said that he expected to receive options reports enabling his decisions in the near future and gave an assurance that local ward members would be fully consulted. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel had asked for a couple of their Members to be consulted during the finalisation of the papers for the Cornmarket and Cleveland Pools. This had been done, and their comments would be fully incorporated in the Decision reports.

Councillor David Hawkins seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The proposal set out in this report is to suggest a case-by-case approach within the current framework, but to propose a fuller consideration of the issues as part of a wider review of community assets and outcomes, within the context of local priorities.

Other Options Considered

None.

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor David Hawkins, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) That arrangements for management of community assets should continue to follow the principles set out in Paragraph 5 of the July 2007 report considered by the Property Board;

(2) That the Council engage with the voluntary and community sector and partners with a view to bringing forward a future vision and strategic approach for the best use of community assets, drawing on the work of the Quirk Review and Council and community priorities.

42 FUTURE OF VICTORIA HALL, RADSTOCK (Report 13).

Councillor Steve Plumley of Norton Radstock Town Council made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2] in which he reminded the Cabinet that the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Panel in September 2004 recommended that "the Council's property and legal officers expedite the process of arranging a new lease for Norton Radstock Town Council at the Victoria Hall". He asked the Cabinet to assist the Town Council in bringing the premises up to the standards required by the Disability Discrimination Act and assured the Cabinet that the Town Council would work with the Council to secure the future of the hall.

Gary Dando, Chair of Meadow View Residents' Action Group made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3] in which he expressed his alarm at the rapid deterioration of the building in the last 2 years and appealed to the Cabinet to work with the Town Council to secure the future for the hall.

Councillor Chris Cray made an ad hoc statement in which he said that the reason for current under-use of the hall is previous lack of investment. The Council had a moral responsibility to maintain the building. He reminded the meeting about the strength of local feeling about the possible loss of the hall as a community facility.

Councillor Alan Hall made an ad hoc statement in which he reminded the Cabinet that the eventual solution would need to be consistent with the plans of Norton Radstock Regeneration. He too wanted to see the community use of the building secured as soon as possible.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson made an ad hoc statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4] in which she appealed to the Cabinet to secure the future of Victoria Hall as a tourist attraction and community asset.

Gail Doswell made an ad hoc statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5 (not available on the web)] reminding the Cabinet of the long history of community use of the building. She felt that the ideal solution would be to hand over the building to a community trust or to the Town Council.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, said that the Council had not been procrastinating as had been suggested. The Cabinet was determined to make progress on the issue but in a transparent way and having listened to local community opinions. He stated that he wanted to be clear that he ruled out options A (demolition) and C (use by the Council) immediately. On option B (commercial sale), he wished to emphasise the Council's willingness to consider foregoing substantial financial benefit in order to maximise the benefit to the community. He therefore intended to propose to the Cabinet that a further report be submitted to Cabinet, exploring options D (Lease to Norton Radstock Town Council for community purposes at a rent or a premium) and E (wider-scale community use). He also emphasised his determination that the eventual outcome needed to be in the best interests of the local community taking account of the Vision for the area and confirmed that it would make no sense to allow the building to deteriorate. He wished to meet with the Town Council and other stakeholders to make progress on determining the best approach.

Councillor Chris Watt seconded the proposal and said that all the options mentioned by the speakers were still possible within the remaining options being taken forward. He was pleased to agree to the January timetable for the report on the remaining options, following local consultation and he hoped that all stakeholders would make themselves available.

Councillor Charles Gerrish was eager to ensure that a timescale be adopted and that this should come back to the January Cabinet meeting.

Rationale

The Quirk Report provides a new basis for the consideration of community management of public assets. The Council's approach to Quirk is based on a presumption of gaining a benefit either in terms of adding to the provision of services within the authority, in which case a supporting Service will back the bid of an organisation for support OR on obtaining best consideration for the property for re-investment in provision of community services generally. The Council's approach to this property may be seen as setting precedent.

Other Options Considered

All options were considered within the body of the report.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To note the Options set out within the report;

(2) That a further report be submitted to the Cabinet meeting on 9th January 2008 investigating and advising further on options D (Lease to the Town Council for community purposes at a rent or a premium) and E (Wider-Scale Community Use) in the context of the overall vision, plans and opportunities for Norton Radstock. The report to follow more detailed discussions with local stakeholders, including Norton Radstock Town Council and Norton Radstock Regeneration Company.

[The resolution was adopted following an amendment from Councillor Charles Gerrish, accepted by the proposer and seconder, to the effect that a timetable should be adopted which would ensure that a report would be submitted to the January 2008 Cabinet meeting.]

43 BATH PLUS LIMITED (Report 14).

Councillor Paul Crossley welcomed the Cabinet's determination to put in place proper arrangements for city centre management. He was concerned however that the process had been rushed and that in consequence a whole series of consultation had been missed. He declared his interest as a member of the Board of Bath Tourism Plus but said that he was speaking now as an individual. He wanted to see the new City Centre Manager empowered with a wide brief, to work with business and community across the city centre to encourage tourism. He felt that there was a confusion of roles evident in paragraph 7.5, and expressed concerns about an overlap of responsibility and accountability between Bath Plus and the Festival Trust and Bath Tourism Plus.

Alex Schlesinger made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6] in which he acknowledged the need to promote tourism but felt that the local business community had not been properly consulted about the proposals. He was concerned that local business was apparently being asked to fund £50,000 and wondered if this would be used as an excuse for the Council to apply to levy its own business rate.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson made an ad hoc statement supporting previous speakers. She was unhappy that she had only seen the papers on Friday because of late publication. She felt that the plans were Bath-centric and that therefore the proposed company would be dominated by one political group. She had reservations about privatising the Council's tourism responsibilities and did not welcome another layer of bureaucracy.

Colin Skellett (Chairman of the Initiative) made an ad hoc statement in which he clarified that the directors of the proposed company would be unpaid. He cited Bath Tourism Plus as an excellent model for the new organisation and assured the meeting that the Festivals Trust would not be affected by the proposals although the Forum would be brought into the new arrangements. He said that there had in fact been widespread consultation with many stakeholder groups.

David Redgewell made an ad hoc statement in which he observed that the boundaries of responsibility and authority must be absolutely clear under the new arrangements. He also noted the success of the public / private partnership in Bristol mentioning the Broadmead development in particular.

Councillor Chris Cray made an ad hoc statement appealing to the Cabinet to ensure that the Council would promote tourism fairly across the whole area. He felt that the appointment of a Bath City Centre manager might leave Norton Radstock and Keynsham underrepresented.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in proposing the item, said that 3 meetings involving discussions regarding Bath Plus had already been held and that either 2 or 3 Directors of Bath Tourism Plus (including Chair and Chief Executive) had been in attendance. Discussions with Festivals organisations had also been held. He had also met with the Federation of Small Businesses Committee in September when Bath Plus and other Council initiatives involving business had been discussed.

He said that the report made clear that it was intended to ensure balance on the Board, by adding members from under-represented areas and who could otherwise contribute to the objectives. He reminded the meeting that the income from tourism in Bath is a benefit to the whole area, not only the city. He was committed to ensuring that resources were allocated fairly across the whole area and that the towns of Midsomer Norton, Radstock and Keynsham must be supported as well as the city of Bath.

Councillor Charles Gerrish seconded the proposal and highlighted the wording in the report at paragraph 7.6 where it clearly stated that the structure of the company was "yet to be decided" and that the Board would "include" (but not exclusively) the proposed list of members. He reminded the meeting that Keynsham did in fact already have a Town Centre Manager although Norton Radstock did not, as yet. The proposed name, Bath Plus, would highlight the intention for the new company to operate across the area in delivering benefits to tourism.

Councillor Chris Watt recognised the frustrations felt by people in the rural area - which he had shared at times. He assured the meeting that the Cabinet was determined not to favour any one part of the area over the others and that there was a determination to work with Ward members, Town and Parish Councils in promoting tourism to the benefit of the whole community.

Rationale

Many cities have City Centre Management arrangements in order to engage the private sector in the delivery of city centre improvements. The new Local Government white paper contains proposals for Councils to raise funds via National Non-Domestic Rates. This may be an additional source of city centre funding in due course.

Tourism and Festivals activities must promote Bath and North East Somerset, not only Bath, hence the proposed name "Bath Plus Ltd".

The Council receives substantial commercial income from its Bath property interests, car parking and Roman Baths, and shares with the business sector a desire to improve Bath's presentation to the public; hence the willingness to support this initiative.

A number of priority issues were identified in the recent Destination Management Plan produced by The Tourism Company. It said that some parts of the City were "a bit ragged and run down" and it suggested the quality of the public realm falls below the standard people might reasonably expect from a City of this significance. It also highlighted a need for better signage and information to enable people to orientate themselves and easily find their way around. Bath Plus would be one of a number of initiatives we will be exploring to respond to, and resolve, such concerns.

Other Options Considered

Some cities have achieved Business Improvement District Status to engage businesses in improving cities and districts; this remains a medium term option, and can be discussed with the new company at the appropriate time. This proposal provides greater accountability amongst those affected by city centre, Festivals and Tourism activities.

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Charles Gerrish, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To support in principle the establishment of a limited company to promote and improve Bath's attractiveness to residents and visitors, to take a proactive role in Tourism and Festivals activities across B&NES, and to employ a Bath City Centre Manager who will become a catalyst for change;

(2) To delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Resources and Customer Services: