Meeting documents

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF EXECUTIVE COUNCILLORS AT THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE MEETING 11^th Oct 2006

1

Question from:

Ian Thorn

Can the Executive Member report on what work has been done to ensure that there are sufficient and suitably placed dropped kerbs ("mobility crossings") in Bath city centre (particularly around the Empire Building and Guildhall) to facilitate wheelchair access to this area?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

The Department has a policy aimed at helping members of public who have disabilities. Funding is mainly spent on providing dropped kerbs and controlled pedestrian crossings. Consideration is also given to any need for footway improvements.

In the area of the Guildhall and the Abbey there are four controlled pedestrian crossings and a number of dropped kerbs.

If there are specific locations where it is suggested that dropped kerbs are required please contact Alison Sherwin, telephone: 01225 394049, alison_sherwin@bathnes.gov.uk

2

Question from:

Councillor Caroline Roberts

Does the Executive member know how much money would be saved by the Council if Diamond Travel Card holders were permitted to purchase return tickets to Bath city centre using their cards, instead of having to purchase two tickets which are more expensive than return tickets?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

None. The holder is issued with a ticket of zero value simply to record the transaction. The Department for Transport recommended the method of calculation for reimbursement which is calculated from the equivalent adult fare of all tickets sold to half-fare passholders in January 2006 - assuming one journey per single ticket, two journeys per return ticket and three journeys per day ticket. To claim their reimbursement, operators must supply us with the total number of tickets issued to Diamond Travelcard holders each month.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Caroline Roberts

Would the Executive member please answer the question and is he aware that return tickets are cheaper than two singles?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

I did answer the question. People misunderstand how the system works so I set out to explain in my reply.

3

Question from:

Deborah Porter, Cam Valley Wildlife Group

Please could the Leader of the council confirm that he passed on to the Executive the concerns I set out in the attached paper to my mail of 16th July, and that these concerns are being given serious consideration by the Executive in its reconsideration of decisions regarding the Inspector's report (I attach the paper again, with apologies that I failed to put my name on the electronic copy sent previously)?

Please can the Leader of the council confirm that the Executive members are aware that to reject the Inspector's recommendations on Radstock Railway Land lays the council open to legal challenge through Judicial Review and that similarly, members of the planning committee, should it make a decision in opposition to the Inspector's recommendations, are laying themselves open to legal challenge?

Can he confirm or deny that planning committee members would be personally liable in such a case?

Answer from:

Councillor Paul Crossley

All the submissions relating to this item were included in the consultation and were referred to the Executive for their consideration.

4

Question from:

Deborah Porter, Cam Valley Wildlife Group

Please could the Executive Member for Environment and Sustainability say whether or not he agrees that the recent submission by English Nature on the Radstock railway Land planning application, which included the statement, "We also note and support the comments within the Inspector's Report with regard to the Radstock site in the BaNES Local Plan (May 2006)" is a clear indication that the view of Cam Valley Wildlife Group, that "robust and convincing" reasons had not been given at the Executive meeting that could justify rejecting the Inspector's decision, has now been proven correct?

Will the Executive member, in the light of English Nature's view, now be recommending that the Inspector's recommendations with regard to policy GDS.1 NR2 are accepted?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The recommendation to the Council is set out in the report for 12 October meeting.

5

Question from:

Deborah Porter, Somer Valley Friends of the Earth

Does the Executive Member for Environment and Sustainability agree that the status of `Long Gardens' in Norton Radstock as `brownfield' land is inappropriate and out of character in that area?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The definition of `brownfield' land is set out in PPG3 which includes gardens within the curtilage of the property, but does not take character into consideration.

6

Question from:

Deborah Porter, Somer Friends of the Earth

In view of the results of the Parish Poll in Norton Radstock, where the vote was 86.5% in favour of the principles laid out, which were in turn in line with the Inspector's recommendations, and in view of the fact that about 15% of the Radstock ward electorate voted (comparable with a B&NES local bi-election) in a five-hour period and inclement weather, will the Executive review its decision to reject the Inspector's recommendations with regard to policy specific to Radstock Railway Land, GDS.1/NR2?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The recommendation to the Council is set out in the report for 12 October meeting.

7

Question from:

Helen Woodley

In the absence to date of response to previous questions about the Southbourne Gardens Planning Appeal Inquiry:

Please could the Executive Member for Sustainability and Environment clarify the status of urban green field land, and also green field sites within village curtilages, for purpose of development control?

Currently we have seemingly protective policies that appear to have no influence on the recent decisions made in respect of, for example:

Allotment land rear of 118 Lymore Avenue (Twerton)

An old orchard at the Shrubbery (Lansdown)

Allotment land at Southbourne Gardens (Walcot)

Old nursery site at Sydney Wharf (Bathwick)

These policies include:

PPS1 key objectives and paragraph 1.20.

PPS3 Annex C;

PPG17, paragraph 10;

PPS9 Key Objective 3 and Paragraph 11

RPG10 Policy HO5

Emerging RSS, Objective 5

I am aware that in each case the Council refused development, at least initially, but to my knowledge none of the above policies or objectives were quoted.

Please would he also be able to clarify the status of brown field or previously developed land, for purpose of development control, in the light of the following Statement made to the House of Commons on 2 Feb 2006?

Back gardens have been designated as brownfield since 1985, but we have made clear in our planning policy that this does not mean that all gardens are up for grabs. Local planning authorities can already turn down applications for buildings in gardens if they are inappropriate or out of character with the local community. Well designed communities should involve high densities alongside attractive garden spaces as well.

How is this currently being applied:

Within the World Heritage Site?

Elsewhere in the County?

If known, by other Local Authorities?

Please could any examples be quoted?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

i. Please could the Executive Member for Sustainability and Environment clarify the status of urban green field land, and also green field sites within village curtilages, for purpose of development control?

PPG3 sets out the criteria for previously developed ‘brownfield’ land:

“Previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure.  The definition covers the curtilage of the development.  Previously developed land may occur in both built-up and rural settings; the definition includes defence buildings and land used for mineral extraction and waste disposal where provision for restoration has not been made through development control procedures.

The definition excludes land and buildings that are currently in use for agricultural or forestry purposes, and land in built-up areas which has not been developed previously (e.g. parks, recreation grounds, and allotments - even though these areas may contain certain urban features such as paths, pavilions and other buildings).  Also excluded is land that was previously developed but where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings), and where there is a clear reason that could outweigh the re-use of the site - such as its contribution to nature conservation or it has subsequently been put to an amenity use and cannot be regarded as requiring redevelopment.”

Land within towns or villages that do not meet this criteria therefore can be considered as having the status of ‘ greenfield ’ land.

ii.    Currently we have seemingly protective policies that appear to have no influence on the recent decisions made in respect of, for example:

       Allotment land rear of 118 Lymore Avenue (Twerton)

       An old orchard at the Shrubbery (Lansdown)

       Allotment land at Southbourne Gardens (Walcot)

       Old nursery site at Sydney Wharf (Bathwick)

These policies include:

PPS1 key objectives and paragraph 1.20.

PPS3 Annex C;

PPG17, paragraph 10;

PPS9 Key Objective 3 and Paragraph 11

RPG10 Policy HO5

Emerging RSS, Objective 5

I am aware that in each case the Council refused development, at least initially, but to my knowledge none of the above policies or objectives were quoted.

With reference to Lymore Avenue , I refer you to my letter dated 12^th October to your question put to me at the September Council meeting.

The other cases will require additional research which has not been possible at present, and I have asked officers to provide me with further info rmation which will info rm a supplement to this answer as soon as possible. 

iii.   Please would he also be able to clarify the status of brown field or previously developed land, for purpose of development control, in the light of the following Statement made to the House of Commons on 2 Feb 2006 ?

Back gardens have been designated as brownfield since 1985, but we have made clear in our planning policy that this does not mean that all gardens are up for grabs.  Local planning authorities can already turn down applications for buildings in gardens if they are inappropriate or out of character with the local community.  Well designed communities should involve high densities alongside attractive garden spaces as well.

iv.   How is this currently being applied: Within the World Heritage Site? 

When assessing the appropriateness of development proposals which relate to potential development within the cartilage of buildings within the district and the Bath World Heritage Site consideration is given to relevant policies within the development relating to site specific, designs and contextual considerations and heritage  issues.   

For example:

Policy D.2 which permits development only if it maintains or enhances the public realm.  These gardens, whilst usually privately owned gardens, are visually in the public realm; this is an overarching policy which applies to any development across the District.

Policy HG.4 excludes some of the long gardens from the Housing Development Boundary where they are on the edge of the town eg. Whitelands.

Policy BH.6 – many of the long gardens, especially in Radstock, are in the Conversation Area and as such are protected from development where they contribute to Radstock’s special architectural or historic interest, for example Whitelands, Tyning and Wells Square.

These policies work together to provide a framework for the protection of long gardens where they contribute to local character.

v.    How are these issues addressed elsewhere in the County and by other Local   Authorities?  Please could any examples be quoted?

We do not hold info rmation about how other neighbouring councils within the West of England area manage these issues, therefore, we are unable to supply you with this info rmation and would refer you to their planning services.

As stated above, I will instruct officers to contact you in the future with the info rmation relating to specific sites that we cannot provide at this time.

8

Question from:

Councillor Sharon Ball

Could the Executive Member please indicate when the new footbridge bridge over the River Avon between Fieldings road and Locksbrook Road will be completed?

A presentation was made to the Bath South Committee in about September last year telling Councillors in Public Session that funding had been granted for this bridge and that it would be put in place in the Spring of 2006.

The last that we heard was that it would now have to be done in the Summer but as this has now passed could the Executive Member please explain what has gone wrong and why the communication process on this issue has broken down?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

After receiving a detailed design for this bridge and noting the dramatic rises in steel and concrete prices a re-evaluation of the scheme has been undertaken with replacement considered against the alternative of repairing the existing structure.

Whilst originally the cost of replacement was similar to the cost of undertaking repairs, these costs are now dramatically more. Work is now being undertaken to detail a repair scheme to be undertaken in Autumn 07.The repair scheme will achieve a similar result to replacement with further major works not being required for over 60 years

There is the added benefit to the scheme that it is probable that the bridge will not need to be closed for a 4 month period during the works.

9

Question from:

Councillor Sharon Ball

With the supplementary planning document before the Executive today, would the Executive Member agree that, should the supplementary planning document be passed, that he would arrange for a workshop for all interested parties to be held?

Would he also agree that such a workshop should be held on a Saturday so that members of the public can ask questions concerning the document and how it is to be applied, and would he also communicate with the planning department to ensure that copies of the current planning application from Crest Nicholson are also available on the day of the workshop?

Could the executive member also confirm that the date of any workshop would be well in advance of the Development control committee in November that will determine the planning application from Crest Nicholson?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The SPD for Bath Western Riverside has gone through a full public consultation process, and has been amended in the light of comments received. The SPD is now proposed for approval for development control purposes. However, workshops with the community are recognised as a potentially helpful consultation method and will be considered for the future.

10

Question from:

Doctor David Dunlop, London Road Area Residents' Association

London Road Area Residents Association feels certain that the Executive would recognise the significant resources and time expended by Batheaston Parish Council and others on proposals for a Park and Ride development at Charmy Down (a significantly different scheme from the one assessed earlier by the Council's consultants), and that this could be of great benefit to Bath and North East Somerset.

Would the Executive Member for Transport and Highways be kind enough to instruct his officers to co-operate fully with the Parish Council in order that a fully costed and justified scheme can be brought forward to the Development Control Committee such that it can give it due consideration as a fully worked up planning application ?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

No, The Council resources are prioritised to promote the Bath Package approved under the JLTP process. These proposals include a number of Park and Rides but Charmy Down does not form a part of scheme. As you will appreciate officers make every effort to facilitate planning applications submitted by developers and advise as appropriate without fettering the Council's discretion. This has been the situation with regard to Charmy Down

11

Question from:

Councillor Steve Hedges

Could the Leader of the Council and each Executive Member explain why, when they did not have all the facts in front of them, did they agree with the Planning Inspector's view that there should be a mixed use of the playing fields owned by Hayesfield School?

Could they also say how they came to this conclusion given that there is no retail policy for Bath and North East Somerset Council, and would the Leader of the Council and the Executive Members give an indication of whether they are minded to support the Inspector's recommendations but would not support the development of a superstore on this site, in view of the lack of a retail policy?

Answer from:

Councillor Paul Crossley

The Council Executive has neither agreed nor disagreed with the Planning Inspector. We have merely put forward the Government Inspector's proposals for consultation in the next 6 weeks. The Government Inspector has consulted and come to her own views and the Council must take due consideration of these views. The Executive has recommended that this goes out to consultation so that the community can make its views known. My own personal view is that I am unconvinced of the need of a new supermarket so close to the Co-op supermarket in Odd Down.

12

Question from:

Councillor Caroline Roberts

I was delighted to read on the Council's web site that aerosol cans can now be put into green recycling boxes.  However, one of the other regular items not yet recycled by the council is the tetra pack drinks cartons. Members of the Liberal Democrat group have for some time been collecting these and sending to a company in Scotland for recycling. When does the Executive member envisage this type of recycling being introduced by the Council?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

Tetrapak cartons contain aluminium and plastic as well as paper, which means that many mills cannot process them. In June 2006 the only carton recycling mill in the UK closed down and since then, Tetrapak have been working with other mills in the UK to find alternative locations for recycling cartons.

Waste Services are currently in discussions with staff from Tetrapak about the possibility of introducing recycling banks in the District, in the near future. Promotion will be carried out once arrangements have been agreed and all details are finalised.

13

Question from:

Councillor Tim Ball

Could the Executive Member say what lines of communication he has with the Universities and Colleges of Bath and has he given them any guidance with regard to the Council's ban on drinking alcohol in the city streets? It has become apparent, since the students returned to university and college, that many of them are carrying cans of alcohol around the city's streets at night. If he has not already done so, could he please confirm what action he now proposes to take to resolve this issue?

Answer from:

Councillor Vic Pritchard

We have good relations, and communication, with the Universities and Colleges of Bath and this is run though the Community Safety and Drugs teams student liaisons (Police team).

They currently run briefing sessions to students (offering advice and support) on many aspects of community safety. At present the issue of street drinking is not included in these briefings but we are happy to add this to our next 'Freshers planning week' and have it as an item in the future.

The Police, who manage the street drinking enforcement, are unaware of any issue at present and would need evidence to support a targeted response to this issue. They have assured me that they will be looking into this issue and will get back to me with any proposed action over and above the above response.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Tim Ball

Is the Executive member aware that since the students have returned to the city, the incidence of young people buying alcohol from Sainsbury's and walking through the car park drinking has increased.

Answer from:

Councillor Vic Pritchard

The police have already been made aware of this problem and will take the appropriate action.

14

Question from:

Councillor Caroline Roberts

I have heard from local residents that they are delighted about the introduction of the Diamond travel card which allows them free travel on the local and other buses.

However, as I have experienced for myself, the success of the scheme has led to problems for users of the Number 17 bus which runs through Newbridge area of Bath.

This half hourly service uses small buses, which does not allow for easy wheelchair access, and also does not now have sufficient capacity for the increased number of people using the service, including paying passengers.

Please would the Executive member discuss this with representatives from First Bus to try and provide for sufficient capacity and access for both the card holing passengers and fare paying alike?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

I will ask the officer to look into the problem.