Meeting documents

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Chris Beezley (Federation of Bath Residents' Associations) made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 3) in which he called upon the Executive to safeguard the green belt boundary at Claverton Down.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Simon Petter (Greenway Lane Area Residents' Forum) made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 4) in which he welcomed the adoption of a Local Plan for Bath & North East Somerset because it would provide a firm planning base. He asked the Executive to reject the Inspector's proposal to allocate Beechen Cliff School playing field for housing development.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Richard Cross (Chair of Governors, St Martin's Garden Primary School) made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 5) in which he objected to the Inspector's proposals for the school grounds.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Erica Draisey (Head Teacher of Hayesfield School Technology College) was asked by the Chair whether she considered herself to be an employee of the Council. She replied that she was an employee of the Foundation School, not of the Local Education Authority. The Chair therefore agreed that Erica could make a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 6) in which she supported the adoption of the Inspector's proposals relating to Hayesfield School playing field.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Helen Woodley made a statement in which she expressed concern that protection of land last used for allotment purposes would become reliant on demonstrating demand, instead of having protection equal to that of active sites, since disused allotment land is frequently the outcome of an active eviction process and is not an indicator of lack of local demand. She asked that the criterion of suitability for "horticultural use" should be retained and it should not be changed to "productive use".

Councillor Malcolm Hanney offered Helen a copy of the officers' response to her previous questions, for which she thanked the officers and Executive members.

Councillor Peter Metcalfe made an ad hoc statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 8) in which he said that local Ward members and residents welcomed the proposal to reject the Inspector's comments on Beechen Cliff School. He congratulated the members of the Greenway Lane Residents Association who had invested effort over 18 months into conducting traffic counts.

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement in which he said that the ownership of the Herman Miller site had gone to a major retailing chain but that this had not been considered as part of the public debate on retail provision.

Councillor Adrian Inker made an ad hoc statement supporting the comments of the previous two speakers and asking the Executive to bear the comments fully in mind when they made their decision.

Councillor Caroline Roberts made an ad hoc statement in which she welcomed recommendation E2 and asked the Executive to agree. She pointed out that at Sections E1 and E2, the references to the A4 road were inadvertently written as "A3".

Councillor Gerry Curran introduced the item and thanked Councillor Roberts for pointing out the typographical corrections. He agreed that there were some controversial proposals from the Inspector and explained that the Executive felt that the Local Plan should now be put to the public for formal consultation as soon as practicable and that it should be agreed by full Council as early in 2007 as possible, which would be likely to be during February - a slightly different timetable from the one originally envisaged in paragraph 7.8 of the report. He emphasised that there were still opportunities for public debate, not least during the formal 6-week consultation period and in the lead-up to the Council meeting at which the final Plan was expected to be adopted.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE, in seconding the proposals, emphasised the need for completion as soon as possible following the statutory public consultation period.

Councillor Jonathan Gay said that the Local education Authority had taken a neutral line on the use of the Hayesfield School land because this was properly a matter for the school and residents.

Councillor Colin Darracott said that he would be unable to agree the recommendations for a number of reasons. He felt that the Local Plan was already in conflict with the Regional Spatial Strategy and with the Local Development Framework SPDs. He objects to some of the Inspector's recommendations which the report leaves unchallenged.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney observed that the Local Plan had taken 12 years since the Council was established and should now be agreed without further delay.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty said that she would be voting for the proposal despite some reservations.

Councillor Vic Pritchard said that the proposed Plan is in places over-cautious. The Inspector said that affordable housing should be increased from 30% overall to 35% overall and he agrees with the proposed response in which we add the rider "subject to local circumstances"

Councillor Paul Crossley agreed that the process had taken a long time. There had, throughout that period, been a creditable involvement by the local community. He said it was vital that the Council should now move towards completion. The Executive today will pass the Plan on to its next stage but the 6-week public consultation period and future public meetings will allow opportunity for further public debate.

Councillor Gerry Curran, in summing up, confirmed the intention to aim for adoption by Full Council at a meeting in February 2007.

Rationale

The Local Plan Inquiry Inspector's Report was published in May 2006 and the Council is in the process of formulating its responses. In order to facilitate a speedy adoption, the Inspector has suggested an approach which entails partial adoption of the Local Plan. In assessing the benefits of this approach, a wider assessment on the options for the future of the Local Plan has been undertaken and this decision is based on that assessment.

Other Options Considered

Alternative options for the adoption of the Local Plan and an assessment of these options are set out above together with the reasons for the preferred option in paragraphs 7.2 - 7.8 of the report.

(1) To agree that in principle the whole Local Plan should be progressed to statutory adoption following public consultation and subject to ratification by full Council;

(2) To note the amended timetable for adoption by February 2007; and

(3) To endorse the proposed responses to the Inspector's recommendations in Table 1 of the report (as amplified in Appendix 1 of the report) for consideration by Full Council.

Ken Baker (Regional Officer, GMB Union) made a statement (a copy of which is attached to the minutes as Appendix 7) in which he made the case for keeping the provision of this service in-house.

There were no factual questions from Executive members.

Robert Brinkworth made an ad hoc statement in which he said that the Council Executive must protect the service to the most vulnerable members of society. He said that in the report there was no like-for-like comparison of the actual provision being offered. He reminded the Executive that the in-house service won a Charter Mark award last year.

Councillor Caroline Roberts made an ad hoc statement in which she said that service users did not feel that they had been consulted about the proposed changes to the provision of their domiciliary care.

Councillor Adrian Inker made an ad hoc statement in which he said that he had big reservations about the proposals. He felt that the proposals should be considered by an Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement in which he said that he agreed with the last two speakers and that he believed the rationale for the proposals was purely financial. A new paper was required which considered the quality of provision as well as the financial situation and this should go to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel before final decision.

Richard Gurney (UNISON Shop Steward) made an ad hoc statement which said that union representatives were told (not consulted) about this proposal in August. He said that UNISON cares both about its members and about its service to the community. He believed that lowering the price would inevitably affect the level of service and that, in order to protect the provision, it must be kept in-house.

Councillor Betty Perry made an ad hoc statement in which she stated that she had received a briefing which she now considers to have been misleading. She agreed with others that a new report should be written after full and proper consultation had taken place.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced the item. He said that he would be moving different proposals from those in the published report. In moving his proposal, he explained his reasons.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in seconding the proposal, said that the Executive must be very clear about the outcomes it wished to bring about. The level of service and the financial implications must both be considered. It was important to reduce down-time and increase versatility if the in-house service is to challenge for the contract.

Councillor Jonathan Gay felt that the decision to award the contract should be made by the Full Executive rather than by the portfolio holder and proposed this as an amendment.

Councillor Crossley said that he would not accept the amendment but that any one Executive member could, if they chose, requisition the decision to Full Executive at a later date. Councillor Jonathan Gay accepted this and was happy not to pursue his proposed amendment.

Councillor Colin Darracott agreed with previous comments that the objective is to get the best possible care. He said that since conflicting information had been received, the Executive could not proceed on the basis proposed in the report but he agreed that it was right for the tendering process to go ahead so that a like-for-like comparison could take place.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE, in supporting the proposal, agreed that whether the outcome is an in-house or a contract service, what matters is that the quality of service is provided.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty said that there appeared to be a break-down in the understanding between management and staff on this issue. The proposal provided a way forward. She paid tribute to the majority of staff who had shown flexibility but regretted that it appeared that a small number of inflexible working practices might prejudice the service.

Councillor Gerry Curran expressed concern that the service must provide for the needs of its clients and that the provision must be protected.

Councillor Paul Crossley, in summing up the debate, said that there had been a lively debate, some of which had revolved around disputed factual information. He agreed that protection of the provision of service was paramount and observed that not only the in-house and contract sectors should be considered, but the charitable sector had an excellent record in this specialism and might also wish to tender for the contract.

Rationale

Efforts have been made for more than 2 years to transform the Bath & North East Somerset provided service into one more able to meet the domiciliary care needs of its population and that provides best value. These have not yet come to fruition and it is now believed that exploring options for placing a tender for the provision of these services would produce a more flexible and cost effective service. By asking the Overview and Scrutiny Panel to review the outcome, the Executive hope to ensure that all options are fairly considered before the final decision is taken.

Other Options Considered

The alternative is to retain the status quo. This is not considered an option as it is unaffordable and not fit for purpose.

(1) That a tendering process be undertaken to enable a decision to be made on future providers for long term domiciliary services under best value principles;

(2) To ask the Health and Social Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel to overview the tendering process and to review the outcomes in respect of other models of provision including the status quo; and

(3) The Strategic Director Social and Housing Services and Assistant Director, Adult Care & Health be authorised to take all action necessary to progress the tendering process with the award of the contract or contracts being taken by the Executive Member for Adult and Health Services in consultation with the responsible Director.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced the item and proposed the new recommendations which had been circulated. He said that the meeting of the Bath South Local Committee which met last night had asked to be kept informed of progress. He referred to the commendable work put in by the Corporate Projects Team led by David Trethewey and Andy Thomas.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE seconded the proposal.

Rationale

None.

(1) That the Project Board be thanked for its work on the Outcomes Framework and areas for stretch targets;

Councillor Caroline Roberts made an ad hoc statement in which she emphasised the need for training for the new staff taken on to handle the additional telephone calls arising from their enlarged role. As the Customer Access Member Champion, Councillor Roberts said that she was pleased that libraries are becoming One-Stop Shops.

Councillor Paul Crossley, in moving the proposal, thanked the Customer Access Team and Councillor Roberts as Member Champion for their efforts.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney seconded the proposal.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE said that Julia Fieldhouse (Head of Customer Service Libraries and Information) had attended a recent Parish Cluster meeting and had been very helpful. He agreed that Planning officers and members should be fully informed about the changes.

Councillor Gerry Curran agreed with the comments made by others and said that Planning officers and members should be fully informed before the changes are implemented.

Rationale

The programme is driven by a number of corporate drivers, and also makes use of changes in technology, changing customer demands and expectations, as well as central government demands such as e government, transformation, Gershon efficiencies and the modernisation agenda.

The programme fits well within the overall corporate culture change work and will contribute to a more customer focussed ethos. It is highly interdependent with other corporate improvement projects such as Worksmart, Geographic Information Systems and HR Improvement Strategy.

Other Options Considered

The programme is part of the corporate plan and therefore no other options have been considered, although the speed of the programme has been reviewed subject to interdependent projects and resources available.

(1) To note the programme's progress since the last report in December 2005 and plans for 2006 and beyond;

(2) To note the revenue and capital resources allocated for the current year as well as for 2007/08 and 2008/09 which itemises what will be delivered within current funds; and

(3) To endorse the use of the corporate Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system as a vehicle to improve efficiency, by reducing other IT systems across the organisation and to encourage corporate culture change

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in moving the recommendations, reminded all over-budget Executive members of the need to resolve their portfolio overspends within the financial year.

Councillor Colin Darracott seconded the proposal.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE responded to Councillor Roberts' question by explaining that the formula for funding the over 60 off peak travel was unkind to the Council. This had made it difficult to provide the facility within the funds available.

Rationale

The report is presented as part of the reporting of financial management and budgetary control required by the Council.

Other Options Considered

None.

(1) To note the expenditure and income position for the Council in the financial year to the end of June and the year end projections detailed the report;

(2) To approve the virements proposed in the report and to note the changes in the capital programme; and

(3) To note the report on Transport & Highways and Home to School Transport and in light of the on-going budget pressures highlighted in these areas, to write off the 2005/06 overspends against the earmarked reserves created as part of the 2005/06 outturn report.

Rationale

This report sets out:

Other Options Considered

This report contains information about the Council's financial outlook. The service and resources planning process will explore alternative options to meet the Council's priorities within available financial resources.

Corporately, the options considered at the time of setting the 2007/08 budget will be concerned with balancing the level of Council Tax with the level of services provided by the Council.

(1) To agree the proposed strategic approach to and timetable for the service and resources planning process;

(2) To note the background, key issues and pressures that will need to be considered when developing service delivery plans and when recommending a financial plan and budget to Council in February 2007; and

(3) To request the Overview and Scrutiny panels to consider and comment on the proposed high level service and financial strategy, including those service planning parameters which will affect the services within the Panels' remit, and in particular to focus on value for money, and service and community impact in relation to their service portfolio.

Councillor Colin Darracott said that some of the Economic Development indicators were incorrect and that he would be taking action outside the meeting to have the information corrected.

Rationale

This report is a key part of the Council's performance management framework.

Other Options Considered

None.

To note the contents of this report and ask the Executive Members and Directors to continue to take appropriate action to mitigate any identified deficiencies in performance.

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE moved the proposals and emphasised that it was not true, as some had been suggesting, that this Council was taking a unilateral approach to the proposed HGV ban. The Council have consulted, and will continue to consult, with Wiltshire County Council about the wider view, and is proposing to make allowance for local HGV traffic.

Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty expressed her support for the recommendations and said that she was delighted to second the proposal.

Councillor Paul Crossley said that he was pleased that this Council was taking a lead on an issue affecting all councils. The proposals would take several years to implement fully because of the importance of full consultation.

Rationale

It would be inappropriate to include the Rossiter Road scheme proposal in the Bath Package Major Scheme, due to the effect on the economic appraisal of the Bath Package Bid. Inclusion would reduce the prospects of the Bid being accepted by Department for Transport (DfT). The Rossiter Road scheme is expected to have economic benefits for the local community. However, these benefits cannot be taken into account in assessing the transport economic efficiency of the Package in accordance with DfT criteria.

The Rossiter Road scheme will be of relatively low cost (compared to the remaining components of the Bath Package Bid), and it will be more appropriate for the Council to fund the scheme from the routine Transport capital programme which is supported by an annual integrated transport block allocation from DfT.

It would be inappropriate to include the HGV restrictions in the Bath Package Major Scheme, as the details are not yet sufficiently well defined. As it will be of relatively low cost (compared to the remaining components of the Bath Package Bid) the Council can fund the restriction from the Transport capital programme in due course.

Other Options Considered

1. The inclusion of the schemes in the Major Scheme Bid was considered, but ultimately rejected to ensure the strongest possible Business Case for the Bath Package, as explained in paragraph 7.3 of the report;

2. It would be possible to leave the schemes un-programmed for the time being. However it is recommended that they be programmed in order to allow preparatory work and consultation to continue.

(1) That the Rossiter Road traffic management scheme as identified in the Joint Local Transport Plan is added to the 5-year transport capital programme with implementation programmed for 2008/09;

(2) That a scheme is provisionally programmed for 2008/09 in the 5-year transport capital programme to introduce weight restrictions to prevent the through movement of lorries in Bath, with access permitted for deliveries; and

(3) To continue discussions will continue with neighbouring authorities (particularly Wiltshire County Council) and freight representative bodies to resolve concerns over the displacement of lorries away from Bath.

Councillor Phyllis Gay made an ad hoc statement supporting the application in which she said that the Mardi Gras had been running for 22 years and would need support if it were to continue.

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad hoc statement supporting the application in which he encouraged others to visit the carnival to see for themselves that it is an excellent event, properly run, which is appreciated by all sectors of the local community.

David Knight made an ad hoc statement pointing out that the carnival could be said to make a contribution to the stretch targets previously agreed by the Executive.

Councillor Jonathan Gay introduced the item by saying that there had been a misunderstanding; that the Carnival Association had believed that their grant application this year had been submitted correctly and that the news that their grant was only to be £1000 was a financial blow. The event drew from all over the area including Bath and he compared the grant awarded recently to the Bath Festival with the grant now sought for Midsomer Norton, which worked out at 40p per visitor.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Colin Darracott who said that the festival must be kept on the road.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney said that the Carnival Association had been funded for 2 successive years outside the proper process. To continue in this way for a third year would be unfair to those organisations which applied in the correct way. He proposed an amendment that the Association be offered a loan.

Councillor Jonathan Gay indicated that he would not accept the amendment.

Councillor Paul Crossley said that he would second the amendment because he agreed that a loan would put things on the correct footing given that he felt that Arts funding should be via the Festivals Trust.

When put to the vote, the amendment was carried (6 in favour, Councillors Jonathan Gay and Colin Darracott against).

Rationale

The Council funds a number of voluntary organisations through grant allocation. The criteria and process for determining funding decisions are published to ensure they are fair and transparent. The Midsomer Norton Festival Organisation has this year been awarded a grant of £1000 after proper consideration of their application.

Other Options Considered

The option of providing a grant outside the proper funding process for the third consecutive year would be inequitable so is not adopted. By providing a loan, the Council would be enabling the Festival to take steps to resolve its financial difficulties.

(1) That the Council Executive are not able to provide additional funding for the Midsomer Norton Mardi Gras Festival and European Band Championships 2006;

(2) That the Executive Member for Leisure & Culture with the Executive Member for Resources be asked to discuss with the Mardi Gras Association the possibility of a loan and applicable terms; and

(3) That the Executive Member for Leisure & Culture considers ongoing Mardi Gras funding in context of Arts Funding Budget including Festivals Trusts.

Rationale

Without the development of new waste treatment infrastructure, each authority in the West of England faces potential fines under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. The potential impact on Bath & North East Somerset Council is detailed in the Council's Waste Strategy published in 2005. Fines and landfill tax combined could collectively amount to over £30 million in 2012/13 for the authorities if no new waste treatment infrastructure is available.

Economies of scale will be achieved by working together.

The joint municipal waste management strategy and waste Development Plan Document (DPD) pave the way for the procurement of waste infrastructure, and will reduce the planning risk for any proposed development.

Other Options Considered

Preparation of waste management strategies and DPDs on an individual authority basis has been considered. The strategic nature of the key issues facing all four authorities together with the economies of scale and efficiency savings resulting from joint working means that this option, in so far as all four authorities are clearly committed to work together, is not preferred.

(2) That a Joint Waste Development Plan Document be prepared with the other authorities named in 1.1; and

(3) That it recommends that Full Council be asked to approve the preparation of a Joint Waste Development Plan Document.

Councillor Colin Darracott introduced the proposals which included at the end of Section 2.2 the words "stakeholders and public". He pointed out that the Financial Implications (Section 3 of the report) had been amended by the inclusion of an additional sentence.

Councillor Vic Pritchard seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The creation of a focused vision for Bath and North East Somerset that informs the statutory Local Development Framework (LDF) will ensure that the Council is planning for the future and engaging with the regional growth agenda set out in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in a goal-orientated, structured way.

Without an overarching spatial vision to sit alongside the RSS the Council may find that its LDF lacks local character and direction, and does not reflect fully local needs and aspirations.

In this respect, the vision for B&NES represents a "bottom-up" approach to spatial planning. Its role is to complement and run alongside the "top-down" Government and Regional approach. The LDF and, within that, the Core Strategy Development Plan Document represents the confluence where these two streams join together and are taken forward as a coherent whole.

Other Options Considered

Various options have been appraised during the production of the vision and it is considered that the present proposals offer the best option for the development of a vision for the Bath and North East Somerset Council area.

(1) Further development of a vision for the Bath & North East Somerset Area;

(2) Wider engagement with all members and relevant service areas of the Council, stakeholders and public;

(3) Key inputs into the development of the Local Development Framework for Bath and North East Somerset which will in due course replace the Local Plan, carrying forward and lending statutory force to the spatial elements of the Vision for the district, assisting in delivery of key regional and local transport policies and incorporating the growth agenda set out in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS); and

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