Meeting documents

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF EXECUTIVE COUNCILLORS AT THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE MEETING 12^th Jul 2006

1

Question from:

Councillor Caroline Roberts

Increasingly I, and I suspect other councillors, am receiving complaints from pedestrians about the number of cyclists using the pavements. One would suspect that the pavements are being used because the roads are seen to be too dangerous to cycle on and because the roads are so congested there is no road space for them to cycle.

What measures is the Executive member taking to create safer routes for cyclists or shared space for cyclists and pedestrians to use pavements safely?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

The problem of cyclists who ride on pavements has been with us in Bath for many years. The police have been very helpful and I have recently written to Chief Superintendent Olivia Pinkney asking her help to address the issue of illegal cycling on footways and cycling the wrong way up one way streets. I do not agree that those who offend are in general doing so because of danger or congestion on the roads, they are simply ignoring all reasonable regulations.

Within the Traffic and Safety Capital Programme there is a specific cycling budget every financial year. For 2005/06 it was £265,000, and this financial year 2006/07 it is £139,000. A proportion of this funding is allocated to providing off road routes and some to providing on road facilities to create safer routes for cyclists.

All new traffic schemes are designed to consider the needs and safety of cyclists, for example, as part of the recent Claverton Street traffic management scheme, a cycle lane was installed.

In addition, advanced stop lines are provided at all new traffic controlled junctions to assist cyclists. If there is an upgrade of a signalised junction, advanced stop lines are added if possible, for example at Windsor Bridge.

To encourage cycling and assist cyclists there is a Map for Cyclists available. These maps are free and intended to be useful to all cyclists whether experienced or inexperienced. They are designed so that people can plan their own route. Roads are coloured according to how busy and how easy they are to cycle on. Cyclists can plan their route on quiet roads and try to avoid busy roads. Hopefully this will also encourage cyclists to use legal routes.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Caroline Roberts

I would like to thank the Executive member for his reply. Would he like to accompany me on a cycle ride so that he can experience for himself the problems encountered by cyclists?

Answer from:

Councillor Sir Elgar Jenkins OBE

I did in fact recently accompany officers on such a cycle ride and was able to experience for myself some of the problems to which you have referred, so I will on this occasion decline your invitation.

2

Question from:

Chris Beezley

Adoption of the emerging B&NES Local Plan is now scheduled beyond the cut-off date (21 July 2006) beyond which a formal Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is mandated by European Directive 2001/42/EC and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, referred to in the Inspector's covering letter to B&NES' Chief Executive.

The formal objective of the SEA Directive is to "provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development ..."

In the context of the 2005 independent Sustainable Development Appraisal which reported `major sustainability concerns' with the University of Bath Green Belt proposal which would result in the university expanding into the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, will the Executive Member for Sustainability & the Environment confirm that B&NES will now commission a formal Environmental Assessment?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The issues raised in Mr Beezley's question have been addressed in the Council's published statement under regulation 6 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans And Programmes Regulations 2004. This decision was informally announced at the Local Plan Pre-Inquiry Meeting in October 2005 and the statement (set out below) was formally publicised in December 2004/January 2005. The Council's position on Strategic Environmental Assessment and the B&NES Local Plan remains unchanged.

The 2005 Sustainable Development Appraisal was submitted for consideration during the Local Plan Inquiry in 2005. The Inspector makes reference to it in her Report (para 9.17) and has recommended changes to the Green Belt Boundary at Claverton Down , but she has recommended that St Johns Field should remain within the Green Belt primarily on Green Belt and AONB grounds. The Council is now in the process of responding to the Inspector's Report.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

of

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET LOCAL PLAN INCLUDING MINERALS AND WASTE POLICIES

STATEMENT UNDER REGULATION 6 of the

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PLANS AND PROGRAMMES REGULATIONS, 2004

Introduction

1. On 15th July, 2004 Full Council delegated authority to the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Executive Member for Sustainability and the Environment to prepare a Statement under regulation 6 of the draft Regulations setting out why it was not feasible to carry out an environmental assessment [Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) under the European Directive 2001/42/EC] of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan including Minerals and Waste Policies ("the Plan").

2. Since that decision Parliament has approved the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations, 2004 ("the Regulations") and this Statement is made under regulation 6 thereof.

The Plan timetable

3. The Plan is at a very advanced stage. Pre-Inquiry Changes were approved in July 2004 and published for public consultation in August. The consultation period has expired. Further pre-inquiry changes were agreed in November 2004 and the consultation period ends in January 2005. The pre-inquiry meeting took place on 19th October, 2004 and the public inquiry itself starts on 8th February, 2005.

4. The process of preparing further changes to the Plan, presenting them to Council for approval and then publishing them for public consultation takes several months. This fact alone demonstrates that it is not "feasible" to consider the preparation of further changes to the Plan now. If such changes were to follow a further environmental assessment of the Plan it is probable that any such changes could not be prepared until 2005 and only approved for consultation after the start of the Local Plan Inquiry. In practice, therefore, any such changes could only be considered at a further Modifications Inquiry.

Plan Assessment to date

5. The preparation of the Plan has been undertaken against the background of a series of assessments of the Plan's impact on the environment and sustainability issues under the Sustainable Development Appraisal (SDA) process. Attached to this Statement is a brief summary of the various stages at which the Plan has been assessed. As the summary shows, there have been several stages at which an SDA has been undertaken (1999, 2001 and 2004) and there has been consultation on the first two of these in 2000 and 2002. The Local Plan Inspector will have an opportunity to consider the SDA currently being undertaken at the Inquiry in 2005.

6. The SDA process to date has covered most of the issues which would need to be assessed at this stage of the Plan process under the Regulations. In these circumstances it is considered that the steps taken by the Council to date secure substantial compliance with the objective of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), which is to

"provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development ..."

Conclusion

7. It is not practicable or feasible to undertake an SEA and then make consequential changes to the Plan within the existing Plan timetable (paras. 3 and 4). Accordingly, an SEA at this stage would be merely informative and is considered unnecessary given substantial compliance with the objective of the SEA Directive (para. 6).

8. The alternative of postponing the Local Plan Inquiry to enable an SEA to be undertaken would have serious consequences for planning throughout the district, quite apart from the more direct cost and manpower implications of a delayed inquiry. Any additional compliance with the Directive would be wholly disproportionate to these adverse consequences.

9. The Council therefore considers that it is not "feasible" to undertake an SEA of the Plan at this stage.

David Davies

Head of Planning Services

8th December 2004

3

Question from:

Chris Beezley

The University of Bath has recently applied for planning permission to build 358 additional student residences on its Claverton Down campus (Ref: 06/02031/FUL). Since these would contribute to the 2,000 additional student residences which were the subject of the B&NES Local Plan Public Inquiry, does the Executive Member agree with the Inspector's recommendation (R9.9) that all such development should be determined in the context of a revised university-wide Master Plan?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

As with all of the various recommendations made in the Local Plan Inspector's Report, a considered response to this particular recommendation will be made by the Council Executive in due course. In assessing the current application the Council, as Local Planning Authority, will have regard to all of the material planning considerations which include policies in the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan and also the University of Bath Masterplan which was endorsed in 2001 by the Council's Planning, Transportation & Environment Committee.

4

Question from:

Councillor Brian Webber

How many proposals for the development of more than 5 units of accommodation on 'brownfield' sites (other than Bath Western Riverside) are at present the subject of pre-application discussions between prospective applicants or their agents and the Council's Planning Services? How many of the sites are within the city of Bath? Have Planning Services made the chairs of the relevant development control committees aware of these proposals?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The Planning Service does not collect or collate statistics regarding pre-application discussions, which take many forms, ranging from informal telephone conversations to more formal assessments made by the Development Team. These discussions are regarded as confidential, and only a very small proportion of them lead through to the submission of a Planning application.

It is therefore not possible to provide a specific response to this question. It also follows that we are unable to provide information relating to any specific geographical area, and that such discussions are not reported to or discussed with the Chairs of the relevant Development Control Committees.

5

Question from:

Chris Beezley

At Agenda Item 13, approval is sought of a B&NES Housing Strategy for 2005-2010.

Section 5 includes a student housing Strategic Objective stating that the Universities will commission the development of smaller units of accommodation which will encourage the integration of the student population into the wider community, i.e. the expansion of student accommodation off-campus.

However, to support their case at the 2005 inquiry into the emerging Local Plan, B&NES and the University of Bath jointly presented contradictory evidence to the Inspector in a key paper (Topic Paper 8) claiming:

1) 'meeting the University's needs on a series of ad hoc small sites scattered around the city...would not be either a planned or sustainable solution' (para. 6.2)

and

2) 'There are no presently identifiable sites in reasonably sustainable locations [off-campus] which are available or likely to become available for the University's development needs' (para. 6.6)

This stance convinced the Inspector to recommend the removal of approximately 40 acres of land from the Green Belt at Claverton Down for future University of Bath expansion on-campus, including the forseeable requirement for all student accommodation. The emerging Local Plan allocates no other sites in B&NES to student accommodation.

Due to the obviously inconsistent approach by B&NES, will the Executive Member for Housing please clarify whether or not it is B&NES' policy to make provision to house students off-campus?

If so, will he recommend a compensating reduction in the potential loss of precious Green Belt land at Claverton Down when the Inspector's report is voted on?

If not, will he amend Section 5 of the Housing Strategy accordingly?

Answer from:

Councillor Vic Pritchard

Thank you Mr Beezley for giving me the opportunity to respond to your view that there is an inconsistency between the draft Housing Strategy and Council evidence put forward at the Local Plan Inquiry.

I note that the Local Plan evidence that you quote is with specific reference to Bath University and not to any other higher or further education providers. The objective in the Housing Strategy that you refer to should appropriately be read within the wider context of the overarching strategic objective for Student Housing, which is:

`To work with higher and further education providers to meet the housing needs of students; acknowledging both the contribution which they make to the local economy and the impact which they can have on the sustainability of existing communities and the housing market in general.'

And, underpinning this:

o `The Universities and City of Bath College will commission the development of smaller units of student accommodation. This will encourage the integration of the student population into the wider community.

o Any expansion of student accommodation off-campus will only be developed in partnership with and taking into account the views of local partners.

o We will work in partnership with private landlords to improve fitness standards in student housing, aiming for a 50% improvement in fitness levels by 2010.'

As stated in both the covering report and the Housing Strategy itself detailed proposals on Student Housing (as with other key issues) will be developed and consulted on over the coming months. The opportunity will be taken as part of the process of establishing the Student Housing Delivery Plan to consider further whether there is any potential inconsistency or lack of clarity on this issue that needs to be addressed.

6

Question from:

Councillor Tim Ball

Bearing in mind the Council's responsibility to support the development of appropriate opportunities for disabled persons would the Executive member please outline what provisions have been made to assist the former employees of Linear Way seek alternative opportunities?

Answer from:

Councillor Malcolm Hanney

The Council decision to rationalise the production processes at Linear Way Industries resulted in 14 disabled staff being potentially put at risk in respect of continuing employment.

To deal with the subsequent issues, a budget of £45000 was allocated and, as a result of ongoing work by the HR department and management at LWI, of the original 14 affected by the proposals, 6 have been found altenative employment, 3 are retiring, and 1 will be taking redundancy and relocating with his carer to a different part of the UK.

The remaining 4 staff are being actively supported by the Council through the Workstep team in an attempt to find suitable alternative employment.

Supplementary Question from:

Councillor Tim Ball

I would like to thank the Executive member for his reply. Can the Executive member confirm that people are being actively assessed, and not just offered administration jobs unrelated to their specific skills?

Answer from:

Councillor Malcolm Hanney

I am unable to go into the details of personal issues. However, I can confirm that all those in question will be offered relevant work.

7

Question from:

Councillor Shaun McGall

What is the current position of the boarded up unit at number 1 & 2 Bath Street?

A boarded up unit in the heart of the city detracts from the architectural beauty of this city and is not in the interest of the city's economic development. If this unit is not part of the Council's property portfolio then what effort is being made to work with the legal owners of this property to bring this building back into use as soon as possible?

Answer from:

Councillor Colin Darracott

The small retail unit at 1 & 2 Bath Street is not part of the Council's Commercial Estate and as such the Council powers are limited . The building is not in such a condition, that the Council could intervene.

Staff from Property Services have had discussions with the Agents dealing with the property and understand that the property is let to a major PLC Company, who have, up to now, been unable to agree terms for either a surrender of the lease to the freeholder or a subletting. However there does seem to be some change afoot, as the property is now under offer, subject to suitable references.

8

Question from:

Deborah Porter

Is the Executive's decision to reject the Inspector's recommendations for housing on the Radstock Railway Land the decision that will go out to public consultation, and when will the Executive or other Council committee be considering the Inspector's recommendations regarding the other site-specific requirements?

Answer from:

Councillor Gerry Curran

The Council Executive, at its meeting on 7 June, resolved that further consideration should be given to the Inspector's recommendations on Radstock Railway Land. This resolution and any further resolution of the Council Executive relating to Radstock Railway Land, will be considered by The Council along with the Executive's recommended response to the entire Local Plan Inspector's report. It will be the resolution of The Council that will inform the proposed revised policy framework which is the subject of public consultation. The schedule for future meetings is yet to be finalised.