Agenda and minutes

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

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 6

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

Apologies had been received from Councillor David Hawkins.

Councillor Terry Gazzard had sent notice that he would be arriving late to the meeting.

To receive any declarations from Members/Officers of personal or prejudicial interests in respect of matters for consideration at this meeting.  Members who have an interest to declare are asked to:

a)  State the Item Number in which they have the interest;

b)  The nature of the interest;

c)  Whether the interest is personal, or personal and prejudicial.

Any Member who is unsure about the above should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting in order to expedite matters at the meeting itself.

There were none.

There was none.

At the time of publication, no items had been submitted

There was 1 question from Councillor David Dixon.  [A copy of the question and response is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 1 and is available on the Council's website.]

At the time of publication, no items had been notified

There were none.

To be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 2^nd February 2011 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

This is a standard agenda item, to cover any reports originally placed on the Weekly list for single Member decision making, which have subsequently been the subject of a Cabinet Member requisition to the full Cabinet, under the Council’s procedural rules

There were none.

This is a standing agenda item (Constitution rule 21, part 4D – Executive Procedure Rules) for matters referred by Overview and Scrutiny bodies.  The Chair(person) of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny body will have the right to attend and at the discretion of the Leader to speak to the item, but not vote

There were none.

This report lists the Cabinet member decisions, sorted by Lead decision maker

The Chair referred to the report, which had been placed in the public gallery before the meeting [and a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2].  The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

This report presents the monitoring information for the Authority as a whole for the financial year 2010/11 to the end of January 2011

Note: The papers for this item were not available for Agenda despatch and will be published as a supplementary despatch in due course

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, in moving the recommendations, said he was very pleased that the Council was expected to end the financial year within budget.  He reported that a recent one-off VAT refund had enabled the Cabinet to allocate an extra £368K to various community engagement projects.

Councillor Charles Gerrish seconded the proposal.  He agreed with Councillor Hanney and welcomed the additional funds made available for community engagement.

Rationale

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

Other Options Considered

None

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

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To ASK Strategic Directors to continue to work towards managing within budget in the current year for their respective service areas, and to manage below budget where possible by not committing unnecessary expenditure, through tight budgetary control;

(2) To NOTE the revenue budget position;

(3) That subject to the final Outturn position, the one-off VAT refund of up to £368,000 should be used to support the Community Engagement Fund in 2011/2012;

(4) To NOTE the capital expenditure position for the Council in the financial year to the end of January and the year end projections;

(5) To AGREE the revenue virements listed for approval;

(6) To NOTE the changes in the capital programme;

(7) To APPROVE the additions to the 2010/11 Capital Programme.

The Joint Waste Core Strategy, prepared by the four West of England Unitary Authorities, provides a spatial planning policy framework for waste management. An Independent Examination was held in November 2010 and the Inspector concluded that the strategy is 'sound' in his binding report and that it can therefore be adopted by the Council.

Councillor Paul Crossley made an ad hoc statement in which he said that it had taken too long to get to the present point, but observed that the plans had come a long way since the initial attempts to persuade the partnership to endorse incinerators.

Councillor Charles Gerrish said that he understood Councillor Crossley's sense of frustration but observed that a great deal of work had been required.  He referred to paragraph 5.1 of the report, and said that the words "locating the development" should read "identifying the location for".

Councillor Gerrish said that the Inspector's findings were binding on the Council and that there was now a need to move promptly to adopt the plan to enable the partnership to move forward with the plan.  Given that there would be no full Council meeting until May (which would cause a delay) he was asking the Cabinet to advise the Chief Executive to exercise his urgency powers to endorse the plan.

Councillor Vic Pritchard seconded the proposal.

Rationale

The four West of England Authorities are committed to working together to plan for the changing waste needs of the sub-region. This work must be underpinned by a robust policy framework. Not to adopt a Waste Core Strategy jointly with the other West of England Authorities would create a risk that waste planning policy for the sub-region was inconsistent, potentially leading to an unbalanced and unsustainable distribution of waste facilities.

The Chief Planner (Communities & Local Government) wrote to all Local Authority Chief Executives 10 January 2011 and outlined that the EU Waste Framework Directive means that all waste planning authorities need to have waste management plans in place that allocate sufficient land for waste management facilities. The Government wants to ensure waste plans are adopted to meet EU requirements and to avoid the UK incurring infraction proceedings and fines as a result of unsatisfactory progress. In the event that local authorities do not comply, the Government has included a power in Part 2 of the Localism Bill to pass on some or all of any fines from the European Court of Justice to any authority which causes the UK to be in breach of its obligations under the Directive. It is therefore important that the West of England Authorities adopt the Joint Waste Core Strategy.

Other Options Considered

To prepare waste planning policies for Bath and North East Somerset, independently of other West of England Authorities. Not to prepare a waste Core Strategy jointly with West of England Authorities would create a risk that waste planning policy for the sub-region was inconsistent, potentially leading to an unbalanced and unsustainable distribution of waste facilities.

On a motion from Councillor Charles Gerrish, seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To WELCOME the Inspector’s binding findings;

(2) To NOTE the need to move quickly to the adoption of the JWCS;

(3) To COMMEND the report to Council;

(4) To ASK the Chief Executive to consider exercising his urgency powers to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

This report sets out the proposed framework for delivering investment in Community Enablement following budget decisions made at Full Council on 15^th February. It proposes an overall approach to enabling communities in Bath and North East Somerset to address local needs and concerns.

Councillor Paul Crossley made an ad hoc statement which was very supportive of the proposals.  He pointed out some particularly encouraging progress made in Whiteway and on the Southdown estate.  He endorsed the strategy because it would mean that the Council would learn to trust communities and to engage better with them.

[Councillor Terry Gazzard joined the meeting at this point.]

Councillor Malcolm Hanney, introducing the report, referred to the case studies in appendix 2 of the report.  He was delighted that £2M was being ploughed back into the community against a backdrop of government grants cuts.

Councillor Francine Haeberling said that through careful management the Council had been able to make funds available for community enablement.

Councillor Chris Watt was delighted that the VAT rebate was being made available for community use, and particularly that £150K had been added to the Youth Community fund.

Councillor Vic Pritchard was enthusiastic about the positive effect on the community of these extra funds.  He referred to the case study of Chew Valley Village Agents and the Whiteway regeneration, both of which had had a positive effect on the community.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney agreed with the previous speakers and observed that the strategy would enable communities to determine their own priorities.

Rationale

It is appropriate for the Cabinet to receive a report on the approach to this issue given the decisions made at Council

Other Options Considered

None

On a motion from Councillor Malcolm Hanney, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To AGREE the overall approach to community enablement across Bath and North East Somerset;

(2) To NOTE the arrangements for each element of the Community Enablement Fund;

(3) To NOTE the examples of local initiatives, along with potential next steps;

(4) To AGREE that where possible the Community Enablement Fund will be used to build on and extend learning from this work ;

(5) To AGREE to update the Local Strategic Partnership on this report;

(6) To NOTE the appropriate LSP governance arrangements relating to the LAA Reward Grant.