Agenda and minutes

The Chair was taken by Councillor Paul Crossley, 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.

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

Councillor David Dixon declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in Item 14, Price of Primary School Meals, as a parent of children who sometimes eat school meals.

Councillor Cherry Beath declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 15, Voluntary Organisation Grants for Museums and Heritage, by virtue of being a past Chair of the Standing Committee of the Charter Trustees of The City of Bath.

There was none.

At the time of publication, no items had been submitted

There were 18 questions from the following people: Councillors: Steve Hedges, Nigel Roberts, Will Sandry, Francine Haeberling, Tim Warren (3), Tony Clarke (2), Vic Pritchard, Sarah Bevan, Patrick Anketell-Jones (2), Charles Gerrish (2), Members of the Public: Rae Harris, Nigel Fenwick, Ian Barclay.

[Copies of the questions and response, 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.]

At the time of publication, no items had been notified

There were 11 registered statements, some of which were made at the relevant agenda item.

Lin Patterson (Save Our 6/7 Buses Campaign) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and is available on the Council's website] relating to item 22 on the Agenda, in which she thanked the Cabinet for the allocation of £85K to increase the frequency of the 6/7 Bus Service (Agenda Report 22) but pointed out that the frequencies stated in the report were incorrect.

The Chair referred the statement to Councillor Symonds, and to the Cabinet for consideration at the item.

David Redgewell made a statement relating to items 12 and 17 on the agenda, in which he welcomed some aspects of the proposals but appealing to the Cabinet to consider the need for much improved bus and rail services in the area and to ensure effective independent scrutiny of decisions taken at the regional level.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked David Redgewell if he was aware that the LEP scrutiny panel had been set up and was now operational.  David acknowledged this.

The Chair referred the statement to Cabinet for their consideration at item 17.

Amanda Leon (Radstock Action Group) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 4 and is available on the Council's website] appealing to the Cabinet to reconsider the proposals for the redesign of the roads around Radstock Town Centre.

Councillor Cherry Beath thanked Amanda for her statement and asked whether she was aware that in order to bring forward the regeneration plans wanted by Radstock, it was necessary to introduce a new road system.  Amanda noted this but said that the proposals would lead to degeneration, not to regeneration in Radstock.  She felt that Frome Road should be straightened.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Amanda whether she was aware that Radstock Town Council was no longer opposing the scheme.  Amanda replied that the Town Council had not withdrawn its objections to the scheme, only to an extension of the time allowed for objections to be made.

Councillors Paul Crossley and Cherry Beath agreed to visit Radstock to explore the points made by the speaker.

Pamela Galloway made a statement on behalf of the Warm Water Inclusive Swimming Network, in which she asked the Cabinet to note the support for warm water swimming evident from the Recreation Ground Trust consultation, from the previous Administration and from the Overview and Scrutiny Panes.

The Chair referred the statement to Councillor David Dixon for his attention.

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 Cabinet agreed to note the report.

Every Disabled Child Matters is a campaign by the Council for Disabled Children to promote rights and get justice for every disabled child.  Part of this campaign has been to ask Primary Care Trusts and Local Authorities to sign up to a charter.  The Disabled Children’s Strategy Group has reviewed our achievements against the charter objectives and is now recommending that both the PCT and Local Authority should sign up to the charter.

Councillor John Bull made an ad hoc statement reminding the Cabinet that the proposals before them were the result of an original initiative from the Labour Group.  He was pleased to see progress and thanked officers for their commitment to the issue.

Councillor Francine Haeberling made an ad hoc statement welcoming the continuation of what the previous Administration had set in motion.

Councillor Nathan Hartley, in proposing the motion, acknowledged the hard work of ex-Councillor David Spiers and of Councillor Chris Watt for their hard work in reaching this point.  He explained that the Charter would work to the benefit of disabled children.

Councillor David Bellotti seconded the motion because it had been a longstanding aim of his to see this adopted.  He paid tribute to the hard work done by officers and members to date.  He particularly drew attention to Objective 12, which expressed a determination to ensure a smooth transition to adult service provision for disabled young people preparing for adulthood.

On a motion from Councillor Nathan Hartley, seconded by Councillor David Bellotti, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To ADOPT the Every Disabled Child Matters Charter on behalf of the Council;

(2) To AUTHORISE the Cabinet Member for Early Years, Children and Youth to sign the Charter on behalf of the Council.

In order to ensure that the Council has the necessary Planning Policy tools in place to respond to the forthcoming changes in Local Government finance, the enactment of the Localism Bill and the delivery of its own objectives, the existing Local Development Scheme (programme for preparation of planning policy documents) must be reviewed.  This includes a minor review of the Core Strategy timetable to enable proper consideration of issues raised by the Inspector following submission of the Draft Core Strategy for examination.

Caroline Kay (Chief Executive, Bath Preservation Trust) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 5 and is available on the Council's website] welcoming the revised LDS but making some observations, in particular about the need for the specific mention of a building heights strategy.

The Chair referred the statement to Cabinet for their consideration.

David Dunlop (The Bath Society and London Road Residents Association) made a statement in which he reminded the Cabinet that government advice PVS25 requires the Council to address flood risk.  On the grounds of flood risk, and for other reasons, he questioned the viability of the proposed Bathampton Park and Ride site, which included a lowering of the site so that it would be more likely to flood.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked David Dunlop by how much the site was to have been lowered under the proposals.  David replied that the original proposals showed the site being lowered by 8.8 metres.

Councillor Tim Ball asked David Dunlop how many lorry loads of soil this would be.  David replied that it would not be difficult to remove the soil because it could be disposed of at the gasworks site – but the project would bring no discernable improvement to congestion on the London Road.

The Chair referred the statement to Cabinet for their consideration.

Councillor John Bull made an ad hoc statement in which he drew attention to paragraph 5.4(e) where the Inspector had expressed concern that the affordable housing needs were not adequately addressed by the original proposals.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked Councillor Bull whether he would agree that it was essential for the Council to insist on 35% affordable housing provision.  Councillor Bull readily agreed.

Councillor Les Kew made an ad hoc statement in which he expressed the concern that actions being taken by the Cabinet might put the Core Strategy at risk.  He felt that Cabinet must address the need for economic growth and a transport network to sustain it.

Councillor Paul Crossley asked whether Councillor Kew would agree that it was essential to get flood protection measures in place to protect western Riverside.  Councillor Kew agreed.

Councillor Roger Symonds asked whether Councillor Kew’s concern extended to Bathampton Meadows.  Councillor Kew agreed that it did.

Councillor Tim Ball, in proposing the motion, emphasised the need to find a way forward which the Inspector could agree with.  He felt that this would be achieved by the document being presented for adoption.

Councillor Roger Symonds seconded the motion.  He pointed out that the original growth assumption of the Regional Spatial Strategy had been 3% per annum but the new realities of 1.8% growth demanded a less ambitious Local Development Scheme, and that this also applied to the realities of the less ambitious Bath Transport Package.  He emphasised that the proposals met all the prescribed criteria listed in paragraph 5.2 of the report.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Roger Symonds, it was

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

This report considers the next steps for the future of the B&NES Visitor Accommodation Strategy. Both the Visitor Accommodation Study, and the strategy arising from it, have been taken into account in the preparation of the Core Strategy and the Economic Strategy.  However, the Council has the option to adopt the B&NES Visitor Accommodation Strategy as Council policy.

Leslie Redwood (Co-Chairman, Bath Independent Guest Houses Association), made a statement [a copy of which is attached as Appendix 6 to these minutes and is available on the Council’s website] in which he emphasised that a violent explosion in growth in visitor accommodation would only have short term benefits for developers and shareholders outside of Bath, and would be to the long term detriment of the city.  So he welcomed the proposed policy, which he said had very wide support across the city.

David Greenwood (ex Chairman, Bath Independent Guest Houses Association), made a statement [a copy of which is attached as Appendix 7 to these minutes and is available on the Council’s website] in which he asked the Cabinet to adopt the Visitor Accommodation Strategy into the local planning guidelines, thus guiding developers and planners with an evidence based framework which he felt would highlight the opportunities for balanced growth.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson observed that the survey was focussed almost entirely on the city of Bath.  She felt that the tourist economy of north east Somerset deserved equal attention.

Councillor Les Kew observed that even though the strategy had not been official policy, it had for a long time been taken into consideration when applications had been considered by the Planning Committee.

Mary Lynch (Chair, Bath Tourism Plus), made an ad hoc statement reminding the Cabinet of the need to reconcile all of the tensions so as to make Bath very attractive for business.  She felt that the proposed strategy would provide a consistent message.

Councillor Tim Ball, in proposing the motion, reminded Councillor Eleanor Jackson that the strategy was a B&NES wide strategy.  He felt that there was room in the area for a mix of different kinds of hotel.  He shared the regret expressed by others that the strategy had not been adopted a number of years before when it had been prepared.

Councillor Roger Symonds seconded the motion.  He emphasised the need for a clear vision for the future and stressed the need to avoid an inappropriate level of stag and hen parties.  He was keen to see small hotels in the Radstock area succeed.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Roger Symonds, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To PUBLISH the Visitor Accommodation Strategy for consultation; and

(2) To ASK the Divisional Director Tourism Leisure and Culture to arrange that the results of the public consultation, along with any suggested amendments arising, are reported to a future Cabinet meeting, with options for adoption as Council Policy.

As part of the Approved Budget for 2011/2012, additional funding was set aside in the Revenue Budget Contingency for future allocation once the full implications of government grant decisions for the financial year were clarified.  This report sets out details of the allocations which have been approved from the Revenue Budget Contingency.

Councillor Charles Gerrish made an ad hoc statement pointing out that the allocation of £2500 to locally important buildings list SPD appeared to conflict with the response given by Councillor Tim Ball to question 19.  The Chair referred this statement to Councillor Tim Ball to respond during the debate.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson in an ad hoc statement referred to the allocation of £50K for redundant toilets and asked whether the 3 locations included Radstock Victoria Square.

Councillor David Bellotti, in proposing the motion, pointed out that this item had been added to the agenda under the Council's General Urgency (Rule 15), so it had not appeared in the Executive forward Plan and it would not be subject to Call-in.  He expressed his sadness that the Council appeared to leave redundant toilets in mothballs to disintegrate slowly and he assured Councillor Jackson that the Radstock toilet would be included in the list of those to be secured and maintained.

Councillor Bellotti pointed out the funding which had been allocated for the internet café in Paulton and said he was particularly pleased about this.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the motion.

Councillor Roger Symonds responded to the comments made earlier about the regularity of the 6/7 bus service and agreed that the wording had been confusing.  He acknowledged that funding had still to be found for subsequent years.  He was delighted to welcome the Frome/Radstock rail link feasibility study.

Councillor Tim Ball responded to Councillor Charles Gerrish’s observation about the important buildings SPD by saying that it was the intention to complete the SPD but that the urgency of the MOD site work had prevented officer time from being spent on it.

Councillor Nathan Hartley expressed his delight at the allocation of £20K for Peasedown Youth Arts Room.

On a motion from Councillor David Bellotti, seconded by Councillor David Dixon, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To NOTE the report.

By 9th Sept 2011 the Council must submit a Best & Final Bid to DfT for the funding of the Bath Transport Package.  The Council meeting on 14th July is the last opportunity to amend the transport policy to reflect what is likely to be included in the Best and Final Bid.  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review Department for Transport have indicated that they wish to reduce costs, enhance value and improve deliverability of major transport schemes. DfT also wish to increase Local Authority contribution.  In January DfT requested an ‘expression of interest’ from the Council for the Bath Package which proposed removing some parts of the package.  Further work has been undertaken to reduce the cost of the Package which has resulted in the removal of the BRT and the A4 P&R from the BTP.  The removal of these proposals are departures from the Council’s existing transport policy as set out in the Joint Local Transport Plan.

Peter Davis made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 8 and is available on the Council's website] welcoming the removal from the Package of the Rapid Transport and the A4 P&R proposals.

Major Tony Crombie (The Bath Society) made a statement welcoming the removal of Bathampton Meadows Park and Ride from the proposals.

Councillor John Bull made an ad hoc statement welcoming the removal of the rapid transport proposals and the Bathampton Park and Ride proposals.  However, he was bemused that the total Council contribution had not reduced.

Councillor Tim Warren made an ad hoc statement pointing out that there had been no new alternatives put forward by Cabinet.  He felt that the new scheme lacked substance.

David Dunlop made an ad hoc statement emphasising that a Park and Ride in Batheaston would not reduce congestion on the London Road because “suppressed demand” would take up the slack.  He encouraged the Cabinet to consider rail options.

Councillor Roger Symonds, in proposing the motion, referred to the amended recommendations which he wished to move [copies of which had been placed in the public gallery and are attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2].  The update document also contained details of the Financial Implications of the new proposals.  He said that the previous plans had not attracted government funding and so it had been necessary to put together a realistic bid for government funding in the short time since the local elections.  Only 6 weeks still remained before the final submission had to be made to government.  He agreed with others that the bus provision should be much better, and promised to improve the Council’s relationship with First Bus so as to have greater influence in their commercial decisions.  He also emphasised that there was tremendous demand for rail transport but to capitalise on this it would be essential for trains to stop at stations such as Keynsham.

Councillor Symonds referred to clauses 2.15 to 2.21 of the amended recommendations and said that officers would work with the Cabinet to look at these in the time remaining until September when the application would be finalised.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the motion.  He said that the previous administration’s policy had been designed when money was no object but the new financial realities meant that it was necessary to give careful consideration to priorities and value for money.

Councillor David Bellotti said that it was important to pause for thought about the financial implications.  £7M had already been spent by the previous administration and it was essential to get some value for that money.  He acknowledged the point made by Councillor Bull about the Council’s contribution being the same, for a smaller package, but said that made it all the more important to get good value.  It still remained to persuade the Minister to fund the scheme.

On a motion from Councillor Roger Symonds, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The Council is required to adopt and publish a Housing Renewal Policy.  This policy is periodically reviewed and revised as required.  It sets out how Housing Services will provide assistance, including financial assistance, to help low-income, elderly, disabled and other vulnerable residents to undertake essential repairs and adaptations.

Councillor Vic Pritchard made an ad hoc statement welcoming the policy.  He drew attention to the proposal to allow exceptional circumstances awards to be determined by an officer under delegated powers but said that he felt these decisions should be made by the Cabinet member.

Councillor Tim Ball, in proposing the motion, thanked Councillor Pritchard for his support and noted his comment.  He said that the policy would come back to Cabinet in one year and that would allow an opportunity for the arrangements to be reconsidered.

Councillor Roger Symonds seconded the motion.

Councillor Simon Allen welcomed the policy and said that it would enable people to remain healthy, independent and safe in their own homes for as long as possible.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Roger Symonds, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To ADOPT the Home Health and Safety Policy 2011 as the Council’s Housing Renewal Policy;

(2) To AGREE that the budget allocations detailed within the policy are applied in conjunction with the policy;

(3) To AGREE that the policy is reviewed in 1 year.

The proposal is to set the price of primary school meals from 1 September 2011.

Councillor Nathan Hartley, in proposing the motion, emphasised the financial pressures on parents at this difficult time and said that the Cabinet wished to alleviate this wherever possible.  Despite a recommendation from the Schools Forum that the price should increase by 5p per child per day, the Cabinet had expressed its wish to keep the price the same for another year by funding the shortfall out of contingency.  This would cost £31K in a full year.

Councillor Tim Ball seconded the motion.  He was delighted for parents and particularly felt this would help large families.

Councillor David Dixon welcomed the proposals, particularly since some families depended on a decent school meal each day.

Councillor David Bellotti asked Councillor Hartley if he would obtain research findings on attainment and attention spans of children who had eaten a good meal at lunch time.

On a motion from Councillor Nathan Hartley, seconded by Councillor Tim Ball, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To AGREE that the price of a school meal for a pupil in the Council’s primary schools will not increase from 1 September 2011 and will stay at £2.00 per meal.

The report describes the applications for revenue funding received from independent museums and heritage bodies for 2011-12 and recommends a number of awards to be made

Councillor Cherry Beath, in proposing the motion, said that the previous administration had put in place a very good set of criteria for judging applications.  She drew attention to Annex B, Item 10 (Radstock Museum) and said that the funds of up to £4000 were being withheld until such a time as the museum had identified the costs of training for staff, trustees and volunteers following its reorganisation.

Councillor Roger Symonds seconded the motion.

On a motion from Councillor Cherry Beath, seconded by Councillor Roger Symonds, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To AWARD the following grants for 2011-2012 and for officers to subsequently make a grant of up to £4,000 under delegated authority to Radstock Museum.

This report relates to the involvement of Bath & North East Somerset Council in the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership. After considering various forms of legal entity, it was agreed by the Partnership Board, on 4th March, that the LEP should establish a Company Limited by Guarantee.  The report sets out recommendations for the establishment of the LEP Company.

Councillor Paul Crossley, in proposing the motion, reported that the Cabinet was talking to the Local Enterprise Partnership to see if they could help to set up business forums in Keynsham and Bath.

Councillor David Bellotti seconded the motion.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor David Bellotti, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To AGREE that Bath & North East Somerset shall become a member of the “West of England Local Enterprise Partnership Limited” being a Company Limited by Guarantee;

(2) To APPOINT the Leader of the Council as the Council’s Director of the above company;

(3) To AUTHORISE the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to conclude all necessary documentation, including signing the Articles of Association, and to take all necessary steps to effect these objectives.

This report sets out proposals to further develop partnership working between the Council and organisations representing local residents and other groups and organisations within the City of Bath. It builds on and develops the work of the Bath City Liaison Forum and makes recommendations relating to future ways of working, in the context of the "Big Society"

David Dunlop (London Road Residents Association) made an ad hoc statement in which he pointed out that the lack of support for some meetings was caused by late notice for meetings.  He appealed to the Cabinet to plan and advertise dates well in advance to maximise involvement.

David Redgewell underlined what David Dunlop had said and observed that the Council was still not reaching the hard-to-reach groups.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.  He agreed that it would be essential to move towards planned, scheduled meetings and that the involvement must extend beyond residents associations.  He called for more task and finish ideas to make the forum more successful.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the motion and pointed out that the Street Cleansing Equipment decision, which had been signed off that very day, had arisen out of the task and finish group from the forum.

Councillor Roger Symonds wished to emphasise that what was needed was the involvement of interest groups such as Women’s Institute, Townswomen’s Guild etc.

Councillor Tim Ball said that in order to involve the harder-to-reach communities, it would be essential to have concrete proposals to discuss so that the forum did not become merely a talking shop.

Councillor Crossley agreed to make the point about interest groups to the officers, so that it could be built in as the arrangements were developed.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor David Dixon, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To ADOPT the approach to the future development of the Bath City Liaison Forum as set out in the report;

(2) To ESTABLISH an Interim Steering Group with the membership as set out in the report;

(3) To REQUEST the Interim Steering Group to prepare detailed Terms of Reference, membership and working arrangements to be agreed by the Leader of Council and presented for approval to the first meeting of the revised Forum.

In February 2010 the Council adopted the 2009 edition of the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice, which requires the Council to approve a Treasury Management Strategy before the start of each financial year, and to receive a mid year report and an annual report after the end of each financial year.  This report gives details of performance against the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan for 2010/11.

Councillor Charles Gerrish in an ad hoc statement said that with world markets in such a state of flux, the Council must be very cautious in its financial management.  He asked whether the debt figures included the Council’s share of the ex-Avon debt.

Councillor David Bellotti proposed the motion.  In response to Councillor Gerrish’s question, he observed that under the previous administration the Council had borrowed £90M on top of the ex-Avon debt.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the motion.

On a motion from Councillor David Bellotti, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To NOTE the 2010/11 Treasury Management Annual Report to 31st March 2011, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice;

(2) To NOTE the 2010/11 actual Treasury Management Indicators.

The report presents the provisional revenue and capital outturn for 2010/11. It refers to requests to carry forward specific revenue budget items to 2011/12, transfers to earmarked reserves and to write-off revenue overspends where recovery in future years would have an adverse impact on continuing service delivery.  The report also refers to requests to rephase specific capital budget items and to write off net capital underspends in 2010/11 and to approve specific capital budget items in the 2011/12 capital programme.

On a motion from Councillor David Bellotti, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously):

(1) To NOTE the provisional revenue budget outturn for 2010/11;

(2) To APPROVE the revenue carry forward proposals and write-off requests as exceptions to the Budget Management Scheme;

(3) To INCREASE the revenue Budget Contingency by £65k;

(4) To APPROVE the revenue virements for 2010/11 and 2011/12;

(5) To NOTE the resulting reserves position and that unearmarked reserves remain at the target level of £10.5m;

(6) To NOTE the provisional outturn of the 2010/11 capital programme and the funding laid out in the table in Appendix 1 Paragraph 1.24;

(7) To APPROVE the capital rephasing and write-off of net underspends;

(8) To APPROVE the capital programme 2011/12 items;

(9) To NOTE the adjustments to the 2010/11 to 2015/16 capital programme and the final capital programme for 2010/11.