Agenda and minutes

At the time of publication, one item had been submitted

There were 10 questions from the following people: Councillors Martin Veal (2), Eleanor Jackson, Nigel Roberts (2), Patrick Anketell-Jones (2), Charles Gerrish, Rob Appleyard; and Member of the public: Bo Novak.

[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, two items had been notified

A number of registered speakers opted to speak at the item relevant to their statement.

Cllr Rob Appleyard made a statement relating to affordable housing.  He was pleased that the Cabinet was taking the issue seriously, because he felt it should be the number 1 priority for the Council to address.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson made a statement relating to the Railway between Radstock and Frome [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2, but not on the Council’s website].  She felt that the long-awaited job specification was woefully inadequate.  She appealed to Cabinet to reinstate the line.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Nathan Hartley, it was

RESOLVED that (subject to the correction of two mistyped names), the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 12th October 2010 be confirmed as a correct record and signed in due course 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.  However, the Planning, Transport and Environment Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel had in its meeting the previous night made some comments for Cabinet to consider in relation to the Gypsy and Travellers Sites (Item 17) and the Notes of the Panel’s meeting would be considered at that item.

The Leader and Cabinet have indicated that most decisions will be taken by the full Cabinet, at its public meetings.  This report lists any Cabinet Single Member decisions taken and published since the last Cabinet meeting.

This report presents for Cabinet approval some Capital Projects for inclusion in the Council’s Capital Programme.

The pupils of Oldfield Park Junior School made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council's website] in which they appealed to the Cabinet to approve the capital funding to purchase a playing field for their school.

Councillor David Bellotti, in proposing the item, said that he was delighted to be able to propose the allocation of funding to enable Oldfield Park Junior School to have its playing field after waiting for so long.  He went on to explain how important the Hetling Spring borehole was to the local economy.

Councillor Nathan Hartley seconded the proposal. He thanked the school children for making their statement.  He explained that the school had provided £70K towards the purchase, and £190K had been made available through the sale of the Hayesfield playing field. A further £350K was coming from government.

Cabinet members spoke in support of both the proposed capital allocations.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the Capital Project – Oldfield Park Junior Playing Field Compulsory Purchase Order for inclusion in the Council's 5 year Capital Programme;

(2) To APPROVE the Capital Project – Hetling Spring Borehole for inclusion in the Council's 5 year Capital Programme.

Cabinet will be asked to select their preferred option for Orange Grove/Terrace Walk, to form basis of subsequent TRO process and to delegate authority for the development and delivery of the High St/Northumberland Place scheme to Strategic Director of Development and Major Projects, in consultation with Cabinet Member Sustainable Development.

Councillor Brian Webber in a statement commended the Cabinet for making so many decisions in public.  He welcomed the fact that Cabinet were tackling the Bath High Street issues.  He acknowledged that the Orange Grove decision would be a difficult one, but felt that Option 3 would only be a temporary solution which would not solve the coach parking problem.

Rob Hollingdale (Bath Taxi Association) made a statement appealing to Cabinet not to allow coaches to tail back in Orange Grove.  He said he had collected over 5000 signatures in favour of retaining the taxi rank in Orange Grove.

Paul Thomas (Bath Taxi Association) made a statement in which he explained that allowing large numbers of people to queue at the student bus stop would result in bad behaviour which would be out of sight of the marshals.

Derek Noble (Empire Owners Association) in a statement welcomed the consultation.  He observed that coaches, taxis and buses jostled for space at Orange Grove.  He felt that the solution would be to provide a coach park.  He favoured Option 2 in the short term, but emphasised the important role played by taxi marshals in ensuring good behaviour.

Councillor Tim Warren welcomed the project but did not express a preferred option.  He gave credit to previous Cabinet members Charles Gerrish and Colin Darracott for their hard work leading up to this point.  He observed however that there were not enough pedestrian crossings in the vicinity.

Adrian, a trader in Orange Grove, appealed to Cabinet to remember that the traders were dependent on the visitors who arrived by coach.

Annette Martin, a trader in Orange Grove, felt that the traders had not been adequately consulted over the proposals and asked to be given a copy of the consultation procedure.

A number of taxi drivers made short ad hoc statements in favour of retaining the taxi rank in Orange Grove.

Juliet, a trader in Orange Grove, felt that Orange Grove was an ideal dropping off point for coaches, who could then drive off to a coach park (possibly Avon Street).  The loss of footfall if coaches were banned would be critical for local traders.

Councillor Cherry Beath introduced the report.  She thanked all those who had contributed to the debate, including those who had responded to the consultation.  She felt that the public realm improvements would enhance the pedestrian experience and that this would itself produce improved trading conditions in Orange Grove.  She responded to Councillor Warren’s comments about pedestrian crossings by observing that there was an improved crossing place in the plans.  She acknowledged that the improvements would have to take place as a long term programme but was determined that there should be an overarching strategy in place.

Councillor Roger Symonds thanked Councillor Webber for his remarks.  He stressed that the High Street project must not be delayed further and reminded Cabinet that the 3 options had been the subject of consultation since May.  He explained that he preferred Option 1, under which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

The proposed policy and guidelines seek to introduce clear controls to balance the legitimate aspirations of local businesses while at the same time safeguarding the pavements for their primary purpose.

Councillor Brian Webber made a statement in which he expressed regret that the current rules about pavement displays were not being adequately enforced.  He felt that the policy could only be successful if permits were required and felt that a fee of £100 would not be too onerous.  He deplored the reduction in pavement width from 1.8m to 1.5m.

Robin Kerr made a statement on behalf of Henry Brown (Chair, Federation of Bath Residents Associations) [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4 but not on the Council's website] in which he said that A Boards had no place in a world heritage city and pointed out that most other historic towns had banned such advertising.  He asked that Cabinet would not agree to dilute the rules; that whatever Cabinet agreed would be rigorously enforced; and that A Boards should be banned until 10am every morning to allow for street cleansing.

Councillor Charles Gerrish made an ad hoc statement in which he said he recognised the thorny issues needing to be resolved.  He expressed sympathy for those who were concerned about the narrowing of pavements.  He strongly recommended a robust policy, actively enforced.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones made an ad hoc statement agreeing with Councillor Webber’s comments.  He highlighted the problems experienced by some traders in side streets and felt that there should be some flexibility to allow for particular circumstances.

Councillor David Dixon, in proposing the item, referred to the draft Leaflet for Traders [copies of which had been placed in the public gallery before the meeting and are attached to these Minutes as Appendix 5 and can be seen on the Council’s website].  He recognised that the proposals presented in March had caused some concern, but said that he was determined to keep pavements as clear as possible without preventing traders from doing business.  He confirmed that the policy would be reconsidered after 1 year.

Councillor Cherry Beath seconded the proposal and said that the proposals were sensible.

Councillor Roger Symonds expressed his agreement with Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in the matter of flexibility.

Councillor David Dixon said he would be concerned about this suggestion, because the Council could not allow a few traders to break the rules or the whole policy would lose credibility.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ADOPT the Footways Obstructions Policy – A Boards;

(2) To ASK the Divisional Director (Environmental Services) to ensure that promotional work is carried out to ensure that businesses are aware of their responsibilities.

Councillor Charles Gerrish made an ad hoc statement reminding Cabinet that recent tragic events on the M5 motorway showed that all well attended public events were potentially dangerous and no policy could cover all eventualities.

Councillor David Dixon, in proposing the item, gave credit to officers who had worked so hard to bring the policy to the stage at which it could be adopted.  He was conscious that 2012 would have a large number of events, because of the Jubilee and the Olympics.  He acknowledged Councillor Charles Gerrish’s comments and agreed that this was a challenge, but he felt that the Council had a number of licensing options available to it.  He acknowledged that the operation of small cul de sac events should be simplified.

Councillor Nathan Hartley seconded the proposal.  He welcomed the simplification of the rules.

Councillor Roger Symonds welcomed the fact that there would be no charge for road closures to facilitate small community events.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  To RATIFY the Events Policy

This report sets out changes in the local and national economy.  It proposes the priority actions to enable sustained growth in the district.

In an ad hoc statement, Councillor Charles Gerrish celebrated the success of one small local business which had recently landed a large overseas contract.  He referred to recommendation 2.4 in the report, which related to the Bristol Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone and said that he had recently attended a meeting there at which Bath had not been mentioned once.  He encouraged Cabinet to speak up for the area.

Councillor Cherry Beath, in proposing the item, congratulated officers for the great deal of work which had been done to reconsider the economic strategy in the light of so many changed circumstances.  She said that the report highlighted the Council’s key objectives and had at its heart the economic success of the whole area.  She was delighted that Bath Riverside had been designated as an Enterprise Area.  The objective was to bring forward schemes to meet the social and economic aims of the area, particularly the high number of small businesses.

Councillor Paul Crossley in seconding the proposal stressed the importance of ensuring lasting employment opportunities.  He was pleased that the Local Economic Partnership was well thought of in government circles.  He assured Councillor Charles Gerrish that the LEP was not Bristol-centric, and that this Council was very involved.  He was very pleased that there were 3 actions to improve secure employment opportunities for long-term unemployed and disabled people.

Councillor Roger Symonds referred to the table in section 5.11 of the report, which showed that the number of unemployed 18-24 year olds in B&NES had risen by 3% in a year.  He found this alarming.

Councillor David Bellotti warmly supported the report, but expressed some concerns that in paragraphs 5.16 and 5.18 there were references to “office development”.  He felt that, with new ways of working, office accommodation requirements were reducing and that new office accommodation should not be built unless it could be demonstrated that it was already pre-let. 

Councillor Cherry Beath summed up by saying that the problem of youth unemployment was being addressed although it was a national problem.

On a motion from Councillor Cherry Beath, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that while the thrust of the Economic Strategy, launched in April 2010, remains valid and the basis for action, strengthened actions will be required to ensure it meets the current economic challenges faced by the District. These will include re-invigorated actions on business support, delivering regeneration schemes and promoting the District as a business location to promote local business and jobs growth.

(2) To NOTE the changes in National Government Economic Policy which led to the creation of the West of England Local Economic Partnership.

(3) To AGREE that the Council will actively engage with the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in order to provide a strong voice in the sub region and nationally.

(4) To AGREE that following the launch of the LEP and the establishment of an Enterprise Zone at Bristol Temple Quarter and a recommendation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

The report considers future potential governance and funding arrangements including the submission of an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund's Parks for People programme for feasibility and development funding to restore the historic gardens in accordance with the priorities and required outcomes of the Parks for People programme

Councillor David Dixon, in proposing the item, said that the area was very fortunate to have such amazing open spaces.  Although Sydney Gardens had been neglected over the years, there was now an opportunity to bid for finance from the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore the gardens.  The plan was to return Sydney Gardens to what was originally intended.

Councillor Roger Symonds seconded the proposal and said that Sydney Gardens was a wonderful place which he remembered from its heyday.  He was delighted that it would be restored.  He asked for an assurance that the restoration would not be spoiled by the presence of the railway.

Councillor David Dixon readily assured Councillor Symonds of this.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AUTHORISE officers to progress work on:

•  The feasibility and development work to make a Round 1 application to the Heritage Lottery Fund, under the Parks for People programme, for development funding for the restoration of Sydney Gardens;

•  Examining potential alternative future governance arrangements for the management of Sydney Gardens.

To approve the content and publication of the West of England Strategic Green Infrastructure Framework.

In an ad hoc statement, Councillor John Bull expressed regret that the recent Planning and Housing Board of the West of England Partnership had not been quorate.  He welcomed the proposals.

Councillor Brian Webber asked whether Park and Ride sites could be included in the proposals, because the verges could easily become nature reserves.

Councillor David Dixon, in proposing the item, responded to Councillor Webber by observing that because a small space, left alone, would look nice, this would not make it a suitable nature reserve.  He emphasised the importance of getting signup to the Framework from all the west authorities, because the issues did not stop at council boundaries.

Councillor Tim Ball seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the West of England Strategic Green Infrastructure Framework as an evidence base that will inform the Council’s Local Development Framework and in particular the emerging Green Infrastructure Strategy for the area

The Council is preparing the Development Plan Document which will identify sites the District for Gypsy & Travellers.  The first stage in the process is an issues consultation and a "Call for Sites" due in late 2011/early 2012

Peter Duppa-Miller (Secretary to the Local Councils Association in North East Somerset) made an ad hoc statement urging that the Town Councils, Parish Councils and Parish Meetings should be consulted fully about this issue.  He also asked that information about mobile library provision should be made available.

Councillor Tim Ball, in proposing the item, drew attention to the Notes from the Planning, Transportation and Environment Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel [copies of which had been placed in the public gallery before the meeting and are attached to these Minutes as appendix 6 and can be seen on the Council’s website].  He pointed out that consultations had already taken place at the Parishes Liaison Committee, the Local Development Strategy Group, the Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel and the Development Control Committee.  He assured Peter Duppa-Miller that parishes would be consulted, as part of his proposal for a formal consultation period, from 21st November to 6^th January and that mobile library provision would be considered as part of the consultation.

Councillor Simon Allen seconded the proposal and said that he was very pleased that this proposal had come forward, after such a long wait.  He emphasised the need to consult widely.

Councillor Cherry Beath expressed support and agreed with Councillor Allen.  She recognised that this would be a difficult issue to resolve but was pleased that a resolution might at last be found.

Councillor Roger Symonds expressed his support for the proposal.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Simon Allen, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the Issues Paper (incorporating a Call for Sites) for public consultation; and

(2) To AGREE that the public consultation is undertaken over an extended period of 8 weeks, to run from late November 2011.

This report recommends that the Council begins preliminary work on a Local Broadband Plan with South Gloucestershire and Bristol City Councils, in order to further investigate the costs and benefits of applying for available Government funding for improved broadband infrastructure where the private sector is not delivering

James Weeks made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council's website] in which he appealed to Cabinet to fund a superfast broadband project in the area.

Councillor John Bull made an ad hoc statement emphasising the danger that the authority would be left behind by neighbouring authorities.  He pointed out that large numbers of small businesses, who work from home, would depend increasingly on superfast broadband provision.  He asked Cabinet to consider what they would do for those in the area who were not trained or could not afford to pay for broadband.

Councillor Neil Butters made an ad hoc statement in favour of spending a modest amount on a feasibility study.

Peter Duppa-Miller made an ad hoc statement strongly supportive of an urgent start on the proposed project.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement observed that without the proposed investment, the area would achieve only 65% coverage.  He felt that the funds would be well spent and would improve the rural economy.

David Banfield (Claverton Parish Council) in an ad hoc statement appealed to Cabinet to invest in the broadband infrastructure, and emphasised the importance of homeworking to the local economy.

Councillor Cherry Beath introduced the item by pointing out that government was not, in fact, offering match funding - the Council would have to invest £1.2M to get £670K of government funds; nationally, there had been only 5% take up of superfast broadband; BT had said they would roll out superfast broadband by 2014; and there was no guarantee that any Council investment would become operational before it was overtaken by private provision.  Councillor Beath referred to her amended proposals (displayed on the screen), which she explained were not the same as those which had been recommended in the report.

Councillor David Bellotti seconded the proposal.  He felt that even if Cabinet were to agree the investment, pockets of the community amounting to 10-15% would still be left out.  The Council could not continue to borrow, even for good causes.  He felt that the preconditions laid down by government for the funding had made it unattractive to Bath and NE Somerset.

Councillor Bellotti explained that the report being proposed would answer questions which had not been fully addressed in the existing report.

Councillor David Dixon said that the figures did not appear to be advantageous to the Council.  He observed that not many businesses actually needed superfast speeds, and in any case the price of satellite packages was already falling.

Councillor Nathan Hartley recognised that everyone would like to have superfast broadband, but the cost would be over £1M and he felt that it was important to concentrate funds on front line services.

Councillor Simon Allen said that, with the technology moving ahead so quickly, any large investment in existing technology would not be well spent.

Councillor Cherry Beath in summing up, reassured the speakers that the Cabinet wanted to address inequality; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

This report gives details of performance against the Council's Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan 2011/12 for the first six months of 2011/12

Councillor David Bellotti, introducing the item, said that the risk to the Council had been minimised and that the Council's investments had been made as safe as possible.  He moved that Cabinet note the report.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE the Treasury Management Report to 30th September 2011, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice;

(2) To NOTE the Treasury Management Indicators to 30th September 2011;

(3) To NOTE that the Treasury Management Report and its appendices have been referred to November Council.

This report presents the second monitoring information for the Authority as a whole for the financial year 2011/12 to the end of September 2011. The report also includes a number of budget transfer requests for both revenue and capital that require Cabinet agreement or are reported for information purposes as prescribed by the Budget Management Scheme.

Councillor David Bellotti moved the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.

Councillor David Dixon congratulated the officers in his portfolio area for having achieved a £402K underspend.

On a motion from Councillor David Bellotti, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, 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 as shown in the report;

(3) To NOTE the capital expenditure position in the financial year to the end of September and the year-end projections detailed in the report;

(4) To AGREE the revenue virements listed for approval in the report;

(5) To NOTE the changes in the capital programme listed in the report.