Agenda and minutes

There were none

Councillor Nathan Hartley declared a personal interest under Item 12, Radstock Roads TROs, because he was a Director of the Norton Radstock Regeneration Company.

The Chair announced that a report was to be considered by Cabinet which had been referred to the meeting under the Council’s Special Urgency (Rule 16) provisions.  The report related to the provision of superfast broadband in the district.  Copies of the report had been placed in the public gallery before the meeting.

There were 7 questions from Councillors: Councillors Brian Webber (4), Charles Gerrish, Malcolm Lees, June Player.

[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.]

Councillor Eleanor Jackson made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these minutes as Appendix 2 and on the council's website] about Victoria Hall, Radstock.  She reminded Cabinet of the long history of promises and delays and explained that the situation was now critical, given that the Hall was due for closure on 1st March and many local community groups would from that date have nowhere to meet.  She appealed for the Cabinet to make a commitment not to sell the building for offices, but to instruct officers to work with the local community to find ways of retaining the Hall as a community facility; and to arrange for a temporary management committee to run the building.

The Chair referred Councillor Jackson’s statement to Councillor David Bellotti, for his attention.

Councillor Andy Furse mad an ad hoc statement relating to Item 13 on the Agenda (Kingsmead Square Cycle Llink).  He appealed to Cabinet to bear in mind the needs and safety of pedestrians in Kingsmead Square and Monmouth Street, and offered a form of words which if incorporated into the proposals would meet his concerns.

The Chair confirmed that the cabinet would bear this in mind when considering the item.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7^th December 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

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.

To consider the modifications required to the advertised Traffic Regulation Orders required for the proposed Radstock Regeneration and Highway Improvement Scheme in conjunction with the Norton Radstock Regeneration Project to be implemented, and either agree, modify or remove some of the proposed elements following further public consultation on the revised proposal.

The scheme is dependent on securing HCA capital grant of £800k, which will be put at risk if the scheme is delayed beyond the current programme to let the highway works contract by the end of March 2012.

Lesley Mansell (Chair, Radstock Town Council) made a statement supporting the proposals and asking for prompt implementation.  She said there was a huge majority in favour of the infrastructure improvements.  She acknowledged that there were concerns about accessible parking for disabled drivers, and asked the Cabinet to address these issues.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council's website] in which she thanked the Cabinet for listening to the points made in previous consultations on the issue.  She appreciated the effort put into consulting with local people.  She felt that the NRR scheme had been better than the original proposals made in 1981, and that the current proposals were better than the NRR scheme.  She still felt that it would be best to drop the proposals altogether, which would save the Council money and would avoid the disruption which the proposals would inevitably inflict upon the town.  She expressed support however for the speed limit proposals; the weight limit proposals; and the increased disabled parking being proposed.  She asked for a condition to be added to the TRO – that adequate temporary parking facilities be provided during the works, so that traders would not lose business as a result of the disruption.

Amanda Leon (Radstock Action Group) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council's website] in which she asked a number of questions which she said Cabinet had never answered.  She therefore appealed to the Cabinet not to proceed with the scheme.

Gary Dando (Radstock Action Group) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5 and on the Council's website] in which he appealed to the Cabinet not to proceed with the scheme.  He outlined three areas for concern which he felt must be addressed before the scheme could be reconsidered.

Cate Le Grice Mack (Chair, Norton Radstock Regeneration Company) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council's website] in which she welcomed the proposals and said that she felt they would improve air quality in the town.

George Bailey (Radstock Action Group) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council's website] in which he expressed concern about the proposals for The Street; asked Cabinet to ensure the future of a rail link in the town; and raised a number of other objections.  He asked Cabinet to cancel the proposals.

Catherine Whybrow made a personal statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council's website] welcoming the proposals which she said were essential to the town before regeneration could take place and which she felt would lead to a lively and safe town centre.

Heather  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

A Local Broadband Plan is required, to access funding from Government for bringing superfast broadband to 90% of all premises.  A final plan must be agreed with the Government by the end of April.  Somerset, Devon, North Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay Councils have a joint project called ‘Connecting Devon and Somerset’ which is open to B&NES to join. 

This report is being tabled under ‘Special Urgency’ measures (Rule 16) because:

(1) the government has brought forward the deadline for submitting a Local Broadband Plan to end of February 2012;

(2) the timetable for connecting with the ‘Connecting Devon and Somerset’ project;

(3) the Capital expenditure must be signed off as part of the budget setting process by Council in February 2012.

The Chair explained that the item had been brought to Cabinet under the Council’s provision for Special Urgency (Rule 16).  He drew attention to the report, which had been placed into the public gallery before the meeting [copies of which are attached to these Minutes and are on the Council’s website].

Councillor Eleanor Jackson made an ad hoc statement emphasising the needs of small business for efficient, reliable broadband.  She urged the Cabinet to adopt the proposals in the report.

Councillor Martin Veal in an ad hoc statement expressed his disappointment that Cabinet had not been able to consult on the proposals because of the urgency.  He felt that the delay in adopting a scheme had caused confusion, and that it was essential that the Council should proceed with the plans.

Councillor Neil Butters in an ad hoc statement acknowledged that the Council had to look at all options, and observed that the option being proposed was half the price of the previous, rejected option.  His constituents experienced dreadful broadband speeds, so a decision to proceed would be very welcome.  He urged Cabinet to join the scheme, so that the economic benefits of superfast broadband could be shared by all.

Councillor Peter Anketell-Jones, in an ad hoc statement, said that he had been amazed to discover that in some areas 50% of people work from home and therefore rely on good communications technology.  Adopting the proposed scheme would enable small businesses to take on bigger contracts.

Councillor Cherry Beath, in proposing the item, drew attention to paragraph 1.1 of the report, which explained the reasons for urgency.  She thanked the officers who had put so much effort into preparing the report in such a short timescale, and who had negotiated the excellent arrangements with the “Connecting Devon and Somerset” project.  She reminded Cabinet that they had always been committed to obtaining the best coverage, speeds and value for money.  The previously rejected scheme had not delivered that, but the new proposals would deliver all three.  In terms of cost, it would be £475K over 3 years, as opposed to more than £1M for the previous proposals.  She referred to paragraph 5.5 of the report, which showed that the Council’s investment would trigger further funding of £2.249M.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He observed that the proposals made by the previous administration would have left parts of the area without coverage, despite the much larger cost; but the new proposals would offer 100% coverage at the greatly reduced cost to the Council.  He thanked officers for the hard work they had done to negotiate the agreement.

Councillor David Bellotti said that he had previously raised the issue that 85% coverage for a cost of more than £1M was not good value.  He now welcomed a scheme which would provide 100% coverage for £425K and felt that residents of rural areas would welcome this as a much better scheme.

On a motion from Councillor cherry Beath, seconded by Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

It is proposed that the section of the paved footway between Monmouth Street and Kingsmead Square is converted to a cycle track, to allow it to be used by both cyclists and pedestrians, providing important links in the Strategic Cycle Network for Bath.

In order to convert a footway to cycle track, the footway must be removed under Section 66(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and a cycle track ‘constructed’ under Section 65(1) of the Act.  No physical construction is necessary but there needs to be clear evidence that the power has been exercised.

Note: The papers were not available at the time of despatch and will be despatched under separate cover in due course

Councillor Tim Warren made an ad hoc statement in which he thanked Councillor Roger Symonds for his support for cycling; but saying nevertheless that he felt the proposals being considered would be dangerous, and a waste of money.  He felt that cyclists should dismount to give way to the large numbers of pedestrians on the square.

Councillor Roger Symonds thanked Councillor Andy Furse for the statement he had made earlier in the meeting.  He promised to take on board the suggested amendments to the proposals.  He stressed that he saw no reason why the square should not become a shared space.  The Council put pedestrians and cyclists at the top of their priorities, but in Kingsmead Square and Monmouth Street motors currently had priority.

In the light of Councillor Furse’s suggestion, he moved a different proposal from the one shown in the report.  The effect of the new proposal would be to safeguard pedestrians as they crossed the square.

Councillor David Bellotti was delighted that the proposals would reduce car usage in the vicinity of the square.  He was however concerned that young children might still be at risk from speeding cyclists, so he was very pleased to support the “clearly defined pedestrian route”.  He seconded the proposals.

Councillor Roger Symonds observed that the raised table was for future consideration but that the clearly defined pedestrian route would greatly enhance the safety aspects of the scheme.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that the footway between Monmouth Street and Kingsmead Square is converted to a cycle track, together with a clearly defined pedestrian route across Monmouth Street and future consideration to include a raised table.

Lovell Partnerships Ltd are renovating the Southlands Estate on behalf of Somer Community Housing Trust – in this connection, an area on the Weston Recreation Ground is required as a site compound for approximately 6 months

Councillor Malcolm Lees made an ad hoc statement in which he welcomed the redevelopment of the rec.  He asked for a robust condition to be placed on the agreement to oblige Lovell Partnerships to make good and reseed after the work was completed.

Councillor David Bellotti, in proposing the item, said that the Council had made great efforts to consult with local people about the plans.  He assured Councillor Lees that he would ensure the land was made good after the works were completed.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To GRANT to Lovell Partnerships Ltd a licence to allow them to use the land identified in the Plan as a site compound for approximately 6 months.

The Local Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) has produced an annual report which outlines the work its multi-agency partners carried out during 2010-2011. The report requires the approval of the cabinet.

Councillor Simon Allen, in proposing the item, explained that the report before Cabinet had previously been signed off in November by the Local Safeguarding Adults Board.  He asked Cabinet to approve the report.

Councillor Tim Ball seconded the proposal, observing that his ward contained the largest number of vulnerable adults in the authority’s area.  He welcomed the hard work being done to protect vulnerable people.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  To APPROVE the report.

The contract with Scout Enterprises Ltd to host the delivery of the Local Involvement Network (LINK) ends on 31st March 2012. Policy & Partnerships has considered various options to ensure that our statutory obligation to continue delivery of the LINK to 30 September 2012 and commission a HealthWatch body to commence operating on 1 October 2012 -2015 is achieved.

Councillor Simon Allen, in proposing the item, said that it was essential that users had a say in shaping the health services they received.  The Council was acting in the role of pathfinder, and he was proposing that the existing LINk contract be extended to the end of June 2012; and that a new HealthWatch contract to replace it would be awarded to start from July 2012.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE the Council’s legal obligation as stated in the Local Government and Public Involvement in health Act 2007 to promote a smooth transition from LINk to HealthWatch;

(2) To EXTEND the contract of Scout Enterprises Ltd until 30 June 2012, on their current terms and conditions;

(3) To AGREE the procurement of a HealthWatch provider from 1 July 2012, who will act as LINk Host organisation from 1 July 2012 – 30 September 2012; and

(4) To DELEGATE to the Divisional Director (Policy and Partnerships) the authority to award the contract.

This report sets out the current position on delivering the LSP's Performance Reward Grant Main Fund valued at £1M. This - together with the associated small grants fund - forms the Local Strategic Partnership's £1.3M component of the Council’s £2m Community Enablement Fund, the arrangements for which were agreed by Cabinet in March 2011.  The LSP is charged with the management of this fund, and there is an understanding with lead LSP partners about this, but the technical release of the funding relies on Cabinet and any delegation arrangements it creates.

Councillor Paul Crossley moved the recommendations.  He explained that the reward money which had become available because the Council and its partners had successfully delivered the Local Area Agreement would, after evaluation, be allocated to projects with community support.  The Local Strategic Partnership Board was due to make its recommendations in April.

Councillor Nathan Hartley seconded the proposal and said that he had been delighted to win this reward funding from government.  He emphasised that this money was to be allocated at the local community level.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ENDORSE the recommendations of the Local Strategic Partnership Board in relation to next steps for the Performance Reward Grant Main Fund;

(2) To ASK for a further report and recommendations at its April meeting relating to funding for specific projects and to establish monitoring arrangements;

(3) To NOTE the progress made on other elements of the Community Enablement Fund; and

(4) To ASK for a further report at its February meeting relating to the element of the Fund designed to help disadvantaged communities, regeneration and localism projects.

This report details the duties of the Council, working in cooperation with partner agencies, in respect of private fostering arrangements and notifications in accordance with Regulations, National Minimum Standards, and Guidance which came into force on 1st July 2005 as Section 44 of the Children Act 2004 and detailed in The Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005.

Note: The papers were not available at the time of despatch and will be despatched under separate cover in due course

Councillor Nathan Hartley explained that for children under-16 (u-18 if disabled), local authorities did not register private carers, but did still have a responsibility for safeguarding the young people.  He drew attention to paragraph 5.12 of the report, which showed that the Council offered support to privately fostered children and their carers.  He recommended the proposals to Cabinet.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.

Councillor Tim Ball expressed his support.  He was alarmed to hear that there were only 10 known foster families in the authority, when he was aware of many others in his own ward, some of whom do not contact the authority because they are afraid the children will be removed from the home.  He felt that foster parents should be encouraged and supported, and that Member training should be provided on the issue.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE the report;

(2) To AGREE the evaluation of the outcomes of the work in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of privately fostered children;

(3) To ASK the Divisional Director (Safeguarding Social Care and Family Service) to present an annual report to the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board on how it safeguards and promotes the welfare of privately fostered children, including how it cooperates with other agencies.

Positive activities for looked after children and small grants awards using the underspend from the swimming money allocated in 2009/10.

Councillor Liz Hardman, on behalf of the Labour Group, made an ad hoc statement expressing support for the proposal to allocate £10K to the Personal, Health and Social Education project.

Councillor Nathan Hartley thanked Councillor Hardman for her support.  He said that at a time when many authorities were slashing their youth funding, this Council was able to increase funding for all strands of youth support.  He explained the proposals in detail and moved the recommendations.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal.  He had been delighted to see so many organisations get support.  He felt that there was a need to attract more applicants from outside the city of Bath.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ALLOCATE £2,000 to support swimming, and the remaining funding to be used to support the two projects identified below;

(2) To ALLOCATE £10,000 to support the Looked after Children PSHE Project; and

(3) To ALLOCATE £13,000 to support the Youth Enablement Grant process in February 2012.