Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Jo Farrar, Chief Executive, declared that as the owner of a property in Bath Western Riverside, she had a personal interest in item 16 on the agenda (Core Strategy) but this was not pecuniary and so she would not be required to leave the meeting at that point.

Questions submitted before the deadline will receive a reply from an appropriate Cabinet member or a promise to respond within 5 days of the meeting.  Councillors may ask one supplementary question for each question they submitted, up to a maximum of two per Councillor.

There were 14 questions from the following people: Councillors Eleanor Jackson (3), Michael Evans (2), Vic Pritchard (3), Mathew Blankley, David Martin; and members of the public Rae Harris (2), Ian Barclay and Simon Whittle.

[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.]

Councillors and members of the public may register their intention to make a statement if they notify the subject matter of their statement before the deadline.  Statements are limited to 3 minutes each.  The speaker may then be asked by Cabinet members to answer factual questions arising out of their statement.

Pamela Galloway made a statement relating to the 6/7 Buses Campaign [attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes] in which she appealed to Cabinet to maintain the bus service.  She made reference to the elderly, those with health issues and those who needed to be able to access essential services who would be disadvantaged by a reduction in the service.

George Bailey made a statement relating to the Frome/Radstock Branch Line [attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes] in which he thanked Councillor Roger Symonds for attending a recent meeting to explore the issues.  He expressed optimism that the project would be well supported by all the local councils, partnerships and communities.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 11^th July 2012 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

This is a standing agenda item for matters referred by Policy Development and Scrutiny bodies.  The Chair of the relevant PDS body will have the right to attend and at the discretion of the Leader to speak to the item, but not vote.

The Economic & Community PDS Panel previously made recommendations to Cabinet relating to Retaining Graduates and Cabinet will respond at this meeting.

The Economic and Community PDS Panel had previously made recommendations to Cabinet relating to Retaining Graduates.  Councillor Cherry Beath thanked the Panel for the work they had done, and for their recommendations.  She said that the Cabinet had already published its response to the Panel’s recommendations.

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.

The proposal is to convert an existing footpath to a shared use track. A Cabinet decision is required to decide either to abandon the Cycle Track Order or refer it to the Secretary of State for confirmation

Julie Trollope (Chair, Bathwick Estate Residents’ Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council's website] asked the Cabinet to consider the risks of making the narrow passageway shared use.  She had concerns about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists because of the hazards along the route.

Cynthia McNally (Bathwick Estate Residents’ Association) reminded the Cabinet that the passageway was busy for much of the day and asked them to refuse to convert it to shared use.

Alun Morgan in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5 and on the Council's website] explained that shared use would be a hazard to both pedestrians and cyclists.  He asked Cabinet not to agree the proposals.

Hugh Dowson in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council's website] made a number of observations about safety, consultation and consideration for other users.  He asked the Cabinet to satisfy themselves about all these issues before taking the step to make the path shared use.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement said that he approved of the alternatives to car use but said that there was a perceived hierarchy which put pedestrians first and cyclists second; so he hoped that cyclists would dismount to show consideration to pedestrians.  He was concerned that the path exited straight onto a pavement at both ends.

Councillor Tim Warren in an ad hoc statement stressed that the path was too narrow to be shared use.

Councillor Roger Symonds in proposing the item, said that the proposal was for shared use, not as a cycle path.  There had originally been a petition of 100 signatures asking for it to be designated as shared use.  He observed that both the ward Councillors were supportive of the proposals.  He referred to the comments made by a number of people about the width, and said that the 3 feet width was guidance only.  Before recommending the path for shared use, the highway engineers had fully considered all the safety issues.  He referred to appendix 2 of the report, which gave the consultation results.

Councillor David Dixon said that he was pleased to second the proposal.  It had been requested by local residents who had submitted the original petition.  He asked Councillor Symonds however to ensure that the pathway would be resurfaced.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To REFER the Cycle Track Order to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

Endorsement of Concept Statements to guide redevelopment of MoD sites following public consultation as the first part of the Placemaking Plan

Matthew Wheeldon (Governor, Combe Down Primary School)  in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council's website] made some proposals, relating to primary school provision, which he felt would bring major benefits for the communities of Foxhill and Combe Down.  He asked Cabinet to ensure that future developers did not make decisions about the provision of education in these communities.

Jo Davis (GVA Planning Consultants on behalf of Skanska)  in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 27 and on the Council's website] made comments relating to the problems of phased delivery, the delivery of education, and environmental impact.  She said that her clients took the view that the Concept Statements would prohibit a commercially viable redevelopment from delivering the required community infrastructure

Alan Langton (Trustee, Bath Preservation Trust) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council's website] said that the Trust was very pleased that many of the points they had raised had been incorporated into the latest draft.  He emphasised the concerns that the housing potential must not be overstated, or else the sites would lose quality and amenity when developed.  He recommended a switch to low rise, high density housing for the Ensleigh site.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement reminded Cabinet that he had previously said that the Ensleigh Concept statement was not sustainable.  He had now read the submission from the Bath Preservation Trust and was confirmed in his view.

Councillor John Bull in an ad hoc statement expressed concern at recent successful attempts by developers to reduce the affordable housing element from 30% to 25% or even 20%.  He said that the Labour Group wanted to avoid this and encouraged the Cabinet to stand firm on this requirement.

Nigel Dann, a resident of Foxhill, in an ad hoc statement agreed with Councillor Bull.  He felt that most developers would try to wriggle out of the parts of the statements which would be beneficial to the local community.  He therefore wanted to see a master plan which would prevent this from happening.

Councillor Tim Ball in proposing the item, observed that the proposals did not constitute a Supplementary Planning Document.  They were concept statements.  He reminded those present that the Council did not own the 3 portions of land in question.  He agreed with Councillor Bull that the Council must stand firm on the 35% affordable housing requirement, despite recent government statements about this.

He referred to the comments made about sustainability and the environmental impact and promised to take into account all the submissions received.

He also promised to give consideration to the need for education places, especially given the recent mini population boom.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He agreed that the provision of 35% social housing on the sites would be crucial.  He promised that Cabinet would carefully consider the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Response to public consultation held in May-July 2012 on the proposed Preferred Sites

Judith Chubb-Whittle (Chair, Stanton Drew Parish Council) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Patrick Harrison (Chelwood Parish Council) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Mary Walsh (Joint Chair, Whitchurch Village Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 11 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Woollard Lane site in the list.

Christine Saunders (Whitchurch Village Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 12 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Woollard Lane site in the list.

Paul Baxter (Stanton Wick Action Group) made a statement opposing the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.  He stressed that all the sites should be reconsidered, now that the criteria had been amended.

Chris Ree (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 13 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Jennie Jones (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 14 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Sue Osborne (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 15 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Simon Whittle (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 16 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Karen Abolkheir (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 17 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Clarke Osborne (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 18 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Phil Townshend (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 19 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Stanton Wick site in the list.

Ken Sutton (Bath Old Road Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 20 and on the Council's website] opposed the inclusion of the Bath Old Road site in the list.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Adoption of a Neighbourhood Planning Protocol for Bath & North East Somerset following amendments arising from the public consultation on the draft protocol

Alan Langton (Trustee, Bath Preservation Trust) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 25 and on the Council's website] felt that the revised protocol had introduced greater balance.  He was pleased to see references to enforcement and to heritage assets.  He did however feel that there should be a reference to the World Heritage Site if the document was to be fully fit for purpose.

Councillor Tim Ball in proposing the item, said that this would be the first of many papers to be considered by Cabinet as a result of the Localism Bill.  He particularly referred to paragraph 4.9 of the report, which showed that the document had achieved national recognition as good practice.

Councillor David Bellotti seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ADOPT the My Neighbourhood: A Neighbourhood Planning Protocol for B&NES as the Council’s policy on Neighbourhood Planning and community engagement in planning superseding the existing Statement of Community Involvement for Planning (2007); and

(2) To DELEGATE responsibility to the Divisional Director (Planning & Transport), in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing, to make final graphic and minor textual amendments prior to publication of the Neighbourhood Planning Protocol.

This report outlines the way forward for the Core Strategy following receipt of the examination Inspector's preliminary conclusions

Alan Langton (Trustee, Bath Preservation Trust) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 26 and on the Council's website] warned that it might become necessary to accept that the anticipated housing numbers could not in fact be delivered but he emphasised that the Trust recognised the need for housing development in Bath and would be happy to act as a ‘critical friend’ on preparatory work on housing numbers before and during the consultation phase.

Councillor Geoff Ward in an ad hoc statement observed that there was an urgent need to make progress on the Core Strategy.  He felt that given the urgency of the work in hand, the Planning Department was understaffed.

Councillor Vic Pritchard in an ad hoc statement asked how the Council would deal with the situation that, having no Core Strategy in place after March 2013, it would be unable to defend planning appeals.

Councillor Tim Ball in proposing the item thanked the Bath Preservation Trust for always providing helpful, constructive comments.  In response to Councillor Geoff Ward, he observed that the urgency was caused by the fact that the Cabinet had inherited the situation.  He therefore confirmed that the Planning Department would be working only on the Core Strategy and the Gypsy/Travellers Sites, so as to ensure that those critical policies were delivered.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He agreed that, to avoid the problems described by Councillor Vic Pritchard, it was essential to adopt a Core Strategy.  He observed that it had been unhelpful of government to announce an extra 20% burden on Councils half-way through the process.  He was determined that this time, the Council would be able to answer all the Inspector’s concerns.

Councillor David Bellotti supported the paper.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE the brief for the review of the Core Strategy; and

(2) To AGREE the revised Local Development Scheme.

The government has awarded the WoE partner authorities £24.035m for 9 projects submitted in the Local Sustainable Transport Fund West major scheme bid. The report seeks approval for projects to be delivered in B&NES either jointly with other partners or by the Council

Councillor Tim Warren in an ad hoc statement said he was delighted with the proposals.

Councillor Roger Symonds in proposing the item, said that the Council had been allocated £3.1M by government to use towards sustainable transport.  He intended to use it to promote car clubs, and to work with schools and universities.  It would be applied both to active leisure and travel to work.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ACCEPT the LSTF award by the DfT;

(2) To AGREE that the projects outlined in Appendix A of the report be implemented in accordance with the grant conditions; and

(3) To APPROVE the capital budgets set out in the report for inclusion in the Capital Programme.

This Strategy illustrates the community leadership role provided by the council and our partners in the Environmental Sustainability Partnership. It communicates the ESP’s strategic approach, its priorities, workstreams and key projects.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ENDORSE the ESCC Strategy, further to adoption by the ESP Board, in order to support the work of the ESP and demonstrate the Council’s leadership.

Cabinet will be asked to approve the Council’s Family and Friends Care Policy

Councillor Paul Crossley moved the recommendations.  He congratulated the officers who had worked on the policy documents.

Councillor Simon Allen seconded the proposal.  He stressed that if a child could not be supported by its parents, then it was important that the wider family and friends should be helped to provide care.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Simon Allen it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the draft Bath and North East Somerset Family and Friends Care Policy.

It is a requirement under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to produce an annual Youth Justice Plan, setting out work to prevent youth offending and re-offending.  The Cabinet will be asked to recommend the Plan to Full Council.

Councillor Paul Crossley observed that this was an annual report, required by law.  He was delighted to note the excellent work taking place in the authority to work with young people.  He explained that he wished to amend the wording of paragraph 3.3 of the report, to the effect that after the words “within budget”, a full stop would be inserted and the rest of the sentence would be deleted. He further intended to move the recommendations with the addition of a new clause, to the effect that work would be done to ensure that the next version of the Plan would have more detail on education and training for young people in order to reduce re-offending rates and prevent young people at risk of offending in the first place.

He moved the amended recommendations.

Councillor Cherry Beath seconded the proposal.  She looked forward to the development of the Restorative Youth Justice Team.

Councillor David Dixon said that the report showed how much more could be achieved by working in partnership with other agencies.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that the Youth Justice Plan fulfils the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

(2) To RECOMMEND the Youth Justice Plan to Council for adoption as part of the Council’s Policy and Budget Framework and submission to the Youth Justice Board; and

(3) To AGREE that work will be done to ensure that the next version of the YJP has a much more detailed plan on education and training for young people as a means to reduce re-offending rates and prevent young people at risk of offending in the first place.

The Plan shows projected pupil numbers up to September 2015 and outlines numbers of pupils expected to be generated by new housing developments and a strategy for the provision of the additional school places that will be required

Councillor Paul Crossley said that the Plan was self-explanatory and robust.  He recommended the plan for approval.

Councillor Dine Romero seconded the proposal.

Councillor David Bellotti referred to paragraph 3.3 of the report and said that he would ask for further information on how the decision had been reached to make provision for primary education on the Bath Western Riverside from 2022, when the need would arise from 2015.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Dine Romero, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the Primary and Secondary School Organisation Plan 2011-2015; and

(2) To APPROVE the proposed strategy for the provision of school places within the plan period up to 2015 and over the longer term within the Core Strategy Plan period.

The school Governing Body has published a proposal to alter the lower age limit of the school from age 4 to age 3 by the addition of Early Years provision that would be run by the school and a decision is required to determine the proposal

Councillor Paul Crossley expressed his delight at the remarkably good news for Camerton School and moved the recommendations.

Councillor Dine Romero seconded the proposal.

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Dine Romero, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that the lower age limit of Camerton Church School be altered from age 4 to age 3 by the addition of Early Years provision to commence on 1 October 2012.

The Council is required to approve a Treasury Management Strategy before the start of each financial year, review performance during the year, and approve 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 2012/13 for the first three months of 2012/13.

Councillor David Bellotti moved the recommendations.  He referred to paragraph 5.6 of the report, which showed that current borrowings were £120M expected to peak at £170M which was less than the £204M inherited by the administration.

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 June 2012, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice; and

(2) To NOTE the Treasury Management Indicators to 30th June 2012.

This report presents the first monitoring information for the Authority as a whole for the financial year 2012/13 to the end of July 2012. 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 Vic Pritchard observed that the £1.8M designated for gypsy/Traveller sites in the current year would not be spent; and asked Cabinet therefore to vire a substantial amount to be used for affordable housing.

Councillor David Bellotti moved the recommendations.  He explained that there had been an overspend on transport because, as the Park and Ride sites become successful, less people are parking in the centre of Bath.  However he expected that there would be a satisfactory situation by the end of the financial year.  He observed that £0.5M had been allocated for affordable housing, and expressed the hope that this might be increased in the next round.

Councillor Tim Ball seconded the proposal.  He responded to Councillor Vic Pritchard by pointing out that £1.8M capital borrowing was not the same as cash in hand.  He said that until the size of the site was known, it was not possible to determine the cost.

On a motion from Councillor David Bellotti, seconded by Councillor Tim Ball, 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 this year’s revenue budget position as shown in the report;

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

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

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