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.

Councillor Dine Romero had declared that under item 17, she had a disclosable but non pecuniary interest (an “other interest”) by virtue of being a Governor of Morelands Schools Federation and that she had a child who attended the school.

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 15 questions from the following Councillors: Malcolm Lees (2), Brian Webber, Michael Evans, Anthony Clarke (5), Dave Laming (2), Patrick Anketell-Jones (2), Charles Gerrish, Tim Warren.

There were no questions from members of the public.

[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.

Lin Patterson (Campaign to Save Larkhall Toilets) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council’s website] told Cabinet that the public toilets in Larkhall were needed by its ageing population and in order to attract visitors and shoppers.  She appealed to Cabinet to rethink the proposals to close the toilets.

The Chair referred the statement to Councillor David Dixon for reply in due course

Clare Crowther (Head of Nursery) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council’s website] referred to the decision by the owners to cease operating the childcare facility in Dover Place after 31^st August.  She highlighted the impact this would have on the 109 children and 19 staff.  She appealed to Cabinet to support the proposed management buyout in order to retain high quality child care in the city.

Councillor Dine Romero asked Clare Crowther whether she was aware that the ownership of the premises was not shared between the authority and the church; and whether she knew that the authority’s responsibilities were highly prescribed.

Clare Crowther agreed but repeated that she felt there were not enough available places to meet demand.

Amy Lunt (Concerned Parents of Norlands Nursery) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council’s website] asked for Cabinet support to facilitate the proposed purchase of Dover Place nursery by its current nursery manager. She highlighted the benefits which the existing provision was bringing to many families.  She presented a petition of 233 signatures asking for the nursery to be saved.

The Chair referred the petition to Councillor Dine Romero and promised a response to the petition in due course.

Susan Charles (Chair, Access Bath Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 5 and on the Council’s website] alerted the Cabinet to the difficulties faced by disabled people who wished to use the facilities at Keynsham Leisure Centre.  She asked the Cabinet for their support to resolve the problems.

David Batho (Resident of Claverton Parish) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council’s website] brought to the Cabinet’s attention a possible conflict between the benefits of solar panel installations and the harm to visual amenity suffered by those nearby.  He made some proposals to Cabinet which he said would help to ensure a proper balance between environmental gains and conservation of the historic and natural environment.

Steve Mansergh (Jack and Jill Hill Preservation Society) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council’s website] spoke about a proposed 35 acre solar farm on agricultural land near Haydon.  He believed the development would have a major visual impact on the landscape.  He asked the Council to work with Mendip Council on this cross  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 8^th May and the Special Cabinet meeting of 20^th May are both to be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair

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

(1) That the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8th May 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair; and

(2) That the minutes of the Special meeting held on Monday 20th May 2013 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 (Constitution rule 14, part 4D – Executive Procedure Rules) for matters referred by Policy Development and Scrutiny bodies.  The Chair of the relevant PDS Panel will have the right to attend and to introduce the Panel’s recommendations to Cabinet.

There were none.

This report lists the Cabinet Single Member decisions taken and published since the last Cabinet meeting.

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

A decision is sought about whether to confirm a city-wide Article 4 Direction for houses in multiple occupation, and adopt a Supplementary Planning Document to detail how these new planning applications will be determined

Gavin Dick (National Landlords Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 22 and on the Council’s website] asked the Cabinet to explain the Council’s response to the recently announcement by DWP about welfare support.  He was concerned that the proposals would reduce house prices as had already happened in Newcastle.  The impact would be on the most vulnerable in society.

Johnny Kidney in an ad hoc statement said that although he supported the Licensing proposals, but not the Article 4 proposals now before Cabinet.  He lived in a road with 88% HMO density and was concerned that the proposals would have a devastating effect on his ability to sell the house.  He asked Cabinet to make exemptions to high density roads, as other councils had done.

Councillor Geoff Ward in an ad hoc statement recognised the challenges of student life and also of local residents.  He felt that Cabinet was about to use Article 4 rather than tackling the rogue landlords.  The proposals would reduce property values for owner-occupiers but would not choke off the demand for multiple occupation, in a city with 2 universities.

Councillor Dave Laming in an ad hoc statement observed that more students could be accommodated on the river, as in Oxford.

Anthony Masters in an ad hoc statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 23 and on the Council’s website] said that the critical question would be how to measure whether Article 4 was successful.  He said that the problem would simply move to another part of the city.  He reminded Cabinet that problem tenants and problem landlords could be dealt with under existing powers.  He urged Cabinet to reject the proposals, which he predicted would not improve housing or behaviour.

Councillor Will Sandry in an ad hoc statement said the proposals were about community.  He assured Cabinet that in Oldfield Ward, his constituents were calling for the proposals to be adopted.  He said that the speakers from the National Landlords Association did not speak for his constituents.  He responded to Anthony Master’s question by saying that the success of the proposals would be evident on the first day - investors would be prevented from buying residential homes and converting them into multiple occupancy.

Stella Wainwright, a resident of Oldfield Park, in an ad hoc statement said that the proposals were 18 years too late.  If implemented now they would prevent local people from selling their homes and would leave them marooned.  She asked for Cabinet to make an exception for high density roads.

Councillor Tim Ball introduced the item by emphasising that Cabinet wanted to see balanced communities.  The proposed threshold would be reached when an area reached 25% density.  He responded to the points made by Gavin Dick by saying that he had seen no evidence of any detrimental effect on vulnerable people.  He was ready to look at examples from other councils.  In response to the appeals for exemptions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Cabinet previously requested that evidence be gathered to ascertain whether the legislative conditions for introducing additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation could be met, and if so, undertake a 10-week public consultation exercise.  This report informs Cabinet of the results of these activities and seeks a decision on whether to designate part of Bath as an area subject to additional licensing for specified types of HMOs.

Martin Thomas in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council’s website] said that the consultation on the proposals had failed to demonstrate that the council had considered other approaches, for example the use of its extensive existing powers to tackle problems.  He felt that so far as housing standards were concerned, there was no case for introducing additional licensing.

Rob Crawford (Chair, National Landlords Association Wessex Branch) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council’s website] said that the council was in danger of being in breach of the Housing Act 2004 because it had not satisfied the criteria laid out in the Act.  He felt that the published evidence documents showed a bias.  The papers did not demonstrate that a significant proportion of HMOs were being managed ineffectively.  He regretted that if the Council pressed on with the measures, it would be subject to legal remedy.

Jacqui Darbyshire (National Landlords Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 11 and on the Council’s website] said she believed that the proposals would make the situation worse.  The loss of the existing voluntary, city-wide accreditation scheme will have a detrimental effect.  She also cited the experience of Thanet District Council, where the license scheme had cost more than £500K.

Gavin Dick (National Landlords Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 22 and on the Council’s website] gave a number of reasons why the proposals would not tackle the problem.  He called for the Council to use its existing powers to resolve the problems of bad landlords and tenants.

Rosemary Simcox in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 12 and on the Council’s website] said that as a landlord she had found good will on all sides to maintain safety and high standards.  She felt that the proposals would alienate all landlords.  She appealed to Cabinet to encourage the existing successful Accreditation scheme.

Alexander von Tutschek in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 13 and on the Council’s website] said that landlords had a vested interest in working with the community and with the Council.  He suggested some ways in which landlords could be encouraged to make sure that tenants left houses and gardens tidy at the end of their leases.  He felt that these co-operative approaches would be more effective than the proposals now before Cabinet.

Councillor Will Sandry in an ad hoc statement reminded the Cabinet that the local community must be considered.  He had seen the conditions in which some rogue landlords allowed students to live.  The Accreditation scheme was voluntary so the bad landlords had ignored it.  He believed that the proposals were the right approach and would improve standards for all.

The Chair observed that Appendix  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

This report provides an update on the preparation of the Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD and sets out the next steps

Judith Chubb (Chair, Stanton Drew Parish Council) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 14 and on the Council’s website] spoke of the dismay amongst her parishioners over the lack of progress on the DPD and the perceived mishandling of the two planning applications and urged the Cabinet to resolve the numerous issues.

Simon Whittle (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 15 and on the Council’s website] asked for all references to the Stanton Wick site to be removed from all documentation and that the Cabinet’s decision taken in September 2012 to remove Stanton Wick from the list of sites would not be reversed under any circumstances.

Sue Osborne (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 16 and on the Council’s website] asked why no progress had been made in developing the Bristol Road site as agreed by Cabinet in September 2012 which she felt was leaving the Council vulnerable to inappropriate planning applications.

Karen Abolkheir (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 17 and on the Council’s website] said she believed that the pursuit of a site at Stanton Wick was highly inappropriate.  She felt that the delays had caused stress and uncertainty to the local community.

Clarke Osborne (Chair, Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 18 and on the Council’s website] highlighted failings in the progress of the DPD and in the way planning applications had been handled.  He regretted the resulting estrangement of settled and travelling communities.

Chris Ree (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 19 and on the Council’s website] felt that the reviewed site assessment criteria document was too brief.  He regretted that the scoring matrix had been abandoned in favour of a new process.  The progress made since September 2012 had been unsatisfactory.

Phil Townshend read a statement on behalf of Tony Heaford (Chair of Publow with Pensford Parish Council) [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 20 and on the Council’s website] in which he said that the process had been badly managed and had distressed the local community.  He asked for care to be taken in dealing with the major planning application at Stanton Wick.

Councillor Geoff Ward said in an ad hoc statement that this had now become extremely urgent because of the need to agree the Core Strategy.

Peter Duppa-Miller (Secretary, Local Councils Association) in an ad hoc statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 21 and on the Council’s website] urged the Cabinet to finalise the assessment of the sites as soon as possible to remove the uncertainty being experienced by the settled communities.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The report summarises work undertaken since October 2012 to move from a local system for Personal Budgets resource allocation to the National Resource Allocation System (RAS).  It also sets out complementary work that is underway to adjust the focus of the current social care pathway to ensure that the new system supports the personalisation of adult social care.

Councillor Simon Allen introduced the item.  He explained that the issue would affect many members of the community because it involved the introduction of the national resource allocation system and the refocus of the social care pathway.  Personalising care services had been a long process but would be beneficial to clients.  The Resource Allocation System had been well received by local professionals.

Councillor Allen said that the personal budgets would be rolled out as people came up for their reviews.  Alongside this would be an increase in preventive and early intervention work.  As a result, services would become more responsive to individual needs.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor Dine Romero seconded the proposal.  She felt that the previous system had not been so fair or sustainable and had placed too great a burden on practitioners.

Councillor Paul Crossley thanked Councillor Allen for his update.  There was a wide range of new challenges and only personalisation could meet those challenges.  He supported the proposals.

On a motion from Councillor Simon Allen, seconded by Councillor Dine Romero, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE progress in implementing the National Resource Allocation System and work that is underway to adjust the focus of the current social care pathway; and

(2) To ASK for an update after the first year of implementation of the new RAS.

Currently there is a significant amount of un-coordinated activity supporting apprenticeships, paid and unpaid placements, work experience, internships and volunteering within individual services and Directorates. This report proposes that a coordinated approach should be followed by all Council services to ensure that schemes apply the same broad principles.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement observed that aver 600, or about 11% of the Council’s full time workforce, acted as volunteers.  He noted that in return they received “the opportunity to contribute to the delivery of local services”.  He felt that this statement should include the fact that volunteering developed people’s skills.  He regretted that recently the free public gallery in the Victoria Art Gallery had to remain closed for lack of volunteers to man it.  It would be a start to provide greater public recognition and privileges.

Councillor Ben Stevens introduced the item.  There were currently 26 apprentices in the Council and the aim was to improve on that.  He hoped that other businesses would follow the Council’s example.  He himself had struggled to find work after graduating so he understood the need for increased opportunities for young people.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor David Bellotti seconded the proposal which he said was excellent.  It was good news, set against the fact that there were now 29.7M people in work in the UK, the highest number ever.  In this authority, the number of jobless had reduced by 230.  He paid tribute to the Council’s Youth Service, the Youth Offending Team and the Connections Service for the contribution they all made to meeting the needs of young people.  The proposals were not just about jobs, but were about life opportunities.  He referred to paragraph 2.5 of the report in which it was recognised that the Procurement Strategy, adopted by the Cabinet recently, obliged the Council to take account of local economic, environmental and social factors in its procurement decisions; and these values applied to decisions about new jobs and apprenticeships.  The biggest problems were experienced by the 18-24 year old young people – a relatively small number but a huge impact on their lives.

Councillor David Dixon reminded the Cabinet that the Council used large numbers of volunteers especially as litter pickers, in community libraries and in the new hub in Paulton.  The Council had a very good relationship with the Volunteer Centre in Bath Central Library.  He was delighted that the MOT Centre and the Parks Service both ran apprenticeship schemes.

Councillor Paul Crossley referred to Patrick Anketell-Jones’ appeal for more recognition and observed that the Chairman’s Diary often showed that he entertained volunteers, throughout the year.  He had been very impressed with “Project Search”, which arranged placements for young people with significant disabilities in placements across the Council and most of whom gained meaningful work after their placements.

Councillor Ben Stevens in summing up said he hoped to see the number of volunteers increasing.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To SEEK to maximise its social return on investment in the local community by creating, where possible, apprenticeships, paid and unpaid work placements, work experience, internships and volunteering thus enabling more people to gain access to potential employment opportunities in the private sector and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Approval requested for inclusion in the 2013-2014 education capital programme of two capital schemes for extra pupil accommodation at two B&NES primary schools.

Councillor Dine Romero introduced the two items being proposed for capital funding.  She was delighted to be able to support the development of the two schools.  She moved the proposals.

Councillor David Bellotti seconded the proposal.

Councillor Paul Crossley warmly welcomed the fantastic news which was part of preparing for the growth in primary school numbers.  He congratulated Ashley Ayre, Strategic Director, People and Communities, and his team.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE that the projects put forward for approval are in line with Children’s Services capital programme priorities; and

(2) To APPROVE the proposed Capital allocations for inclusion in the Capital Programme 2013/14 for projects at the following schools:

(a) St Saviours Junior School, Bath - £1.85m for extra pupil places and replacement of poor condition temporary buildings;

(b) Moorlands Federated Schools - £70k for conversion of IT space to provide extra pupil places.

A joint bid to the Department for Transport by the West of England Partnership authorities for designation of a network of key bus service corridors as a Better Bus Area.  The government’s aim for the funding is for it to be used to increase bus patronage in busy urban areas, in support of creating growth and cutting carbon emissions.

Councillor Caroline Roberts introduced the item by explaining that the government wanted to change the way it allocated grants to bus operators by devolving the decisions to councils, in return for a 20% increase in the funds.  It was anticipated that the fund would be administered by a partnership board of operators and councils.  She referred to the appendix, which listed the outline proposals which would form part of the bid.  She assured Cabinet that, even if the bid was unsuccessful, she would still aspire to the list.

She moved the proposals.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposals, which he felt strongly were part of the Council’s planning to avoid jams as experienced in Bristol and elsewhere.

Councillor Tim Ball felt that this report had been long-awaited and would improve the bus users’ experience.

Councillor Simon Allen felt that the proposals were an ideal opportunity to improve the Council’s working with bus operators.

On a motion from Councillor Caroline Roberts, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that a bid should be submitted to the Department for Transport for designation of a network of key bus service corridors in Bath & North East Somerset as part of a Better Bus Area in conjunction with other West of England Partnership authorities and local bus operators; and

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, to approve the final details of the bid.