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.

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 18 questions from the following Councillors:  Alan Hale, Geoff Ward, Patrick Anketell-Jones (2), Charles Gerrish (3), Michael Evans, Tim Warren, Liz Richardson (2), Anthony Clarke (5), Eleanor Jackson, David Laming.

There were 2 questions from the following members of the public: Judith Chubb-Whittle (Chair, Stanton Drew Parish Council), 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.

Clarke Osborne (Chair, Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council’s website] expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in completing the DPD process and asked Cabinet to allocate resources to complete the DPD, to remove unsustainable sites from the list and to proceed with the Lower Bristol Road site.

Karen Abolkheir (Stanton Wick Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council’s website] listed a number of ways in which she felt the DPD so far had not been well managed.  She urged Cabinet to ensure that progress would be made on the project.

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 September 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.

Councillor Sally Davis, Chair of the Early Years, Children and Youth PDS Panel, will be asked to introduce to Cabinet the Panel’s recommendations relating to the Restructuring of Early Years, Children’s Centres and Early Help Service (Item 13 on the agenda).

The Chair invited Councillor Sally Davis (Chair of Early Years, Children and Youth PDS Panel) to introduce to Cabinet the Panel’s recommendations relating to the Reorganisation of Early Years, Children’s Centres and Early Help Service.

Councillor Davis in her statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council’s website]explained the Panel’s Terms of Reference and how it had worked to deliver its recommendations.  She listed the 8 recommendations, which had previously been published in the Notes of the Panel’s meeting.

The Chair thanked Councillor Davis and said that the Cabinet would give consideration to the Panel’s recommendations when considering the issue later in the agenda.

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

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

From September 2014 up to 40% of 2 year old children will access a free early learning place. The DfE provide a revenue grant within the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) to pay for places. A small capital grant has been provided to expand provision where additional provision is required. Cabinet will be asked to approve the expenditure.

Councillor Dine Romero in moving the proposals explained that they were a continuation of the process of increasing the provision of child care for 2-year-olds from 20% to 40% at no cost to the Council.  She asked Cabinet to agree the capital allocation of the grant.

Councillor Simon Allen seconded the proposal, saying that this was very good news.  He particularly welcomed the investment of extra places in Radstock.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE to adopt recommendation 6.3 of the 2013 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment by using available capital to increase the supply of 2 year old places in the areas identified as follows:

·  Twerton, Bath

·  Keynsham

·  Writhlington, Radstock

Cabinet will consider the recommendations of the EYCY Task & Finish Group following their review of Early Years, Children's Centre and Early Help Services.

Councillor John Bull in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 5 and on the Council’s website] asked for a reversal of the plans.  He felt that the PDS Panel’s response to the issue was not sufficient.  The aim of Children’s Centres should be to reach all young children and their parents; moving to targeted services for only vulnerable families would undo the progress made since Sure Start.  He asked that the Panel should be asked to reconvene and come up with proposals for a sustainable level of service.

Councillor Bull presented a petition of 880 signatures to Cabinet.

The Chair referred the petition to Councillor Dine Romero for her response in due course.

Councillor Liz Hardman in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 12 and on the Council’s website] introduced her minority report and reminded Cabinet that the Panel had admitted that there were a number of unanswered questions.  She felt that the Panel should be asked to report back to Cabinet in December with new proposals.

Roz Lambert (Chief Exec, First Steps Bath) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council’s website] said that if Children’s Centres were obliged to be self-funding, they would depend only on government Early Years funding and fees from parents.  The kind of holistic intervention presently possible would be lost.

Sue Pendle (Chair of Trustees, First Steps Bath) in a statement read by Dougie Brown [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council’s website] said that the 38% cut was out of balance with the rest of the Council’s budget reductions.  It was also out of line with the Council’s stated priorities.  Provision should be based on need, not on financial savings alone.

Nettie Williams (parent, Radstock) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council’s website] spoke of her personal passion to see Children’s Centres thriving and helping young families especially at critical times in their lives.

Jane Carter (Branch Secretary, UNISON) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council’s website] spoke of the importance of the work undertaken by Children’s Centres and of the concern of her members about the impact of the proposed cuts.  She urged the Cabinet to note the issues raised and to consider the recommendations of the minority report.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson in a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council’s website] expressed her concern that the PDS Panel had been asked to consider where the cuts should be made, but had not been asked to consider the depth of the cuts.  Not enough account had been taken of the equality impact assessment.  If the cuts were made as recommended, the service remaining would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

This report seeks to provide a policy on hackney carriages and private hire licensing standards and amends the general conditions for drivers, vehicles and private hire operators

David Redgewell in an ad hoc statement objected that no Equality Impact Assessment had been provided, nor referred to in the report.  He was angry that the Council was still allowing operators to run from the train station with not a single vehicle with disabled access.  He asked when the Council would enforce this.  He was unhappy that the report imposed no conditions about accessibility.

The Chair assured David Redgewell that an Equality Impact Assessment had been completed and said that he would arrange for him to be sent a copy.

Councillor Anthony Clarke in an ad hoc statement asked that other vehicles be considered for licensing under special circumstances, as are wedding and funeral cars already.  He also asked why the use of GPS was not allowed.

Councillor David Laming in an ad hoc statement asked for more detail about the available training.

Councillor David Dixon introduced the item.  He apologised that no Equality Impact Assessment had been published with the proposals.  He replied to David Redgewell’s observation about accessible vehicles at the station by assuring him that all new vehicles must in future be fully accessible, so the fleet would gradually move towards compliance.  Operators would also be required to undertake manual handling training which will be both practical and theory, with an assessment which would require a pass.

Councillor Dixon explained the reasons why GPS was not allowed in vehicles.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor Caroline Roberts seconded the proposals.

Councillor Ben Stevens agreed to the proposals and felt that they would contribute to making Bath a welcoming place to visit.

Councillor Tim Ball agreed with the points made by David Redgewell about accessible vehicles at the station.  He looked forward to the improvements promised by Councillor Dixon.

Councillor David Dixon, summing up, said that the majority of drivers were excellent and the conditions were to ensure that.  The drivers had been keen when the training opportunity had been suggested.  He observed that it would be possible to negotiate with the train operator to see if access to the taxi rank immediately outside the station could be improved.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ADOPT the policy for hackney carriage and private hire licensing standards; and

(2) That the Cabinet provide comment to the Licensing Committee on the general conditions relating to hackney carriage and private hire drivers, specified in the report.

Cabinet will be asked to agree updates to the Council's programme for the preparation of planning policy documents (the Local Development Scheme).

David Redgewell in an ad hoc statement said he was generally pleased with the proposals although had some concerns about accessibility issues, which needed more detail.  He welcomed the involvement of Scrutiny in exploring the possibility of a public transport link into Wiltshire.

Councillor Liz Richardson in an ad hoc statement made some observations about paragraph 3.4 of the report.  She asked for clarification of the meaning of the “S” in the chart in Annex 1.

Councillor Tim Ball thanked both speakers.  He explained to Cabinet that it had been hoped that further progress would have been made on the review – however, in December the Council would be looking at housing numbers with the government inspector.  He explained that the “S” in the chart indicated “Submitted” – that is, the process had been completed.  He said that dates and timetables would be informed in due course.  However, they would tie in closely with the Placemaking Plan.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor Katie Hall seconded the proposals and said that she was very pleased to see the progress that had been made.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Katie Hall, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ADOPT the revised Local Development Scheme; and

(2) To DELEGATE authority to the Divisional Director of Planning and Transport Development, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Homes and Planning, to make editorial amendments to ensure the LDS is up-to-date and correct any errors.

This report presents the second monitoring information for the Authority as a whole for the financial year 2013/14 to the end of September 2013. The report also includes a number of budget transfer requests for both revenue and capital

Councillor David Bellotti explained that this item was about the way the Council spent its money.  It was good news – the Council continued to operate within its budget.  He thanked the officers who had worked hard to ensure that services were delivered within budget.  He made particular reference to the increased visitor numbers at the Roman Baths and to the fact that the council had been able to repay £50M of expensive debt by careful cash flow management.  This had been achieved against the backdrop of no Council Tax rise.  He listed a number of projects across the area into which the Council had invested large sums.  He moved the proposals.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He reminded the Cabinet that in difficult financial times it was a huge challenge to deliver services but said how pleased he was that there would be no Children’s Centre closures.  He listed a number of schemes across the area which had recently been completed.

Councillor David Dixon welcomed the very positive report which showed the investment which had been made into the whole area.  He urged Cabinet members to consider what would be done in subsequent years to attract visitors to Bath.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ASK Strategic Directors 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;

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

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

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

This report gives details of performance against the Council's Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan 2013/14 for the first 6 months of 2013/14

David Redgewell in an ad hoc statement asked the Cabinet to find a home for the West of England Partnership once it had lost its present space in Wilder House, Bristol.

Councillor David Bellotti introduced the item by explaining that this item was about how the Council managed its cash and debts.  He thanked officers for helping to reduce the huge historical debt.  He was pleased that the Council had avoided making risky investments in countries such as Iceland and Portugal.  He moved the proposals with pleasure.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He advised David Redgewell that it had been felt that Wilder House had not been the most suitable venue for the West of England Partnership, so alternative venues were being explored.  He promised to get back to David once more information was available.

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 2013, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice;

(2) To NOTE the Treasury Management Indicators to 30th September 2013; and

(3) To ASK that this Treasury Management Report and attached appendices be reported to November Council and December Corporate Audit Committee.

The four West of England Local Authorities currently control the Learning Partnership West Company which has provided Information, Advice and Guidance services for young people.  All four authorities have already or have plans to withdraw funding for this activity and therefore it is proposed to remove the local authorities from the Board of LPW and allow the company to become a Staff Mutual Community Interest Company.

This report outlines the steps necessary to secure the interests of the local authorities and enable Learning Partnership West to continue to flourish as a company separate from the four local authorities.

Note:  Cabinet will be asked to agree that the report is exempt from publication because it contains material relating the financial or business affairs of an individual.

The Chair asked all Cabinet members to confirm that they had read and considered the public interest test.  All agreed.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE that the entire report constitutes exempt information according to the categories set out in the Local government Act 1972 (amended Schedule 12A) because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information);

(2) To AGREE that having already been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A of the Act as amended.

[At this point the public and press were asked to leave the meeting]

The Cabinet then considered the exempt report and made certain decisions which are exempt from publication for the reasons previously stated.