Agenda and minutes

The Chair was taken by Councillor Paul Crossley, Leader of the Council.

He said that at the end of the meeting he would answer some questions received from members of the public via Twitter.

He made a statement about agenda item 12:

We apologise both to First Steps and to readers of the agenda papers that within the appendices to the report for item 12 [minute 112] we have inadvertently published detailed information in excess of what was necessary or relevant to the matters being considered tonight. Specifically, this relates to the publication of the full staffing structure of First Steps, which is not directly comparable to the staffing published for the Council Children’s Centres and therefore could be seen as disproportionate and misleading. We will withdraw this information from the published version following the meeting. In essence this will mean deleting the table in Appendix 5 which relates to the staffing of the two Children’s Centres delivered by First Steps and retaining the key data in the paragraph which follows it – i.e. referring to 11.8 FTE in these two centres. We will continue to work with First Steps to ensure information contained in subsequent consultation and commissioning documents is appropriate. Cabinet members are asked to disregard this additional information when considering their decision this evening.

He made a statement about the current floods:

The last few weeks have seen extraordinary weather conditions and nightly on TV we are witnessing the terrible plight of residents on the Somerset Levels and in other areas. Our hearts and thoughts are with those residents. Our praise goes out to all sectors of the public service and local government, who are working so hard for long hours to control the situation and help residents. As a Council we have offered to help Somerset and their emergency response and have provided one of our gulley cleansing machines and crew to support their efforts.  In Bath and North East Somerset we are not complacent and these floods bring back memories of floods in recent years in Chew Valley, Chelwood and a few properties this year in Bathamption and elsewhere. Each individual flooding of property and business is a personal disaster. As a Council we are working closely with the Environment Agency, both our local water companies and all the emergency services. We are prepared, should the need arise, to be ready and able to help residents. This winter we have seen that flood mitigation measures that have been taken to enable the Bath Western Riverside development have been successful. Last summer we cleaned out the gulleys and verges across the Chew Valley, and this helped to reduce the flood risk. Last summer we improved the drainage in Chelwood village, and this has worked. The Council has already commissioned a survey of properties at highest risk of flooding in Chew Magna and has budgeted £200,000 to improve flood protection in the Chew Valley. This is likely to enhance the protection of approximately 7 properties. In this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

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 Officeror a member of his staff 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 19 questions from the following Councillors: Dave Laming (2), Nathan Hartley, June Player, Brian Webber (4), Anthony Clarke (5), Charles Gerrish, Vic Pritchard, Liz Richardson(3), and Michael Evans.

There was 1 question from the following member of the public: Graham Harrison.

[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.

Nigel Sherwen made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council’s website] about the impact of the Gateway project on the safety of cyclists. Councillor Crossley responded that the scheme was still in the consultation phase, and that Mr Sherwen’s comments would be fed into that consultation.

David Redgewell made a statement on the Greater Bristol Bus Network. He emphasised that the Network includes most of Bath and North East Somerset and comprises the longer-distance services jointly supported by neighbouring unitary authorities. He urged the maintenance and ringfencing of funding for rural transport links in the Council’s budget.  He was worried about the future of buses to Radstock and Frome.  He pointed out that residents of Radstock and Midsomer Norton need access to the Mendips for health care, among other things. He urged co-operation with Mendip District Council and Somerset County Council. He also said that there should be greater investment in bus vehicles, as many of those in Bath were below standard. He also made a statement on local rail issues. He referred to the disruptions to the rail service caused by the recent flooding, which highlighted the need to improve the resilience of the rail network. He said this was an issue that should be taken up by South West Councils. He feared that that all the funding for local rail would be used up in repairing weather damage. He was concerned that MetroWest was not listed as a recipient of capital funding in the Council’s budget, as the Minister had clearly stated that it was a local authority scheme, not a Department for Transport scheme. Provision for Phase 1 of the scheme was included in North Somerset’s budget. Councillor Crossley assured Mr Redgewell that the issues he had raised would be taken into account when the proposals on the City Deal project were considered.

Jay Risbridger (Director, Oliver Currency c.i.c.) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council’s website]on the Bath Pound, submitting that its wider use would result in more of the money spent in Bath being retained in Bath, and urging the Council to support the Bath Pound in the same way that Bristol City Council had supported the Bristol Pound. Councillor Crossley said that he would ask Councillor Stevens to speak to the Council’s Economic Development Service and arrange a meeting with Mr Risbridger about this issue.

Dawn Milsom (Chairman, Clandown Residents Association) made a statement on the Scrap Metal Dealers Act Policy (agenda item 19). She said that the Act gave the Council an opportunity to regulate a sector of business that had hitherto been difficult to control. She was concerned that though the Act had come into force in October 2013, Bath and North East Somerset was agreeing its policy only now. She hoped that robust vetting procedure would be established in accordance with section 3(2) of the Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 4^th December 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.

The draft minutes of the Policy and Resources Policy Development Scrutiny Panel of 10^th February 2014 had been circulated to Cabinet members. Councillor John Bull in an ad hoc statement drew attention to the resolution of the Panel:

To note the conclusions and resolutions from the other PDS Panels and refer them on to the Cabinet in 12^th February 2014 for consideration; and

To recommend that the Cabinet earmark for the 2015/16 budget £300k to go into Children’s Services ring fenced for Children’s Centres to allow them to stay open from 9am-5pm. The Panel suggest that this be financed by the ongoing resource allocations for the financial planning reserve; and

To recommend that the Cabinet set aside £200k of the one-off headroom allocation money from the financial planning reserve to enable the smooth transition to the new model for Children’s Centres; and finally

To ask that the Cabinet give active consideration in its budget setting to additional provision for bus services in new estates/developments.

Councillor Crossley thanked Councillor Bull and said that the Cabinet would have these proposals analysed to see if anything could be done in the budget to be put to Council on 18^th February 2014. He added, for the avoidance of doubt, that any amendment to the budget because of the recommendation of the Resources PDS Panel would not count as a substantial change, because it had been publicly notified, and because the Cabinet would be able to give the matter due consideration.

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

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

The Early Years, Children and Youth PDS Panel was asked by Cabinet to consider proposals relating to the restructuring of the Early Years Service.  The Panel at its meeting in January 2014 made recommendations which the Cabinet is now asked to consider along with other responses made during the consultation period.

Councillor Hardman in an ad hoc statement added more detail to the recommendations of the Resources PDS Panel. She welcomed the £500k that the administration had agreed to put back into Children’s Services. She said that the successful campaign by parents and the public for the restoration of funding to Children’s Centres had shown how valued they were. However, she understood that only £300k of the £500k would be going to Children’s Centres, with the rest being earmarked for other areas of Early Years services. This would mean that Children’s Centres would still suffer a significant cut in funding. She understood that to keep all Children’s Centres open on a daily basis would require an additional £294,000. She therefore requested the Cabinet to agree to put back a further £300,000 into the Early Years budget on an ongoing basis with the specific purpose of keeping all Children’s Centres open each day.

Councillor Evans in an ad hoc statement said that he thought that there had been no cuts to the Children’s Services budget this year; he hoped that this would be clarified. He welcomed the permanent reinstatement of the £500k. He also welcomed the detail given in the report, which gave a clear picture of precisely what services were being affected. He welcomed the fact that all Children’s Centres would stay open. He said it seemed to be assumed that the voluntary sector would take care of all the universal services; the problem with this was that the universal services were a good route for identifying those who needed the targetted service. He therefore urged the administration to ensure that there were other means of identfying clients needing the targetted services.

Councillor Romero in proposing the item, stressed this was a report on a work in progress, and not on the end product. She said that the recommendations from the Resources PDS and the points made by Councillor Hardman would be considered before the Council’s budget meeting next Tuesday. In her view there was merit in exploring the proposed new model further, as the report suggested that it would bring significant savings without impacting on the front delivery of targetted services. Partly this was because the situation had changed since the Children’s Centres were first set up. Funding was now coming into Early Years from a variety of sources, and health visitors were acting as a referral point for further services. The Cabinet would consider the issue again in the summer of 2014.

Councillor Crossley seconded the item. He too emphasised that it was a work in progress. He thought it was important to note that there were no proposals to close Children’s Centres as other councils had done.

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

RESOLVED unanimously:

(1)  to include within its budget proposals to Council, the proposed adjustment which permanently deletes the £500,000 savings originally required from the Early Years and Children’s Centres base budget in 2014/15 and subsequent years;

(2)  to note  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

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

Councillor Bellotti in proposing the item said that this was a report on the Council’s performance in the current financial year. He said that performance had been outstanding, highlighting three aspects:

(i)  the number of visitors attracted to the area;

(ii)  skilful cash flow management;

(iii)  an increase in recycling and a reduction in landfill charges.

In addition, a large number of capital projects were being delivered, including the £34m project at Keynsham, which was on time and on budget.

Councillor Stevens seconded the proposal, commenting that Heritage Services had made a huge contribution to the Council’s budget; the £5m profit they had earned was equivalent to an additional 6.5% on Council Tax.

Councillor Roberts said that she had recently visited areas of B&NES subject to severe flooding last and where deaths had occurred. The work that officers had done in these areas had prevented any recurrence this year. She expressed her thanks to everyone who had been on flood watch over Christmas and in recent weeks.

Councillor Crossley said that it was very fortunate that Bath and North East Somerset was able to generate income in ways that other local authorities did not. The Council need to look for further sources of income so that it could maintain services to residents.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  to agree that Strategic Directors should 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 Appendix 2 to the report;

(3)  to note the capital expenditure position for the Council in the financial year to the end of September and the year-end projections detailed in  Appendix 3 of the report;

(4)  to agree the revenue virements listed for approval in Appendix 4(i) of the report; and

(5)  to note the changes in the capital programme listed in Appendix 5(i) of the report.

This report gives details of performance against the Council's Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan 2013/14 for the first 9 months of 2013/14

Councillor Bellotti in proposing the item said that this report was about how much the Council borrowed and where it invested its money. The Council still had a borrowing requirement of just over £200m for capital projects, but because it was funding some of this from cash flow, it should not be necessary to reach the borrowing requirement.  Bath and North East Somerset had never invested in risky propositions. Unlike other councils it had not invested in Iceland, for example. It did not even lend to countries in the Eurozone.

Councillor Crossley seconded the proposal. He said that the report showed that the Council was practising sound finance based on sound principles, and for that the Council’s outstanding finance team had to be congratulated.

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

RESOLVED unanimously

(1)  to note the Treasury Management report to 31^st December 2013, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice; and

(2)  to note the Treasury Management Indicators to 31^st December 2013.

The Local Government Act requires the Council to set out its treasury strategy for borrowing and to prepare an Annual Investment Strategy, setting out the Council’s policies for managing its investments

Councillor Laming in an ad hoc statement said that as a member of the Corporate Audit Committee he was astonished at the skill and expertise possessed by Council finance staff, and would like to congratulate them for their excellent work.

Councillor Gerrish noted that although Councillor Bellotti had stated that the Council did not invest in the Eurozone, banks in Germany and the Netherlands appeared in the list of counterparties in Appendix 3 of the report. Councillor Bellotti explained that the Council did not invest in all the institutions listed in Appendix 3; it was a list of those who met the Council’s prudential criteria.

Councillor Bellotti in proposing the item explained that Treasury Management was about responsible borrowing and investing and about positioning the Council in relation to a number of factors, such as interest rates, the rate of growth and inflation.

Councillor Crossley seconded the proposal and said that the Council needed to keep its borrowing continually under review.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  To recommend the actions proposed within the Treasury Management Strategy Statement (Appendix 1 of the report) to February Council for approval;

(2)  To recommend the Investment Strategy as detailed in Appendix 2 of the report to February Council for approval;

(3)  To recommend the changes to the authorised lending lists detailed in Appendix 2 of the report and highlighted in Appendix 3 of the report to February Council for approval;

And further;

(4)  To note the Treasury Management Indicators detailed in Appendix 1 of the report and delegate authority for updating the indicators prior to approval at Full Council on 18th February 2014 to the Divisional Director – Business Support and Cabinet Member for Community Resources, in light of any changes to the recommended budget as set out in the Budget Report elsewhere on the agenda for this meeting.

Cabinet will be asked to agree and set the Council's medium term planning approach and to recommend the 2014/15 Council Tax and Budget to Council.  Council will consider the Cabinet’s recommendations on 18-Feb-14.

Elizabeth Derl-Davis (Radstock Town Council) made a statement [a summary of which is attached to these Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council’s website]about the Bronze Band support scheme. She said that about 320 pensioners, including herself, would be affected if the Council stopped paying the support charge for those living in sheltered housing. Those living in sheltered housing were there because they were over 60, disabled or had a long-term illness. They were the poorest, most vulnerable group in the country. The Bronze Band only gave access to an alarm system, which was part of the fabric of the building and could not be removed. The cost for this was £3.60 a week or £187.20 over a year. Those who could not afford to pay this amount would be expected to move. The majority of pensioners where she lived were over 80. The Silver, Gold, Platinum and Diamond Bands were, of course, more expensive. The cost of 320 x £187.20 was not a great sum in the overall budget for B&NES. If the Council withdrew this support, it would create a precedent. She urged the Cabinet to reverse this cut, as Bristol City Council had done.

Councillor Bull in an ad-hoc statement highlighted the continual reductions in central government grants to councils. The Institute of Fiscal Studies had warned that 50% of austerity cuts were yet to take effect. The Local Government Association had warned that eventually councils might only be able to afford adult social care and refuse collection. The budget was unsatisfactory and failed to meet the expectations of residents. There were many other relatively small cuts like the one the previous speaker had raised, but above all there had been a £1.8m cut for Children’s Services.

Councillor Laming in an ad hoc statement welcomed the recommendation for provisional approval of a River Corridor Fund. He had been urging this for the past three years. He recalled that on 28 April 2012 the river had been so low that boats had been sitting on the river bed, and there had been warnings of drought. Since then rain had been unremitting. The Transport Secretary had confirmed on the radio that morning that climate change was occurring. In his experience of 27 years on the river everything had changed, and in particular during the last 2 years.  The River Corridor Working Group was desperately needed and should be properly funded, because people’s lives and livelihoods were at risk. 23 businesses in Keynsham, including his own, had been ruined in the past two weeks because of the floods. He urged that the allocated £340,000 should not be wasted, but used as “feed money” to attract additional investment from private enterprise, government and the EU.

Councillor Gerrish in an ad hoc statement welcomed many aspects of the budget, but also raised some concerns. He was concerned that the costs of travellers’ sites were increasing. His group proposed that the proposed capital spend on travellers’ sites be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

The Advice & Information Strategy 2014/17 was consulted on with members of the public, a wide range of agencies and service providers and was considered by the Wellbeing Policy Development & Scrutiny Panel in January 2014. Cabinet will now be asked to adopt the Strategy

Councillor Allen in proposing the item, said that this was an interim report followed a six-week consultation. The results of the consultation, the review of the Adult Social Care pathway and duties imposed by the Care Act needed to be considered before a further report was brought to Cabinet.

Councillor Hall seconded the proposal and said that she thought it was a very good report. She thought the Council ought to consider example of best practice in other parts of the country.

On a motion from Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Hall, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  to note the outcome of the consultation on the draft Advice & Information Strategy 2014-17, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(2)  to receive a further draft of the Advice & Information Strategy at its July 2014 meeting, which takes account of

a.  feedback from the consultation;

b.  the redesign of the adult social care pathway;

c.  the detailed implications and requirements of the Care Bill 2013-14; and

d.  the February 2014 Council decision on the 2014-15 budget, which will determine the resources available to respond to the priorities set out in the revised draft Advice & Information Strategy.

Cabinet will be asked to consider applications from voluntary sector bodies for funding to continue the provision of community transport services in 2014/5

Councillor Roberts in proposing the item said that Bath Dial-a-Ride was operated by the Council’s in-house transport team, but the others were provided by independent groups. The funding proposed would allow services to be maintained for the first part of 2014, after which new service level agreements would be negotiated with a view to maintaining the same services with roughly the same costs. There had been a 7% growth in the use of these services and cost per passenger had fallen.

Councillor Romero seconded the proposal and said that these were not statutory services, but the funding provided demonstrated the Council’s commitment to helping people live independently.

Councillor Allen said that these services were important to counter loneliness, which was an objective of the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy. These services helped people get out of their own homes, which promoted wellbeing. He said there was a need for additional drivers in Bath.

Councillor Crossley said that the Council had provided long-term support for these schemes. There had been a growth in ridership, which demonstrated that it was worth promoting these schemes. Keynsham Dial-a-Ride had recently celebrated its 10^th anniversary and recruited its 1000^th member.

On a motion from Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Romero, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  that funding proposals in Appendix 2 of the report be approved, subject to decision of the Council on the budget for 2014/15; and

(2)  that the Divisional Director for Environmental Services be given delegated powers to reallocate funds, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, from approved projects that become unviable owing to the level of funding allocated or to a change in circumstances of the applicant group, should such situations arise during the year.

The Scrap Metal Dealers Act introduces a new licensing scheme.  This report recommends that the function is delegated to the Divisional Director (Environmental Services), and the Council's Licensing Committee.

Councillor Laming in ad hoc statement said that because of the flooding he now owned a sunken barge and almost 70 feet of steel from a pontoon. He wondered whether he needed to apply for a licence as a scrap metal dealer under this legislation. Councillor Crossley responded that the definition of a scrap metal dealer could be found on agenda page 226.

Councillor Jackson in an ad hoc statement welcomed this legislation. She said that metal theft had been increasing nationally and referred to thefts of metal from churches, which were particularly vulnerable. She was disappointed that the Council had not been in a position to implement the legislation as soon as it came into force last October. She was very pleased with the proposed licensing system, which would be able to deal with people in the scrap business who had criminal records.

Councillor Dixon in proposing the item, acknowledged that the legislation was being implemented a couple of months late. The new regime would replace the previous simple registration system. All work relating to the policy would be delegated to one Divisional Director. All dealers within the B&NES area would have to hold a licence.

Councillor Allen seconded the proposal. He said the legislation brought new responsibilities for council officers, who would be ready to act when they needed to.

Councillor Crossley said that this was an excellent piece of legislation. Thefts from churches were inconveniences, but thefts from railways and other places put people’s lives at risk. Most people in the scrap metal business were trading lawfully; this legislation was aimed at those who were not.

On a motion from Councillor David Dixon, seconded by Councillor Allen, it was RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1)  to accept the Scrap Metal Dealers Policy provided in Appendix A to the report;

(2)  to note and agree the fees associated with the function provided in paragraph 5.6 of the report;

(3)  to recommend to delegate to the Divisional Director Environmental Services;

a.  the administration and enforcement of the function;

b.  the power to request further information of applicants;

c.  to review and amend the fees on an annual basis;

d.  to determine applications (including refusal), revoke licences, or impose conditions under Section 3(8);

e.  the power to issue or cancel a closure notice for unlicensed sites, and where appropriate, to apply for closure orders (Schedule 2) and take such other action in this respect as may be required; and

f.  to note that Council will be asked to delegate the function to the Licensing Committee when the power to do so is available.