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 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 Councillors and 14 questions from members of the public.

[Copies of the questions and responses, 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.]

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

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 10^th September 2014 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.

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

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

This report gives details of performance against the Council's Treasury Management Strategy and Annual Investment Plan 2014/15 for the first 6 months of 2014/15

Councillor David Bellotti introduced the report and asked the Cabinet to note the information contained.  He moved the proposal that Cabinet would recommend to Council that it adopts the Treasury Management Strategy.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal and observed that the excellent figures contained in the report were a reflection of the rigour with which Cabinet members and Strategic Directors had operated within the budget.

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 2014, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice;

(2) To NOTE the Treasury Management Indicators to 30th September 2014;

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

(4) To RECOMMEND to Council the proposed amendments to the 2014/15 Treasury Management Strategy.

This report presents the second monitoring information for the Authority as a whole for the financial year 2014/15 to the end of September 2014.  The report also includes a number of budget transfer requests for both revenue and capital

Councillor Charles Gerrish in an ad hoc statement referred to appendix 5(i) of the report and asked what the Property Acquisition Bath item was; he believed the amount on that line should be £8M, not £10M.  He also asked for an explanation of the item Bishop Sutton BN Feasibility.

Councillor David Bellotti proposed the recommendations.  He responded to the queries put by Councillor Gerrish by saying that the Acquisition in Bath was the Seven Dials; and the Bishop Sutton BN Study was the Basic Needs Study for the Primary School.

He observed that the Council continued to manage within budget while remaining on target in the delivery of services and projects.  He explained that Wellbeing had been challenging because it was a needs-led service and was therefore difficult to predict.  He was delighted to announce that it had been possible to increase spending on parks and libraries in order to improve and maintain the services.  Transport was well on budget despite the known difficulties of predicting parking behaviour and Park and Ride use.  He referred to the overspend in Children and Youth but emphasised that this was caused by one or two very special cases, which warranted the expenditure but which could not have been predicted.  In summary, he observed that in the 3 years of the administration the Council had maintained services while saving money.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ASK 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;

(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.

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.

Anne Marie Jovcic-Sas in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council's website] said that the changes to the 768 bus route had not been consulted on.  The timetable had remained the same for 15 years and people had come to depend on it.  The majority of users were elderly.

Kim Donovan in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council's website] appealed to the Cabinet to install suitable pedestrian safety measures at the North Road junction off the A36 Salisbury Road.  She referred to diagrams of the road layout during her statement.  After speaking she presented a petition of 96 signatures which the Chair referred to Councillor Caroline Roberts for a response in due course.

Councillor Caroline Roberts asked Kim Donovan whether anyone from the Council had spoken to her or the group.  Kim confirmed that Councillor David Martin had been helping the group make its case.

Councillor Charles Gerrish in a statement referred to the double yellow lines in the vicinity of the Rest A While Café in Keynsham which prevented customers from parking conveniently.  He presented a petition of 109 signatures to Cabinet asking that the double yellow lines be removed.  The Chair referred the petition to Councillor Caroline Roberts for a response in due course.

Councillor Caroline Roberts asked Councillor Gerrish how long the lines had been there.  Councillor Gerrish said they had been there for 2 years.

Duncan Hounsell (Saltford Station Campaign) made a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 4 and on the Council's website] in which he welcomed the recent announcement that £250K would be included in the budget proposals for 2015 so that the project could move to the next stage.  He felt that re-opening the station would be an important milestone in the economic growth of the sub-region.

Cabinet to consider the Placemaking Plan options document for public consultation

Councillor Eleanor Jackson in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 5 and on the Council's website] welcomed the progress made and acknowledged the attention shown to those who had responded during the public consultation period; but observed that some surplus sites had still not been disposed of and she felt that too little attention had been given to issues of drainage and flooding in Radstock.  She appealed to Cabinet to improve the rail, broadband and road infrastructures.

Councillor Ben Stevens asked whether Councillor Jackson was more satisfied having read the Economic Strategy, which spoke of improving the economy of the rural areas.  Councillor Jackson agreed that, as far as it went, it was good enough but she wanted to see more.

Colin Currie (Radstock Action Group) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council's website] expressed concern at the omission of the railway from the Placemaking Plan and appealed to the Cabinet to give equal weight to industry as to housing.

Councillor Charles Gerrish in an ad hoc statement welcomed the document but made several observations and suggested amendments which may be seen in his notes [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 11 and on the Council's website]

Peter Duppa-Miller in an ad hoc statement offered to take a copy of the Plan for display at Combe Hay Public Library.

Councillor Tim Ball in proposing the item, acknowledged the points raised by Councillor Eleanor Jackson.  He emphasised that the proposal was to move to a public consultation period and asked people to respond to the consultation.  He asked Councillor Gerrish to provide him with a copy of his notes, so that the points he had made could be incorporated into the document.

Councillor David Dixon seconded the proposal and said that 58% of people supported the provision of social housing.  He felt that the Placemaking Plan was a central function of local government.

Councillor Paul Crossley reminded the meeting that the document presented options; it was not fixed in stone.  The Cabinet was determined to deliver on housing and jobs.  He commended Councillor Tim Ball and the officers on the quality of the first draft of the document and observed that final delivery would be the responsibility of the Council which would be elected in May 2015.

Councillor Tim Ball in summing up emphasised that he was eager to improve social housing provision.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To AGREE the B&NES Placemaking Plan Options document for public consultation;

(2) To AGREE the proposed consultation strategy; and

(3) To DELEGATE responsibility to the Divisional Director for Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning to make minor textual amendments to the consultation documents prior to publication.

To adopt the Enterprise Area MasterplanVision Report as Council Policy

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement said that the Masterplan provided an opportunity for long-derelict land to be put back into use, for the river to be given back to the people of Bath and to provide a catalyst for business and the exchange of ideas.  He warned however that land was finite, and once sold off could not easily be reclaimed.

Councillor Ben Stevens introduced the item.  He explained that the map on the centre pages of the document set out the detail.  The Masterplan fitted closely with the Placemaking Plan and the Transport Strategy.  The Council was significantly ahead of neighbouring authorities and had available a rich source of sites.  He agreed with Councillor Anketell-Jones about the opportunity to return the river back into use by local people.  He referred to paragraph 3.2 of the report and explained that the words “these projects” should say “”projects in Bath & NE Somerset”; and that after the words “not delivered”, should be added the words “currently a liability of up to £1.5M”.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He welcomed the observations made by Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones and stressed that the Masterplan would provide valuable opportunities for the area.

Councillor David Dixon congratulated Councillor Stevens on the document which showed vision and which was an ambitious plan for the derelict stretch of the river.  He stressed the need to embrace the very best architecture and the need to attract inward investment in jobs.

Councillor Tim Ball felt that the document was exciting; it would deliver sustainable development and controlled growth.  He was keen to develop further plans to extend the enterprise area along the river towards Keynsham.

Councillor Ben Stevens summed up by pointing out that the Masterplan would protect the interests of every resident and would not leave the future in the hands of market interests.

On a motion from Councillor Ben Stevens, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To ENDORSE the vision, objectives and priorities set out in the Bath City Riverside Enterprise Area Masterplan.

Cabinet will be asked to approve the strategy following public consultation and to recommend to Council that it be adopted

Robin Kerr (Chairman, Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 7 and on the Council's website] made a number of points relating to traffic congestion and air pollution and supported the rapid implementation of the strategy which he said was vital and long-awaited.

Adam Reynolds (Chair, Cycle Bath) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 8 and on the Council's website] appealed to the Cabinet to invest £10 per head of population into cycling on a yearly basis.

Councillor David Dixon asked Adam Reynolds why he had suggested £10 per head.  Adam said he felt that £10 would be a starting point but that Bristol invested £16 per head per year.

Councillor David Bellotti asked Adam Reynolds whether he knew the sum of the Council’s investments in cycling in the last year had in fact been more than £10 per head.  Adam said he had hoped for a commitment to annual investment, not for a single year.  Councillor Bellotti asked whether Adam was aware that the Cabinet could not commit to expenditure under future administrations and Adam acknowledged that he had not been aware of that.

Councillor Tim Ball asked Adam Reynolds whether he felt that all cyclists should undertake training.  Adam acknowledged that there were some bad cyclists, as there were some bad motorists.

Professor Donald Thomas (Greenway Residents Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 9 and on the Council's website] urging greater emphasis on pollution in residential areas.

Steve Bradley (Liberal Democrat Prospective MP for Bath) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 10 and on the Council's website] urged the Cabinet to pursue the Park and Ride proposal for the east of Bath; to make progress on the options available for relief for the east of Bath; and to continue its commitment to the MetroWest project.

Councillor Anthony Clarke in an ad hoc statement expressed disappointment that only a limited area was being covered by the proposals and asked that they be seen as the first of a number of building blocks.

Councillor Caroline Roberts moved the proposals.  She referred to the Transport strategy which had been held in 2013; the Planning, Transport and Environment PDS Panel had scrutinised the Plan; the Local Development Forum steering group had given it cross-party consideration; and now the Cabinet was being asked to recommend the Plan to Council for adoption.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He felt it was an exciting Plan with a wide consensus of agreement.  He had been particularly impressed by the comments made by Professor Donald on air quality.  He also welcomed the challenge made by Adam Reynolds over the issue of cycling provision.

Councillor Crossley emphasised that the MetroWest project would be key to delivery of the Strategy and he was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To approve capital schemes proposed within Environmental Services

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones in an ad hoc statement said he felt that the new facility should be located in the lower chapel, where most people would use it.  He also encouraged the Cabinet member to consider providing funerals on Saturdays.

Councillor David Dixon moved the proposals.  He thanked Councillor Anketell-Jones for his contribution and agreed to consider the points he had made.  The location would be subject to consultation.  He reminded Cabinet that previous improvements to the cemetery facilities had received very positive feedback.

Councillor Dine Romero seconded the proposal.  She felt that both the upper and lower chapels could make a good business case for housing the new facilities.  She asked for an assurance that local businesses would be given opportunities to get involved.

Councillor Paul Crossley observed that the number 12 bus provided a very important service for visitors to the cemetery.  He agreed that in siting the new facilities, both chapels should be considered.

Councillor David Dixon summed up by saying that local businesses would be involved, in line with the council’s local procurement policy.  He also pointed out that at present, the number 12 bus stopped across the road from the cemetery and that was being considered.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To APPROVE the release of the £100K capital allocated to Haycombe Cemetery and Crematorium to improve the experience for visitors and give the potential to provide flowers and refreshments on site.

The existing Cooperation Agreement has enabled award-winning work.  Cabinet is asked to renew the agreement for a further five years

Councillor David Martin in an ad hoc statement said he supported the proposals.  The Co-operation agreement had worked well and had been recognised as a national exemplar.

Councillor Paul Crossley in proposing the item said that he had been delighted with the partnership.  It had been ground-breaking and had worked very well.  The co-operation elements of the agreement had been crucial to its success and he felt that it was worthy of being renewed for a further 5 years.

Councillor Simon Allen seconded the proposal.  He remembered that this agreement had been one of the first made by the Cabinet in 2011.  Solar panels had been installed on the roofs of 6 local schools.  He was delighted that the Council had doubled the amount of energy it derived from renewable sources.

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

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To RENEW the BWCE Cooperation Agreement for five years, until November 2019.