Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out in the Notes

Senior Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the evacuation procedure as set out in the Agenda.

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 13 questions from Councillors and 8 questions from 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.]

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.

Councillors Lisa Brett and Joe Rayment in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 2 and on the Council's website] expressed their concerns by the disparity between the composition of the Council and the composition of the general public in B&NES, in terms of the representations within such characteristics as: gender, age, ethnicity, socio-economic class, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.  Councillors Brett and Rayment requested that the Cabinet should approve the formation of an all-party working group to investigate ways in which the Council could become more accessible and representative of the local population.

The Chair suggested that this issue should be discussed by then Group Leaders.

Chris Beezley (FoBRA member and Chairman of Beech Avenue Residents’ Association) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 3 and on the Council's website] said that FoBRA had long pressed B&NES for a formal strategy to address the challenge of housing large numbers of students in a compact city that hosts two popular universities.  The Placemaking Plan stated that student accommodation was a matter requiring a planning policy framework and policy direction at a strategic level, yet, and this was the important point, it offered no solutions.  FoBRA therefore had asked for Cabinet’s assurance that the long-overdue Student Housing Strategy is now developed as a matter of urgency, is regularly reviewed, engaging openly with the universities and residents, and that the Placemaking Plan is guided by it.

The Chair said that the Council had been talking to two Universities on the issues of student accommodation.

Rosemarie Naish (Chair of Clutton Parish Council) made a case for traffic calming measures in Clutton.  Rosemarie Naish explained that the road through the village was narrow and it had been used as rat-run between A37 and A39.  Clutton Primary School would lose lollipop person soon and for some children the walk to the school had been seen as unsafe.  The Council had made a very strong traffic calming scheme which was welcomed by the Parish Council and residents, though one resident had raised numerous objections to the scheme.  A revised scheme had been put in place and the same resident had objected to the scheme.  Rosemarie Naish concluded her statement by highlighting the need for traffic calming measures and urged Councillor Antony Clarke (Cabinet Member for Transport) to approve a revised scheme.

Annie Kilvington said that this week had been quite significant in terms of the climate change, and that we all would have to make changes to the policies that are affecting our environment.  Annie Kilvington welcomed the new Green Spaces Strategy though she was concerned that the Strategy had no reference to Park and Ride sites East of Bath, sites which were large and of enormous bio diversity value.  Annie Kilvington also said that omission of those sites would permit the Council to disregard the Strategy when pursuing its determination to implement Park and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 4^th November 2015 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 seeks Cabinet approval of the Pre-submission Draft Placemaking Plan for public consultation prior to submission to the Secretary of State for examination.

NOTE: Given the large file size of the pre-submission draft B&NES Placemaking Plan it can be only viewed on Council’s website at http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/placemaking-plan/placemaking-plan-pre.

Robin Kerr (Chairman of the Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations) in a statement [a copy of which is attached to the Minutes as Appendix 6 and on the Council's website] highlighted the importance of the Placemaking Plan for Bath.

Councillor Karen Warrington said that she was here to represent residents from her Ward whose part of their land had been included in the Placemaking Plan for residential purposes.  Councillor Warrington asked for an amendment of the Plan in terms of the housing development boundaries in that area.

Caroline Kay (Bath Preservation Trust) said that the Trust welcomed the conclusion of the Placemaking Plan consultation and highlighted six overarching points with the Cabinet: the Trust welcomed inclusion of the policy for Bath Central Area; the Trust congratulated officers on progressing with conservation area appraisal for Bath; the Trust had asked that the building height strategy should be robust enough and had recommended an urgent adoption of the SPD status; site ownership in terms of sites owned by the Council; the Trust had felt there was a need for robust part of the plan addressing student housing challenges; and, the land value should reflect marketing value.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson commented that Westfield had not been mentioned in the Plan as a community on its own right.

Councillor Liz Richardson said that the Placemaking Plan would provide a district-wide suite of planning policies for B&NES, complementing the strategic framework in the Core Strategy.  The Core Strategy had formed Part 1 of the B&NES Local Plan and the draft Placemaking Plan would be Part 2.  The Plans had been combined for clarity but it was only the Placemaking Plan part which was the subject of this report. In a few instances, the Placemaking Plan contained a policy that was intended to supersede a policy or text in the Core Strategy.  The next step in the preparation process would be for the Council to comply with the statutory requirements concerning publication and receiving representations relating to the Draft Placemaking Plan (consultation would run from 16^th December until 3^rd February) and for Full Council to agree submission of the Draft Placemaking Plan for independent examination by an Inspector appointed on behalf of the Secretary of State. Also submitted alongside the Draft Placemaking Plan to the Secretary of State would be the schedule of public representations received by the Council. It would for the appointed examination Inspector to consider the issues raised in the public representations in their role to assess the soundness of the Draft Placemaking Plan as with the other requirements of S20 (5) of the 2004 Act.  As a result the Council would not be formally considering the representations received from the next stage.

Councillor Liz Richardson formally thanked to: officers for the detailed piece of work; Members of the Council for cross-party work within Local Development Framework; residents for their feedback so far; and, to number of organisations who contributed to the Plan with their feedback.  Liz  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

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

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

The B&NES Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect in April 2015 and the process for determining spend of the CIL income was agreed by Cabinet in July 2015.

Councillor Liz Richardson said that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into effect in B&NES in April.  The use of income generated through CIL would need to be spent on infrastructure to support the District’s growth plans as set out in the Council’s Core Strategy.  In light of the relatively limited amount of  CIL income this year,  rolling it forward to next year was the most appropriate option as it would provide the opportunity to make the spend more effective.

Councillor Liz Richardson moved the recommendations.

Councillor Charles Gerrish said that he was happy to second the motion to roll forward Community Infrastructure Levy received in 2015/16.  The B&NES CIL came into effect in April 2015 and the process for determining spend of the CIL income was agreed by Cabinet in July 2015.  Of the CIL income, 15% in a local area was handed to the communities where the income has arisen.  This rises to 25% in areas with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed that the strategic income from the Community Infrastructure Levy received in 2015/16 should not be allocated this financial year but rolled forward to be added to the spending commitments for 2016/17.

The Your Care, Your Way community health and care services review programme has four key phases.  The analysis and planning phase was completed in May 2015, the Programme then progressed into its current design phase.  The key focus of this stage was to develop and formally consult on a set of commissioning intentions that set out the overarching strategy, outcomes framework and potential models on which service design could be based. 

Before commissioners can progress to developing the service delivery model during the next phase, there are a number of key outcomes that form the body of this report and will need to be considered by Governing Bodies, which are Council Cabinet and BaNES CCG Board:

a)  The analysis of consultation findings that set out what our community has told us about our plans as detailed in September Cabinet report “Proposals to Review Community Services Consultation Document”.

b)  The findings of our market engagement with providers and our proposed methodology to market test and contract in order to develop a process to identify the most capable providers for future service delivery.

c)  The outline financial planning process that will set out the factors that will impact funding going forwards and the principles against which the funding envelope will be derived.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson asked why the Health and Wellbeing Select Committee had not seen this paper before it came to the Cabinet.

Councillor Vic Pritchard responded that it was down to the Health and Wellbeing Select Committee to organise their workplan.

Councillor Pritchard said that over the past ten months Bath and North East Somerset Council and Bath and North East Somerset CCG had been listening to the views of local people and working together to review and develop proposals to improve the delivery of integrated community health and care services to the people and communities of Bath and North East Somerset.  As a result of this work Commissioners had developed the Outline Business Case (OBC).  The OBC describing proposals for achieving a local model of integrated health and care that improves outcomes and system sustainability both now and in the future.  The proposals detailed within the OBC had recognised that not all aspects of community services may need to change and acknowledged the need to build on the successes of the current system and the achievements of providers and staff. 

Councillor Vic Pritchard moved the recommendations.

Councillor Martin Veal seconded the motion by saying that report had been put together following extensive consultation with our communities.  The Council were committed to working closely with NHS colleagues and others to improve the health and wellbeing of local residents.  The Your Care, Your Way community health and care services review had been an important piece of work which would set out how we work with the NHS in future, delivering services that best meet the needs of local residents.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet:

1)  Noted the findings of the consultation document as set out in the report and approve progression to the next phase.

2)  Approved the financial planning process.

3)  Approved the market testing and contracting approach.

4)  Delegated, to officers, implementation of Phase 3, subject to the requirement to obtain approvals by the Joint Commissioning Committee and Governing Bodies in relation to the milestone decisions.

The establishment by the Council of a local authority wholly owned company (the Company) to develop, deliver, own and manage property as well as new development on a case by case basis using either Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) funding or external financing dependent which is the most viable option.

The company will initially focus on the refurbishment of existing properties suitable for residential lettings.  Consideration will also be given, on a case by case basis to the delivery of new build property developments, if deemed financially viable.

Caroline Kay (Bath Preservation Trust - BTP) said in her statement that BTP welcomed the report and that properties owned by the Council would be put back in use, which would help meeting housing needs in the centre of Bath.  The Trust would hope that there would be clear governance within the company in order to avoid sub-letting of properties.  The Trust would also hope that the Council would get the best value in order to generate revenue and achieve its objectives.  Caroline Kay also said that it was not clear in the report if other Councils, who undertook the same approach, were successful in this exercise nor it was clear what external and internal advice was given to the Council.  Caroline Kay asked for an assurance that planning guidelines would not be breached by future tenants.

Councillor Robin Moss welcomed the principle of using assets to generate an income for the Council.  In Councillor Moss’ view, this may have a potential impact on Council’s budget as it would be difficult to predict with certainty what the economic situation would be in years to come.  Councillor Moss also asked which external and internal advice had been taken on board, which Local Authorities had been used as model and who those Group Members who participated in the consultation were.

Councillor Dine Romero said that she had understood the need to create an additional income for the Council and asked if these properties would be subject of the ‘right to buy scheme’.  Councillor Romero also asked if these properties would be part of the affordable housing scheme.

Councillor Charles Gerrish welcomed the point raised by Caroline Kay in terms of sub-letting and said that he would ensure that this issue is taken forward before finalisation of any letting contract.  The Council’s key issue is to get sensible return on investment without the need to overcharge its tenants.  The Council’s objective would be to generate estimated revenue.  Councillor Gerrish also said that he was not in position at this stage to announce internal and external advisors, though bullet point 5.27 of the report might give some indications on local professional advice.  The new company would follow existing planning regulations.  One of Local Authorities used as a model was Mendip Council (6 months in existence).  Councillor Gerrish also said that Local Property and Development Company was not registered housing company so it would not be covered by Government legislation in terms of the ‘right to buy’ scheme.  Also, in terms of affordable housing, if the company would develop additional sites then they would abide to planning rules like everyone else.

Councillor Charles Gerrish said that the proposal would the delivery of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan for the period 2016/17 to 2019/20, with an additional £600K of recurring income targeted by the end of this period.

Councillor Charles Gerrish moved the recommendations.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones seconded the motion by saying that the Council would need to look at innovative options and opportunities to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010, makes Bath and North East Somerset Council a Lead Local Flood Authority and as such the Council is responsible for managing flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses in the area. Under provisions in the Act, the Council must develop, maintain, monitor and apply a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (and assist in the management of local flood risk).

Councillor Anthony Clarke said that under the requirements in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 the Council had had a duty to work towards the objectives set out in the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, as well as to comply with statutory duties as a Lead Local Flood Authority set out in the Flood & Water Management Act 2010.  The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 had made Bath and North East Somerset Council a Lead Local Flood Authority and as such the Council was responsible for managing flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses in the area but not from the river.

Councillor Anthony Clarke moved the recommendations.

Councillor Liz Richardson seconded the motion and thanked everyone who has worked so hard to put this together as well as all those that took part in our consultation.  This was an extremely important strategy that would help ensure a co-ordinated approach to local flood risk, clarifying roles and responsibilities and ensuring management of the risk as effectively as possible.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet approved the adoption of the Bath & North East Somerset Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Parks service has recently completed a review of the Council’s Green Spaces Strategy. The review is designed to provide an assessment of both current open space and any surpluses or deficiencies in open spaces throughout the district. The findings of the review will help inform the policies within the B&NES Placemaking Plan, establish local provision standards and create an up to date evidential basis that can be maintained and used to aid the implementation of the policies and the provision of open spaces, during the life of the plan period.

The findings of this study have been drawn upon by the Parks Service to develop a set of nine objectives to guide the development and management of our open space assets until 2029.

NOTE: Given the large file size for these reports they can be viewed online as a series of pdf documents at:

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/sport-leisure-and-parks/parks-green-spaces-information/green-space-strategy-review

Councillor Martin Veal said that the proposed Green Space Strategy 2015 would out a series of draft policies and standards for the provision of green space across the district, and a methodology for interpreting and informing the provision for these assets until 2029.  This strategy would be used to prioritise the allocation of existing resources for managing the green space asset and for directing developers’ and other third party funding contributions to where they would be most needed.  The proposed strategy would provide a means for prioritising expenditure associated with the district’s green spaces and would help the Council meet its obligations in the areas of Sustainability and the Natural Environment (as they relate to green spaces).

Councillor Martin Veal moved the recommendations.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones seconded the motion that Cabinet adopt the proposed Green Space Strategy, findings of the review and associated area profiles, and agree that the findings of the report would be used when preparing an action plan for the delivery and management of the green spaces across the district from 2015-2029.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet adopted the proposed Green Space Strategy, findings of the review and associated area profiles, and agree that  the findings of the report be used when preparing an action plan for the delivery and management of the green spaces across the district from 2015-2029.