Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting by explaining that this meeting is being held under The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus)(Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. The Council has agreed a protocol to cover virtual meetings and this meeting would operate in line with that protocol. The meeting has the same status and validity as a meeting held in the Guildhall.

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 15 questions from Councillors and no 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.]

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.

There were 14 registered speakers for this meeting.

Each speaker had up to 3 minutes to address the Cabinet. 

NOTE: All statements are attached to these minutes.

Non-agenda related –

1.  David Redgewell – Transport during COVID-19

2.  Simon Banks – Ecological Emergency

3.  Danny Groves – Ecological Emergency

4.  Frank Kenny – Ecological Emergency

Item 11 Mead Lane, Saltford - River moorings –

1.  Councillor Duncan Hounsell

2.  Elisabeth Evans

3.  Phil Harding (Saltford Parish Council)

4.  Rebecca Sarll

5.  Avril Mc Govern

6.  Ross Fender

7.  Laura Darling

8.  Dom Newton

9.  Peter Denmead

10.  Jassy Powles

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 22^nd July 2020 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

There were none.

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.

A list of Cabinet Single Member decisions taken and published since the last Cabinet meeting to note (no debate).

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

Councillor Richard Samuel used this opportunity to highlight that Decision E3217 ‘Saltford Lawn Tennis Club Community Asset Transfer’ had quite positive impact on the local community.

This report provides an update on the action taken following the Cabinet meeting  held  in January 2020.  In addition, Cabinet is requested to make a final decision on  moorings.

The Chair and Councillor Paul Crossley thanked all speakers who read out their statements on this matter.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced the report by saying that several presentations from the public showed how complex this issue was.  Before continuing with an introduction with the report, Councillor Crossley offered to meet with boating community to discuss this matter.

Following local elections in May 2019, the new administration had agreed to review moorings at Mead Lane.  The Council had commissioned Atkins Global engineering consultancy to undertake a detailed visual survey of the riverbank, road, utilities and 2005 bio-engineered solutions (rock armour) on Wednesday 3 September 2019.  The detailed outcome of the survey, and the main findings were included in the report.  Councillor Crossley said that he was pleased with an outcome of the survey.  Moorings at Mead Lane were close to a narrow road and also to residents of Mead Lane.  Also, all of the issues highlighted in the report presented to the Cabinet in January 2020 have been done. 

Councillor Crossley stressed that 14-Day moorings will be available from 1st March 2021 and would remain until suitable alternatives were found.  Councillor Crossley also offered to meet with the boating community to inspect stretches of the river mentioned by boaters. 

Councillor Paul Crossley concluded by moving the officers’ recommendations with additions/changes as follows:

Bullet point 2 of the main recommendations to read – ‘•  Agree to a long-term aspiration to relocate moorings from Mead Lane – with a target date of 31st December 2022’

Added recommendation 2.8 to read – ‘Request that officers devise a charging regime for moorings at Mead Lane, to be implemented from 1st March 2021, in accordance with delegations outlined in recommendation 2.6. Requests for future capital allocation for moorings to be considered as part of the council annual budget setting process.’

Councillor Dine Romero seconded the motion, and together with Councillor Crossley proposed to meet with the boating community to discuss issues related to this matter.

Councillor Tim Ball supported the motion from Councillor Crossley and added that this Council, and the previous administrations, have failed the boating community in terms of adequate moorings.  Mead Lane was not an adequate solution and the Council would need to identify other areas in the Local Plan for moorings.  Councillor Ball also called on the government to be more committed in recognising the needs of the boating community.

Councillor Sarah Warren welcomed the motion and said that she had met with the boaters in Bathampton and that she has begun to understand their needs for education and access to hospitals.  Councillor Warren said that she would also like to meet with the boating community to discuss the issues and needs that they may have.  Councillor Warren added that the Council should continue to work with the CRT and with the families on their access to health and education.

Councillor Richard Samuel welcomed the recommendations with a caution to the budget allocation process.  Councillor Samuel said that it needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

This report sets out the main issues considered in that review and then makes recommendations for consideration by Cabinet to help mitigate the continued impact from Covid-19 on income, customer behaviour and confidence and the need to adapt to changing guidance and the challenges presented by the current situation .

NOTE:

8:12pm the meeting was adjourned for comfort break.

8:20pm the meeting reconvened.

Councillor Paul Crossley introduced the report by saying that a variety of different measures had to be put in place due to unprecedented impact of Covid-19. 

The Leisure Service was a discretionary service, however it contributed to many critical Council priorities including tackling obesity, improving physical health and wellbeing; addressing mental health and reducing our impact on climate change through encouraging walking and cycling.  The contract with Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) to manage the Council’s leisure centres was  key to delivering these outcomes.

When Covid-19 legislation was passed that required leisure facilities to close GLL has lost all income from all of its facilities in all of its contracts.  However, ongoing costs have still remained - for example ensuring the mechanical and electrical systems, particularly linked to the swimming pools, were managed and maintained and ready to operate again once lockdown was lifted. 

This left GLL and all other leisure operators with limited options to deal with the financial impacts without support from their Local Authority partners. The situation has been made worse as leisure providers were exempt from most Covid-19 emergency support funding.

A sum of £565,643 has been agreed by the Council to the cover losses to the end of August 2020 with the Council working closely with GLL to control costs as far as possible during this time.  These costs have also been independently benchmarked by Sport England advisors to ensure they were in line with what other Local Authorities were experiencing and that all avenues for controlling costs were being explored.

At the request of the SW Chief Executive Officers group, this group has been lobbying Ministers directly on the financial pressures faced by the sector.  Funding from central government has only covered directly run LA leisure services, not those who use leisure trusts as a model of delivery as in this case.

Councillor Crossley took the meeting through the details of the phased re-opening of leisure services in BANES (as per report) and explained that in the light of the financial pressure Covid-19 has placed on the Council and GLL a review has been undertaken to seek to develop a more sustainable business model for the future.

The recommendations in this report were designed to balance the need for a sustainable financial model against the desire to provide leisure services that help to improve the health and wellbeing of the local population.

Councillor Paul Crossley moved the recommendations.

Councillor Richard Samuel seconded the motion by highlighting the government’s failure to provide any money to Leisure Services such as GLL.  According to the newspapers, the Treasury has allocated £500m to support Leisure Services across the country, and that money has not yet been distributed to those in need.  Councillor Samuel expressed his concern that Leisure Services would suffer even more in the months to come, due to Covid-19 crisis.  The government has an obligation to support this industry and thousands  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) sets out the strategic direction and priorities for the Council as well outlining the financial context and challenges the Council faces over the next five years and the strategy that will be used to inform its annual budget process.

Councillor Richard Samuel introduced the report by saying that the financial challenge this year had been extreme with unprecedented impact on finances. The current Council has acted quickly because it was very clear, very early on in the pandemic lockdown that there was going to be a serious detrimental impact on the Council's income as it provides one of the pillars in funding  the services we provide. The financial recovery progress report was approved in July, with £20m of savings to be made in year, to balance the books.  Sadly, the government would not meet the full losses that the Council expected to encounter during this current financial year.

The Council's income position is likely to be under pressure for many years to come. It would underperform this year, with no expectations to return to previous levels next year. The Council's financial position and outturn was expected to improve during this year, although the budget would be in deficit year end to some degree. This report was not about the budget but more to set out the problems and the financial challenges that the Council would have to meet. 

Councillor Samuel took the Cabinet thought the rest of the report highlighting the difficult position over the next 5 years.  Councillor Samuel concluded that this Strategy would be a base for future discussions in terms of Council’s financial position and budget.

Councillor Richard Samuel moved the recommendations.

Councillor Kevin Guy seconded the motion by thanking Councillor Samuel and the relevant officers for this report.  Councillor Guy also said that the Council have received financial help from central government, but nowhere near enough to cover the losses incurred.

Councillor Tim Ball also supported the motion and suggested that other political groups in the Council, and the relevant Scrutiny Panels should have been more proactive in the debate on this strategy. 

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed to approve the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

This report gives details of performance against the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2020/21 for the first three months of 2020/21.

Councillor Richard Samuel introduced the report by saying that this report gives details of performance against the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2020/21 for the first three months of 2020/21.  Councillor Samuel added that there were few headlines that were already highlighted in the report.  Councillor Samuel thanked the officers on the report.

Councillor Richard Samuel moved the recommendations.

Councillor Dine Romero seconded the motion, and also thanked the officers for their hard work.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed to:

2.1  The Treasury Management Report to 30th June 2020, prepared in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Code of Practice, is noted.

2.2  The Treasury Management Indicators to 30th June 2020 are noted.