Agenda and minutes

The Chairman will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 7.

The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the agenda.

Minutes of previous meeting of 19^th May 2011

On a motion from Councillor Paul Crossley, seconded by Councillor Francine Haeberling, it was;

RESOLVED that the minutes of 19^th May 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies were received from Councillors Malcolm Hanney and Chris Watt.  Councillor Will Sandry had also indicated that he would be arriving late to the meeting.

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 complete the green interest forms circulated to groups in their pre-meetings (which will be announced at the Council Meeting) 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 personal and prejudicial or personal.

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Solicitor to the Council and Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

The Solicitor to the Council advised the meeting that Councillors’ previous involvement in discussions/decisions regarding Culverhay did not constitute an interest and so did not preclude them from participating in the debate and voting on that item.

Councillor Gerry Curran declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 9 as Governor of Culverhay school and a parent of children at the school.

Councillor Sarah Bevan declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 10 as a parent of a child at St Gregory’s school.

Councillor David Dixon declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 10 as Governor of St Gregory’s school.

These are matters of information for Members of the Council. No decisions will be required arising from the announcements.

The Chairman then;

1. Drew Members attention to the forthcoming training sessions on the Code of Conduct and encouraged them to attend.

2. Indicated that he proposed to waive Council Rule 37 so as not to permit Councillors seconding motions or amendments being able to reserve their right to speak until later in the debate, but to require all seconders, if they wished to speak, to do so when they seconded the motion or amendment.  The Council indicated its agreement.

3. Invited Council to place on record its thanks to Tom Dunne, Democratic Services Manager, who was retiring shortly, for his many years of loyal service to this Council and its predecessor authorities.

4. Informed Council that he proposed to announce a 10 minute comfort break at an appropriate point if the meeting continued beyond 8.00pm.

If there is any urgent business arising since the formal agenda was published, the Chairman will announce this and give reasons why he has agreed to consider it at this meeting. In making his decision, the Chairman will, where practicable, have consulted with the Leaders of the Political Groups. Any documentation on urgent business will be circulated at the meeting, if not made available previously.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Democratic Services Manager will announce any submissions received under the arrangements set out in note 5 above. The Council will be invited to decide what action it wishes to take, if any, on the matters raised in these submissions. As the questions received and the answers given will be circulated in written form there is no requirement for them to be read out at the meeting. The questions and answers will be published with the draft minutes.

The following statements were made at agenda item 8;

David Dunlop made a statement regarding flood mitigation in relation to the Bath Transport package – a copy of which is held on the Minute book and published on the Council’s website with the draft minutes of the meeting.

Steve Mackerness made a statement regarding the Bath Transport package which welcomed the removal of the BRT and Bathampton Meadows from the bid – a copy of which is held on the Minute book and published on the Council’s website with the draft minutes of the meeting.

Ian Bell made a statement regarding the Bath Transport package, expressing concern that it would not significantly address the city’s need for economic growth – a copy of which is held on the Minute book and published on the Council’s website with the draft minutes of the meeting.

Pam Richards made a statement on behalf of Response2Route regarding the appropriation of open space land and hoped that this would be reversed.

David Redgewell made a statement regarding the Bath Transport package and referred to a number of documents already circulated electronically to Councillors. He asked Councillors to consider the need for much improved bus and rail services in the area and to ensure effective independent scrutiny of decisions taken at the regional level.  In response to a question from Councillor Eleanor Jackson regarding the source of his information, David explained it had come from the Regional Development Agency.

Jo McCarron made a statement on behalf of Response2Route regarding village green applications in Newbridge in relation to the Bath Transport package – a copy of which is held on the Minute book and published on the Council’s website with the draft minutes of the meeting.

David Evans made a statement regarding the A362 in Midsomer Norton, and called for traffic calming measures to be increased - a copy of which is held on the Minute book and published on the Council’s website with the draft minutes of the meeting.  In response to a question from Councillor Eleanor Jackson about David’s view of why the Highways department had refused a zebra crossing in a particular spot, he responded that it was perhaps because the road was too dangerous to cross at that point.

George Bailey made a statement expressing concern about the proposed diversion of the A362 in Radstock - a copy of which is held on the Minute book and published on the Council’s website with the draft minutes of the meeting.  In response to a question from Councillor Eleanor Jackson regarding air pollution and respiratory diseases, George responded that if the narrow street became 2 way, traffic would travel more slowly, there would be queues of traffic and HGVs going round the roundabout would be moving off from a standstill – all of which would exacerbate the pollution.

Amanda Leon from Radstock Action group made a statement regarding roads in Radstock in relation to the Bath Transport package - a copy of which is held  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

By the 9^th September 2011, the Council has to submit a Best & Final Bid to DfT for the funding of the Bath Transport Package (BTP).  This Council meeting is the last opportunity to amend the transport policy to reflect what is likely to be included in the Best and Final Bid.

The Council considered a report setting out a Best & Final bid to Department for Transport for the funding of the Bath Transport Package.  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, Department for Transport have indicated that they wished to reduce costs, enhance value, improve deliverability of major transport schemes and increase Local Authority contribution.  Following the election, further work had been undertaken to reduce the cost of the package.

In addition to the reports circulated with the agenda, Councillors received copies of an update report at the meeting containing revised recommendations and a new Section 3 – Financial Implications.  This was made available to Press and public too.

On a motion from Councillor Roger Symonds, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED that

The Council agrees, as recommended by Cabinet, that the following elements of the BTP should not be included in the Best & Final Bid to DfT:

1.1  The Bus Rapid Transit Segregated Route;

1.2  The A36 Lower Bristol Road Bus Lane;

1.3  The A4 London Road Lambridge Bus Lane;

1.4  New A4 Eastern P&R (1400 spaces), plus bus lane priority on the A4/A46 slip road ;

1.5  And, in addition, reduce the size of the P&R expansion at Newbridge.

As a result the BTP would comprise of the following elements;

a.  Upgrades to bus stop infrastructure on 9 service routes, including real time passenger information;

b.  Expansion of Odd Down P&R by 250 spaces, of Lansdown P&R by 390 spaces and of Newbridge P&R by 250 spaces on a suitable alternative site;

c.  Variable Message signs on the main approaches to Bath, and within the city centre;

d.  City centre works: High Street improvements and timed access restrictions (currently ongoing); and

e.  Works to support BWR including a bus rapid transit system serving the site.

1.6  In the light of the Cabinet agreeing to formally withdraw the CPOs which were approved at its meeting on 3^rd September 2008 and subsequently served to allow for the implementation of the BTP, Council agrees that the local contribution towards the BTP will be no more than £17.8m as set out in Section 3 of the report. [The schemes costs as recommended in this report have been reduced from £58.8m to £34.3m.]

1.7  Council agrees that the final submission to DfT be approved by the Strategic Director Service Delivery and Chief Executive, in consultation with the portfolio holder, the S151 officer and Monitoring Officer, and with a report back to Cabinet only if necessary (notably if there is a material change in the financial costs or scope of the scheme which go beyond the parameters set out in the report)

1.8  To agree additional borrowing of £3M to fully finance the costs of the the Council contribution of up to £17.8M with an additional revenue cost of approximately £190K which will need to be included in the revenue budgets for future years following completion of the scheme;

In addition, Council agrees to instruct officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

In late February 2011, a Cabinet decision was made about Culverhay School that was then called in during early March.  The Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Panel considered the reasons for submitting the call-in request, with additional information and evidence, and decided to refer the call-in request to Council.

The Council considered a report setting out the options for consideration regarding the call-in of the decision to close Culverhay school.

Following statements from the public, the Monitoring Officer advised on the nature of the debate and the options open to the Council.

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

RESOLVED to agree to uphold the call-in, in the light of the reasons in the  call-in request (appendix 3 of the report), and those expressed by the Children and Young People Panel when referring the issue to Council, and therefore refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration, for the following reasons;

a.  The clear wish of the community for a co-educational school at Culverhay shown by the results of the various consultations on the future of Culverhay;

b.  The results of the parent survey, which showed that a co-educational school would attract significantly more pupils;

c.  The change in the legislative framework at a national level, which is already having an impact on local education; and

d.  The change in Council Administration since the decision was made, and the resulting change in policy, including the new Administration’s willingness to make funding available for the co-educational transition to take place.

(Note: 1. The above resolution was carried with 36 Councillors present voting in favour, no Councillors present voting against and 26 Councillors present abstaining from voting. 

2. Councillor Tony Clarke moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Colin Barrett, the effect of which would defer a decision to uphold or reject the call-in pending further consultation with the school and the Schools Forum and requesting further financial and strategic detail regarding proposals.  That amendment was not carried with 36 Councillors present voting against, 23 Councillors present voting in favour, with 2 abstentions.

This report seeks the agreement of Council to the capital funding required for the provision of the new sixth form for St Gregory’s and St Mark’s Schools.

The Council considered a report seeking agreement to the capital funding required for the provision of the new sixth form for St Gregory’s and St Mark’s schools.

On a motion from Councillor Nathan Hartley, seconded by Councillor Tony Clarke, it was

RESOLVED

1. To agree long term prudential borrowing of £2m be provided to support the estimated capital construction costs and related fees for the new sixth form; and

2. that the annual revenue borrowing cost for both interest and capital repayments estimated at £130,000 be considered as a priority commitment as part of the 2012/2013 Budget process.

(Note: 1. The above resolution was carried with 58 Councillors present voting in favour, 1 Councillor present voting against and 2 Councillors present abstaining from voting.)

The Democratic Services Manager will announce any submissions received. The Council will be invited to decide what action it wishes to take, if any, on the matters raised in these submissions. As the questions received and the answers given will be circulated in written form there is no requirement for them to be read out at the meeting. The questions and answers will be published with the draft minutes.

There were seven questions from Members of the Council as listed in the Appendix to these minutes. The questions asked and answers circulated at the meeting are held on file in the minute book and published on the Council’s website.

There was one statement from Councillor Nigel Roberts about cycling.  The statement was referred for consideration and response by the Cabinet Member for Transport.

A copy of the statement is held on file in the minute book and published on the Council’s website with these draft minutes.

Councillors Lisa Brett and Paul Fox presented a petition entitled “Defend London Road” and Councillor Brett spoke in support of the petition.  In response to a question from Councillor Cherry Beath, Councillor Brett indicated that they welcomed the Regeneration project, in addition to the Placemaking project.

[While ‘live’, the petition can be accessed via;  http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/defend-the-london-road/2611

  The petition was referred for consideration and response by the Cabinet Member for Transport.

A copy of the statement provided by the speaker is held on file in the minute book and published on the Council’s website with these draft minutes.