Agenda and minutes

Councillor Caroline Roberts sent her apologies to the Panel. Councillor Ben Stevens was present as her substitute.

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 Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Councillor Liz Richardson declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 6 (Items from the public or Councillors – To receive deputations, statements, petitions or questions relating to the business of this meeting). She acknowledged that some members of the Stanton Wick Action Group were due to address the Panel and that she had been previously involved in the group.

Karen Abolkheir, Stanton Wick Action Group addressed the Panel. A copy of her statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

My representation today covers the status of the Council’s Gypsy Traveller Development Plan Document and the processing of a Planning Application on the Shale Tip at the Old Colliery, Stanton Wick, which has subsequently been withdrawn. Last month I presented to Cabinet on these subjects and I have not yet had a response.

The local community has serious and justifiable concerns regarding the processing of this application and we would invite the Committee to investigate and scrutinize.

There are unexplained significant errors in the processing of this major application and we intend to ascertain how and why they occurred. We respectfully ask you to press the Cabinet to investigate fully and openly publish their findings without further delay.

I also want to bring to your attention today, the lack of reported progress on the DPD and the provision of sites. Our concerns can be summarised as follows;

- DPD debate postponed twice until June and will not be adopted until Spring 2014, some 16 months delayed.

- No reporting of progress or otherwise at Lower Bristol Road, despite resolution (5) at September 2012 Cabinet which stated that the Council should progress a planning application for gypsy and traveller pitches thus there should be no need to wait especially in light of the deferment of the DPD.

- Communities deserve a full and detailed update on progress of the DPD together with a definitive timetable for the resolution of site provision in such time that the defence of any planning appeal in the district will be robust.

The Council need to be open and rigorous and we implore you to help achieve this.

The Chairman said that she would ask for this statement to be passed to the Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning so that he could issue a response.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked in what way were the Council deficient in advertising the planning application.

Karen Abolkheir replied that it had been advertised in the Bath Chronicle which does not cover the Chew Valley area. She added that this fact had been previously reported to the Council. She continued by informing them that no notification had been placed on the site and that no notification had been to the local neighbourhood or Parish.

Clarke Osborne, Stanton Wick Action Group addressed the Panel. A copy of his statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

He said that he wished to speak regarding the report commissioned by the Council to update the needs assessment for the provision of pitches for Gypsy and Travellers and yards for Travelling Showpeople.

The genuine concerns of the Community centre around the brief provided by the Council, the process and over haste of procurement and the text of the report provided by Opinion Research Service.

He asked for the Panel’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Councillor Geoff Ward referred to Minute Number 89 and wished to reiterate the question that he had asked during the debate, as he had not received an answer. He asked ‘How much money had been spent on the Gypsy & Traveller project so far?’

The Chairman said that she would ask for this question to be passed to the Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning so that he could issue a response.

The Panel confirmed the minutes of the previous meeting as a true record and they were duly signed by the Chairman.

This report sets out the call-in by 13 Councillors of a Cabinet decision relating to the decision about bus priority measures in Dorchester St, Manvers St and Pierrepoint St, Bath.  The role of the Panel is to consider the issues raised by the call-in and to determine its response.

The Chairman asked the Lead Call-In Member, Councillor Tim Warren to address the Panel.

He stated that he wanted the Panel to send the ill thought out scheme back to the Cabinet to be reconsidered. He claimed that the proposal would cause major harm and disruption and that any easing of congestion around Dorchester Street would simply be moved elsewhere, not alleviating the problem, just moving it and exacerbating the problems in other places.

He said that the most obvious of these was Rossiter Road. The scheme proposed for this road is about the urban realm more so than a traffic scheme, it will improve the street scene and enable the public to sit outside and breathe more air and less exhaust fumes. The Rossiter Road is a major scheme and will undoubtedly cause traffic problems once the construction phase starts, this is inevitable, so why add to these problems.

He spoke of his concerns that the one way, restricted traffic flow in Dorchester Street will be confusing for pedestrians and cyclists alike. He said that he was afraid that they could be lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the road is less used than it actually will be.

One way will be barely affected and the other will still be subject to buses and taxis. Hardly a pedestrian paradise or cyclists haven.

He asked how easy it would be for the public to access the train station.

He asked what effect the proposal would have on visitors and traders. He said that a lot of the traders in the area sell consumable goods which have to be restocked regularly. The proposal makes it difficult for deliveries to happen outside of the restricted hours, which changed at the very last minute.

He stated that all of the consultation was done on the hours of between 10.00am and 4.00pm. Then at the Cabinet meeting 4.00pm was changed to 6.00pm! He said that this should be reason enough to send the idea back to where it came from as there had been no consultation whatsoever on the proposed times. 

Bath is a major world-wide tourist attraction, it is a beautiful city where people want to visit. Understandably this plays a major part in the region’s economy. In this difficult time businesses need all the help they can get, not some crazy scheme that someone wants to impose, without any thought on the effect this will have on individuals trying to run their business.

We don't want people spending their money on Bus gate fines rather than on enjoying their time here. That is not conducive for a return trip!

We cannot keep on coming up with traffic tinkering schemes without having an overall strategy. This is not only ineffectual but potentially dangerous.

He called for the proposal to be returned to the drawing board, for the Rossiter Road scheme to be completed and hoped that by then the Council would have at least the beginnings of a Transport Strategy.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

The Cabinet Member(s) will update the Panel on any relevant issues. Panel members may ask questions.

On this occasion there was no Cabinet Member present to deliver an update.

The purpose of the Placemaking Plan is to facilitate the delivery of key development sites and in a way that meets community aspirations. The Placemaking Plan will complement the strategic framework in the Core Strategy by setting out detailed proposals for identified development sites including the new urban extensions proposed in the Core Strategy. 

The Policy & Environment Manager introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that the purpose of the Placemaking Plan is to facilitate the delivery of key development sites and in a way that meets community aspirations. He added that the Placemaking Plan will complement the strategic framework in the Core Strategy by setting out detailed proposals for identified development sites including the new urban extensions proposed in the Core Strategy. 

The plan is intended to be produced in a collaborative way drawing on the principles set out in the Council’s emerging Local Engagement Framework.  This will ensure that B&NES work closely with local communities and other key stakeholders to identify valued assets for protection, opportunities for development and necessary infrastructure requirements.

There is an aspiration to adopt the Placemaking Plan by the end of 2014, and this is acknowledged as a very ambitious programme.  The details of the collaborative process of producing the Placemaking Plan will need to reflect this target programme.

In the Somer Valley and the rural areas where specific sites are not identified in the Core Strategy, preparation of the Placemaking Plan will require close working with local communities to identify appropriate sites for development within the context of the Core Strategy as well as to identify key assets to be safeguarded. However in light of the limited weight that can be attributed to the Core Strategy in advance of the Inspector’s report due later this year, there will still be pressure for new development linked to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the interim. 

The document will be presented to the Cabinet on May 8^th and it is hoped that a draft plan will be in place at the end of the year.

The aspiration to adopt the Placemaking Plan by the end of 2014 has the political support of the cross party LDF Steering Group, who recognise the benefits that the Placemaking Plan will provide to the communities of Bath and North East Somerset, and to enabling the delivery of corporate priorities such as the Enterprise Area, and housing delivery. They support the collaborative approach towards the production of the Placemaking Plan, whilst recognising the need for this to be tempered with the demands of the programme.

Mr David Redgewell addressed the Panel. He spoke of his concerns regarding the lack of a link to sustainable transport in the document. He added that all sites should be well served by bus services and that developer contributions should be sought for these to be provided.

Councillor David Martin asked how residents in Bath would be consulted on the plan as they had no Parish Council facility available to them.

The Policy & Environment Manager replied that they were working on ways in which to engage with Bath residents and in the process of drawing up a timetable of activities for the next six months.

Councillor David Martin suggested that the final document should contain maps when referring to sites.

The Policy & Environment Manager replied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

This report is an update on the recommendations from the Commercial Waste Collection Overview and Scrutiny Single Inquiry Day held in 2011.

The Waste Services Manager introduced this item to the Panel. She wished to highlight to them some of the updated responses to the recommendations within the report.

Recommendation 1: The Waste Services team worked extensively on the BathBID waste and recycling tender exercise, repricing our business to tender a competitive offer and successfully getting into the final shortlist of 2.

The contract was awarded to a national waste collection company to start on1st May 2013. We have completed a comprehensive review of our business waste and recycling operations and services and have been able to re-position ourselves in terms of price and service offer.  We are proactively marketing our new service now.

There is likely to be a significant budget shortfall as a result of re-pricing our service, and the loss of our city centre business (circa £200k is our current estimate). The budget impact and our customer base will be closely monitored throughout 13/14 and revised proposals tabled as part of the MTSRP in 14/15.  This risk is flagged on the financial risk robustness statement.

Recommendation 2: Our Business Waste and Recycling webpages have been updated and there is a waste and recycling guide available to download as a pdf. We have also produced a new sales leaflet for our own waste and recycling services, also available on these public webpages and being mailed to prospective customers in our sales drive.

Recommendation 4: The Access Restrictions (Bath Package) is now being consulted on. Further consideration will be given to reviewing our trade waste enforcement regulations in advance of this scheme being implemented.

Recommendation 5: A review of enforcement activity is being undertaken by the Director of Environmental Services with a view to increasing resource through generic working practices across a range of enforcement functions.

Recommendation 6: The footway obstructions policy was adopted by Council in November 2011. A face to face campaign to introduce and educate city centre businesses was carried out early in 2012. We offered bulk bins as part of our city centre proposals for the BID contract.

Councillor Geoff Ward commented that it was a real shame not to win the contract as it would have enabled the Council to get a real grip of the whole situation. He asked why did the bid fail.

The Waste Services Manager replied that it was simply a case of price. She added that the Council tender was slightly more expensive than the competition.

Councillor David Martin asked how the successful bidder would be dealing with recycling commercial waste.

The Waste Services Manager replied that they would be using a recovery service at Avonmouth.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Panel thanked her for the update.

The Panel will receive a presentation on this item from the Divisional Director for Environmental Services.

The Design and Projects Manager gave a presentation to the Panel regarding this item. A summary is set out below.

Legislation: How it all started?

Pitt Review 2007

92 Recommendations

LA’ to take “Lead Local Flood Authority Role”

Raise awareness of Local Flood Risk

Collate & Map Flood Risk

Enhance Flood Risk Technical Capability

Legislation - Flood Risk Regulations 2009 / Flood and Water Management Act 2010 / Land Drainage Act 1991

Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA)

The main objectives of this report (as set out in Flood Risk Regulations 2009) are:

Identify the probability of flooding

Identify all sources of flooding

Review Historical Flooding Events

Determine Flood Risk Areas

Support local flood risk management strategy

Flood & Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA)

The Act aims to improve the way we manage flood risk and creates the new role of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

New Roles and Responsibilities

Setting Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Mapping & Planning

Duty to Maintain Register of Assets/ Features

Investigation of all significant Flooding Incidents

Local Surface Water Management Plans

Consent Powers over Ordinary Watercourses

Greater Powers to Undertake Works

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Staffing & technical Competence

Flood Risk Management Function

Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

The Act requires LLFA to develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management for its area.

Local Flood Risk includes surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses including lakes and ponds.

Duty to act consistently with National Flood Risk Management Strategy

The Act requires that the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy is consistent with the National Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Local Flood Risk Strategy will be based on the national Strategy but will have distinct objectives to address and manage local flood risk from all sources.

Duty to Investigate Flood Incidents

Under the Act the LLFA has a duty to investigate flood incidents in its area and publish the results of any investigations.

Works Powers

The FWMA provides LLFA to undertake works to manage flood risk from surface water runoff and groundwater. All works must be consistent with the local flood risk management strategy for the area.

Powers to request information

The Act empowers LLFA to request information from others for their flood management functions

Powers to delegate functions to other authorities

Internal Drainage Boards

Environment Agency

Duty to maintain register

LLFA will maintain a register of structures/ features which they consider have a significant effect on flood risk. The Assets register has to be available for inspection.

SUDS

The Act establish SUDS Approval Body (SAB)

SAB will have responsibility for the approval of any proposed drainage system for new developments and redevelopments. Approval must be given BEFORE developer can commence construction

In order, to be approved, the proposal must meet the new national and local standards for SUDS.

The SAB will determine the drainage application.

The SAB will be responsible for adoption and maintenance of SUDS that serve more than one property.

Highways Authority will be responsible for maintaining SUDS in Public Roads to National and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

This report presents the latest workplan for the Panel (Appendix 1).

The Chairman introduced this item to the Panel and asked if any Member wished to comment on the workplan.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist suggested that the Panel receives a report on the proposed Rossiter Road scheme in light of the debate that had been held earlier in the meeting.

Councillor David Martin suggested that the decision on the Dorchester Street Bus Priority Measures should be analysed after 12 months of being in place.

The Chairman suggested receiving a report on Cross Boundary Bus Services (Wiltshire / Somerset) at a future meeting.

The Panel RESOLVED to agree with all of the above proposals.