Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

Councillor Douglas Nicol had sent his apologies to the Panel. Councillor Gerry Curran was present as his substitute for the duration of 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 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.

Rachel Wilson, Co-Chair, Chew Valley Flood Forum made a statement to the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book and a brief summary is set out below.

The Chew Valley Flood Forum would like to raise the following concerns regarding the “Enhanced” Property Level Protection (PLP) scheme for 70 properties, currently in progress in Chew Magna.

There is a danger that the mistakes of the previous B&NES/Environment Agency (EA) PLP scheme in 2010/2011 are being repeated.  Compromises are being made due to time and perhaps also cost pressures, and the new scheme may result in sub-optimal protection for householders. Expectations are fading that the scheme will be comprehensive and robust. The EA, who are project managing the scheme, is proposing legal agreements with householders that could be onerous and potentially confusing, and lack important details regarding contractor liabilities and product warranties.

The draft agreements state the EA “can not guarantee any aspect of the quality, condition or fitness for purpose of the PLP measures”.

The EA appears to be managing the project on a “re-active” and “catch up” basis. B&NES’s funding was available at the start of this financial year. The current estimate for first installations is November. We are not aware of project documentation such as scope, escalation process and timetable. There does not seem to be a clear process on Acceptance Criteria to enable sign-off of installed PLP products nor clarity about products not supplied by the chosen contractor e.g. who installs them, warranties, maintenance agreements.

We are not clear what B&NES’s involvement is in the project. However we feel that going forward it is essential to have a consultative/co-ordinating group, led by B&NES as the Lead Flood Authority, incorporating representatives from the EA, Bristol Water, relevant Parish Councils and CVFF, to consider all future matters relating to flooding and protective/preventative measures. This was proposed by B&NES many months ago, but, as yet, has not been implemented. If such a group was already in place, we feel sure the evident shortcomings with the project management of the current scheme would have been avoided.

John Wright, Co-Chair, Chew Valley Flood Forum addressed the Panel. He asked if the Forum could receive a cost breakdown of the £200,000 project budget from the Council and the Environment Agency.

The Chair proposed that the Panel assign a Lead Member and discuss the matter further with the Forum and the Environment Agency.

The Team Leader, Highway Maintenance commented that officers were willing to meet with the Forum and the Environment Agency to iron out any points.

The Chair asked if Councillor Liz Richardson would be the Lead Member for the Panel.

Councillor Richardson replied that she would.

Patrick Rotheram, Chairman, Vineyards Residents' Association made a statement to the Panel, a copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book and a brief summary is set out below.

Together with the Circus Area Residents' Association (CARA) we  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The Panel confirmed the minutes of the two previous meetings as a true record and they were duly signed by the Chair.

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

The Cabinet Member for Homes & Planning, Councillor Tim Ball addressed the Panel. He informed them that the Core Strategy having been formally agreed by Council has not been challenged.

Councillor David Martin asked when the Core Strategy would be published in its final form.

The Planning Policy Team Leader replied that it is anticipated within the next month a final ‘designed’ document would be published in hard copy form and online.

Councillor Liz Richardson asked if a developer was raising a challenge on three sites regarding the matter of five year land supply.

Councillor Ball replied that a challenge had been received, but that legal advice had been received that this was not the correct route for the developer to take.

The Planning Policy Team Leader updated the Panel on the current position and that a response from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is awaited.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Councillor Caroline Roberts addressed the Panel. She said that she was expecting to receive a presentation on the Bath Transport Strategy in two weeks and that work on the Keynsham Transport Strategy was ongoing.

She informed them that the final three 20mph zones were due to be installed and that this would conclude the current programme.

She announced that the problem surrounding late night bus tickets between Bath and Radstock had been rectified and an agreement reached between the service providers.

The attached presentation will be given to the Panel at the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development, Councillor Ben Stevens introduced this item to the Panel. He spoke of how the Masterplan was to act as a document that integrates a vast majority of the Council’s current strategies to tackle aspects such as homes, employment and wildlife.

The Regeneration Team Manager then gave a presentation to the Panel, a copy of which can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

The Opportunity

•  “Bringing Bath’s Riverside to Life”

•  98 hectares of land, c36 hectares of developable brownfield land

•  Potential for 9000 new jobs and 3400 new homes, to deliver Core Strategy targets

•  Concentrating on key growth sectors: creative industries, professional financial and business services, information technology and software development

•  Key  sites together can increase GVA, average incomes and levels of employment in the Bath economy by around 12%

Achievements to date

•  Delivering Quality Outputs:

•  Bath Riverside

•  300 new Homes (150 Affordable Homes) since 2011

•  +£2m New Homes Bonus

•  +£1m S106 monies

•  Bath Quays Waterside

•  Strong Partnership with Environment Agency formed

•  Connecting Bath to its Waterside – good public support

•  Protecting existing properties at risk + enabling development

•  Innovation Quay and EDF Business Case

•  LEP Programme Entry

What is the Masterplan enabling

•  Positive Engagement with partners & beyond:

•  LEP, HCA, EA

•  Landowners

•  Developers

•  Property Agents and Occupiers

•  Realising funding e.g. DECC (HNDU)

•  Sustainable Energy – ‘renewable’ sources. E.g. River Avon & hot springs

•  Co-ordinated Strategy & robust Policy Base:

•  Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan

•  Economic Strategy

•  Transport Strategy – ‘Getting Around Bath’

•  Green Infrastructure Strategy and Community Plan

•  River Strategy

•  Leisure Strategy

Relationship to Planning Policy

•  Provide an exciting and enduring vision

•  Guide redevelopment of Council owned land

•  Clear direction of travel for funders, partners, developers and investors

•  Is not a statutory planning document

•  Forms part of the evidence base for the Placemaking Plan

•  Placemaking Plan will undergo public consultation, ensuring robust, evidence based policy framework for Development Management decisions.

Core Values

•  Quality – of life, of place, of developers, of occupiers

•  Enterprise – fostering knowledge, inventiveness and creativity

•  Design – inspirational public realm, connectivity of streets, spaces and bridges, integration of form and streetscape, respect for the character of “Bathness”

•  Heritage – architectural, urban design and landscape excellence in a World Heritage setting

•  Green – green building, green infrastructure, walking and cycling, biodiversity and ecology

•  Water – at the heart of Bath’s identity, River Avon, spa water, Kennet and Avon Canal

•  Health and Wellbeing – promoting leisure, the outdoors, socialising and promenading

•  The Big Idea: Rediscovering and reconnecting the River, to bring Bath Riverside to Life!

Next Steps

•  Cabinet 12 November 2014

•  Co-ordinated Strategy:

•  Economic Strategy – key driver

•  Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan

•  Transport Strategy

•  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule, the Draft Regulation 123 List and the revised Draft Planning Obligations SPD are published for public consultation following the Cabinet approval on 16th July. The CIL is a new tariff system that allows local authorities to raise funds from developers to contribute to the costs of providing some of the infrastructure needed for new development.  The Planning Obligations SPD is revised in response to the changes brought by the CIL regulations. The Regulation 123 List sets out the types of Infrastructure on which CIL income may be spent.

The Planning Policy Team Leader introduced this item to the Panel. He informed them that the timeline for the public consultation on the draft charging schedule, the draft Regulation 123 List and the revised draft Planning Obligations SPD was from 24/7/14 to 18/9/14.

He explained that the draft charging schedule was due to be submitted for Examination in October 2014 and that comments from the Panel would be welcome by 8^th October 2014.

Councillor Liz Richardson asked if the Panel could be sent a summary of the consultation responses.

The Planning Policy Team Leader replied that he would email a summary of key issues raised in the consultation by the end of September.

Local Authorities are required to maintain an up-to-date Local Development Scheme which sets out the programme for preparation of planning policy documents for at least the next 3 years.  This enables local communities, the development industry and others with an interest in the development process to engage in plan preparation with some certainty. 

The Planning Policy Team Leader introduced this item to the Panel. He informed them that a Single Member Decision was upcoming on this matter.

He explained that the main changes from the previous Local Development Scheme related to:

·  Preparation programme for the Placemaking Plan

·  Preparation programme for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD

·  Reference to overall programme for West of England Joint Planning Strategy

With regard to the Placemaking Plan the Draft Plan would be published for consultation in September 2015 and it is anticipated that the plan would be adopted in September 2016.

On the matter of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD he stated that there is delay in reaching the Draft Plan stage. This is due to the need to undertake joint working with neighbouring authorities on both;

·  assessing the level of need, ensuring there is no duplication, and

·  exploring and agreeing the spatial strategy response to the need across the wider area ensuring that the most sustainable locations for new sites are identified, and that reasonable options outside the Green Belt are explored before considering Green Belt sites. 

B&NES has been and continues to work with West of England and other adjoining Local Authorities on both these aspects.

Councillor David Martin commented that a high amount of activity was planned between now and March 2015 and asked if the department had enough resources in place.

The Planning Policy Team Leader replied that sufficient resources were available through the Planning Policy team and LDF budget to meet the work programme set out in the LDS, but that this would need to be kept under review with respect to work associated with involvement in the West of England Joint Planning Strategy.

The Chair asked when the Single Member Decision due was to be made.

The Planning Policy Team Leader replied that it was due next week, but that to allow for comments from the Panel it could be deferred for a small amount of time. He asked for their comments by the end of September.

This report provides an update to the Panel on the outcome of the Low Emission Zone feasibility study; a summary of health effects associated with poor air quality and the current situation in relation to the Saltford and Keynsham Air Quality Management Plans.

Patrick Rotheram, Transport Lead, Federation of Bath Residents' Associations made a statement to the Panel. A copy of which can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

The entire main road network in Bath, and many lesser streets, is in the Bath Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), which by definition means that there are unhealthy and unlawful levels of air pollution.  Some 10,000 people live in the Bath AQMA and are suffering the effects of air pollution over the legal limit.  This is a really serious issue, and we want the Council to get serious about dealing with it.  Monitoring and studying doesn't cut it.

There has been much concern recently about the harmful effects of fine particulates (PM2.5).  These are not currently monitored in Bath and are not covered in the report. We are sceptical about the predicted drop in pollution levels between 2012 and 2015.  NO2 levels have remained fairly constant over the past ten years and show little sign of dropping.  What factors is the prediction based on?  Latest evidence is that diesel cars cause more pollution so increasing numbers of diesel cars will make matters worse, not improve them. 

Sadly it is realistic for the study to assume that B&NES can't do anything which would directly result in HGV being diverted onto existing roads in Wiltshire, which is the reason why the other Options appear not to be viable.  The logical conclusion is that the only way to reduce pollution from HGV is to provide a new alternative route avoiding Bath, eg an A36-A46 link.

The 'Actions taken in B&NES to improve air quality to date' (page 219) is misleading.  None of these plans contain measures which will make a significant reduction in traffic and air pollution in Bath.  The only measure in the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) which has any serious potential for reducing pollution is the LEZ, and the present report makes it clear that this can be introduced only in a limited central area. A transport strategy aimed at reducing traffic volumes in residential areas and across the city is essential. 

Councillor Lisa Brett commented that the Council is given so little power by Government on this matter. She added that the Council were not allowed to impose a weight restriction on Cleveland Bridge and that she supported a link road for the A36 – A46.

The Senior Public Protection Officer and Public Health Speciality Registrar gave a presentation to the Panel. A copy of which can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study

·  DEFRA funded focus on Bath Air Quality Management Area.

·  Traffic, emissions & dispersion modelling; consultation; (HGV/bus and coach operators, neighbouring authorities and Highways Agency); and CBA.

Scenarios

·  Do Nothing: No changes assumed except Rossiter Road scheme and the effect of growth 2012-15

• Option 1: HGV: Only Euro-class 5 or better for the A4 London Road and Bathwick Street - 24hr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Traffic Management Manager introduced this report to the Panel. He explained that the Traffic Signs and General Directions (TSRG) recommends ford signage adjacent the site on each approach and advises of advanced signing at appropriate locations in order for approaching vehicles to change direction in advance and avoid the hazard. 

He said that following the issue being raised at the May Scrutiny Panel by Councillor Pritchard a site meeting took place to discuss the locations of signing within his Ward.  Given the Coroners recommendation and TSRG advice it is not recommended to remove the ford signing adjacent each ford.  However given the rural nature and objection to sign clutter it is recommended that advanced signing is removed where a road is not deemed to be strategically important, a rat run or has significant volumes of traffic. 

Councillor Vic Pritchard addressed the Panel. He thanked the officer for his work on the matter since May, but asked for four further signs to be removed as the water levels were minimal and the local residents were so appalled by them.

The Panel approved the officer recommendation that, the identified advanced ford signage is removed as per the attached schedule.

Following the submission to the Panel from Councillor Vic Pritchard, Councillor Les Kew proposed that the Panel recommends to the Cabinet Member for Transport that four further ford warning signs be removed from the two fords at Stowey Bottom and near Stowey Mill and that measuring level staffs be installed. There are two signs for each approach hence a total of four signs for the two specified fords.

The recommendation was seconded by Councillor Gerry Curran.

The Panel voted by a majority in favour of Councillor Kew’s recommendation.

This report presents the latest workplan for the Panel.

The Panel approved the current workplan as printed.