Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. The members of the Panel introduced themselves to the assembled members of the public.

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 6.

The Chairman drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

Councillor Douglas Nicol sent his apologies to the Panel.

Members who have an interest to declare are asked to:

  a)  State the Item Number in which they have the interest

  b)  The nature of the interest

  c)  Whether the interest is personal, or personal and prejudicial

Any Member who is unsure about the above should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting in order to expedite matters at the meeting itself. 

Councillor Malcolm Hanney declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in Item 11 (Cabinet Member Response to the Commercial Waste Collection Overview & Scrutiny Single Inquiry Day). He stated that he used to sit on the board of both Future Bath Plus and the BID (Business Improvement District).

Councillor Neil Butters declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in Item 7 (Bath Transport Package). He stated that his employer, BRB (Residuary) Ltd currently owned the Windsor Bridge.

The Chairman declared that she had received no actual urgent business, but wished to ask the Panel to consider a proposal for an item later on the agenda.

She asked for them to give some thought as to how they wished to receive the Cabinet Member Update at future meetings.

At the time of publication no notifications had been received.

The Chairman announced that five members of the public had registered to speak on agenda item 7 (Bath Transport Package) and that their statements would be heard directly before the item was debated by the Panel.

The Panel will receive an amended version of the report that went to Council on 14^th July 2011 for them to discuss.

The Chairman introduced the members of the public who had registered to speak on this item.

Jenny Ragget on behalf of David Redgewell

She stated that she wished the Council luck with the revised bid and hoped for a decision soon in relation to limiting the volume of HGV traffic through the City. In addition she recommended that the Cabinet and Panel should read the recent A34 South Coast Study.

David Dunlop

(A summary of his statement is set out below; a full copy is available on the Panel’s Minute Book)

The Atkins report (June 2010) advocates that Flood Mitigation works at Bathampton Meadows should involve lowering the height of the area proposed as a car park in the BTP,by 8.8 metres, to allow it to flood which would put 1400 cars and passengers at risk.  We cannot see how such a combination squares with PPS25 Practice Guidelines.  Comments in the appendices confirm our suspicions.  Depending on water volume and flow rates the area could fill in less than half an hour.

Given PPS25 constraints, B&NES must decide whether Bathampton Water Meadows should contribute to Bath’s economy by enabling development downstream in the central area and western corridor (and also protect the World Heritage Site) or just become a car park for folk who could travel more environmentally by bus, train or bike. The site cannot be both.

Councillor David Martin asked how much he thought it would cost for the flood mitigation works.

Mr Dunlop replied that he thought it would cost in the region of £2 -3m.

Councillor Neil Butters asked if he thought the Meadows should be ruled out as an option for parking.

Mr Dunlop replied yes.

Steve Mackerness

(A summary of his statement is set out below; a full copy is available on the Panel’s Minute Book)

The new administration had a completely impossible task to re-work the original BTP by the deadline of 9^th September.  Since the previous administration had no alternatives which had been worked through, it was simply not possibly to produce a credible alternative package in the time available.

If the previous administration had had the diligence and determination to properly review its own proposals, it would have concluded that alternatives were required to be sought. Alternatives were suggested, but were dismissed in a pre-emptory manner. The current administration had no alternative, therefore. The ill-conceived scheme could clearly not have passed the higher level of scrutiny which the DfT were now demanding. The scheme simply had to be deleted from the revised funding bid. To do otherwise would have prejudiced the entire funding bid.

The Parish Councils to the east of Bath and the various community organisations are, therefore, convinced that there is no credible case for supporting the retention of the P&R on Bathampton Meadows. We applaud the recognition of this fact by the current administration, and we support their call for a fresh and open-minded review of alternatives to this plan, which, by admission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on progress against the action plan contained in the Green Space Strategy which was adopted in March 2007 and to inform the panel of the proposed revised timetable for the review of the strategy.

The Divisional Director for Environmental Services introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that the strategy had developed following extensive technical research and community consultation and that it had established new local standards for the amount, distribution and quality of green space within the district.

He also wished to highlight section 1.4 of the appended Action Plan which showed that between 2007 and 2009 £300,337 had been secured via section 106 agreements.

Councillor Neil Butters commented that he had noticed recently that a changing demographic within his ward was the increase in the number of young children and asked if an analysis was required on the provision of green spaces.

The Divisional Director for Environmental Services replied that the 2011 Census results would help when the Strategy is refreshed and that we will work with partner organisations, including Parish Councils to assess needs.

Councillor David Martin commented that he felt there should be a higher provision of allotments as he believed there was a high demand for them.

The Divisional Director for Environmental Services replied that the previous administration had given its backing to creating a further 200 plots and he believed that the new Cabinet Member was minded to support this proposal.

Councillor Caroline Roberts asked what could be done to address the satisfaction levels with regard to the provision of green spaces within Midsomer Norton & Radstock.

The Divisional Director for Environmental Services replied that he felt the approved provision needed to be addressed.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked if any progress had been made on the preparation on a district wide Landscape Strategy.

The Divisional Director for Environmental Services replied that this was aspirational at the outset of the Green Spaces Strategy. He added that since that time funding within the service had continued to fall and that some of the earlier aspirations were therefore undeliverable.

 The Chairman asked the Panel to approve the recommendations within the report.

The Panel RESOLVED to:

(i) Note the update provided and agrees that

(ii) The Green Spaces Strategy will be reviewed and revised in accordance with the appended programme.

National changes to Local Government finance mean that Local Authorities will be increasingly dependent on locally generated income including Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The CIL regulations that came into force on 6^th April 2010 allow local authorities to raise fund from developers undertaking new building projects in their area to provide key infrastructure needed as a result of development.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is intended to largely replace Section 106 agreements. He added that the CIL will enable local planning authorities to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. The funds can be used for a wide rage of infrastructure that is needed as a result of the development.

Based on housing planned through the Core Strategy, CIL and scaled backed Planning Obligations has the potential to approximately raise £36 million over the plan period up to 2026.  However, the funds generated by CIL will be dependent on the viability assessments. CIL can also be levied from commercial development such as retail, hotels and office development. The potential revenue depends of the level to which CIL is set for each of these uses. 

Implementation of the CIL is dependent on the adoption of the Core Strategy.  An Infrastructure Delivery Programme is also required which has already been prepared in B&NES.

Councillor Geoff Ward asked how an application is separated from the funding received.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport replied that absolute transparency was paramount with each application received.

Councillor Neil Butters asked how the CIL was likely to be received by the business community.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport replied that he felt it would be broadly welcomed as developers currently do not know what they need to provide to the Council in order to process a scheme. He added that if it were minded to the Council could form a list of priorities for the funding that is secured.

Councillor David Martin commented that in his role as the Member Champion for Climate Change he would like to see the CIL used to provide renewable energy.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport replied that it would be possible to bring forward capital projects in the future.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney asked if the CIL would cause any problems for the Development Control Committee in terms of whether funding would be available from CIL funds for critical infrastructure necessary for any specific application before them.

The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport replied that clarity will be needed when the CIL is approved and Members should be advised accordingly. He added that in general it should lead to shorter debates at the Committee.

The Chairman requested that the Panel be updated further on the progress of the CIL in September.

The Panel RESOLVED to:

(i) Note the programme and arrangements for the preparation of the CIL in B&NES.

(ii) Receive an update report on the progress of the CIL in September.

The single inquiry day brought together representatives from commercial waste collection companies, local businesses and Council officers. A report from the meeting was produced with a number of recommendations that were presented at the last Safer Stronger Communities Panel meeting on the 24^th March 2011 that contained 8 recommendations for the then Cabinet Member for Service Delivery.

The recommendations from this report appeared on the Weekly List on 27^th May 2011 for the newly appointed Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods to respond within six weeks.

The Chairman asked Councillor Caroline Roberts to introduce this item to the Panel as she had been the Chairman of the Safer & Stronger Communities Panel at the time of the inquiry.

Councillor Caroline Roberts explained that in February 2011, the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel held a single inquiry day to look at how to improve commercial waste collection in Bath and North East Somerset. The day brought together representatives from commercial waste collection companies, local businesses and Council officers.

She added that a report from the meeting was produced with 8 recommendations for the then Cabinet Member for Service Delivery and that this was presented at the last Safer Stronger Communities Panel meeting in March 2011. The recommendations from the report appeared on the Weekly List on 27^th May 2011 for the newly appointed Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods to respond within six weeks.

The Waste Services Manager added that 7 of the recommendations had been accepted with 1 being deferred until September 2011.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney asked for some clarity on what was hoped to be delivered in what timeframe in accordance with the recommendations.

Councillor Caroline Roberts stated that Environmental Services now had greater powers to enforce (against littering and dog fouling offences for example) and that any income received could be ring fenced to a particular area of the Service.

The Panel RESOLVED to agree to receive an update on outcomes of the single inquiry day at a future meeting including recommendation 6 which had been deferred.

This item gives the Panel an opportunity to ask questions to the Cabinet Member(s) and for them to update the Panel on any current issues.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Roger Symonds in his absence for his update paper and suggested that the Panel should ask to receive a similar paper from the other relevant Cabinet Members 24 hours prior to each meeting.  

The other members of the Panel agreed with this proposal.

The Panel will receive a briefing on this item from the Development & Major Projects Director.

The Strategic Director for Development and Major Projects introduced this item to the Panel. He explained that the directorate was focused on delivering Sustainable Economic Growth as set out in the Economic Strategy of April 2010 and the Smart Economic Growth Cabinet paper of November 2010.

He added that the delivery of this is manifested through Business development and support, Regeneration and Development projects, Housing Delivery and the continued delivery of Capital projects.

The ability of the Council to deliver its priorities and aspirations in this area will depend on the alignment of policies in Planning, Transport and the ability of the Council to influence and encourage growth and development through its asset base and influence.

He stated he would be happy to issue the Panel with further reports on the matter if they wished him to.

The Chairman asked if he could give a summary of the current state of play with regard to this work area.

The Strategic Director for Development and Major Projects replied that they were entering into the delivery phase and that there were significant challenges ahead in bringing forward development, but there were also major opportunities through Bath City Riverside, Bath Western Riverside, Bath Quays South, Manvers Street, Norton Radstock Regeneration, MOD Sites, Keynsham, Somerdale and Temple Street.

The Chairman suggested that a further update be given to the Panel in September.

The Panel agreed with this proposal.

This report presents the latest workplan for the Panel (Appendix 1) as well as information to help Panel members identify any additional items for the workplan.

The Chairman introduced this item to the Panel. She reminded them that during the course of the meeting they had agreed to receive a further report on Sustainable Growth at their September meeting. They had also agreed to add to the Future Items section of the workplan reports on the CIL and the Single Inquiry Day.

The Chairman then asked the other Members of the Panel if they had anything they would like to add to the workplan or to move any item that was currently on there.

Councillor Malcolm Hanney asked for the Parking Strategy and the Draft Core Strategy to be placed on the workplan for September.

The Chairman informed the Panel that she had been asked by officers to put the emerging provision strategy for public toilets in Bath & North East Somerset on the workplan for September. She also felt it would be worthwhile for them to receive information on the Independent Transport Commission the provision of Public Transport.

Councillor David Martin asked for a report on Climate Change to be moved on the workplan to September.

Councillor Caroline Roberts asked for a report on the introduction of 20mph speed limits to be added to the workplan.

The Panel agreed with all of the proposals made.