Agenda and minutes

1.1 Jo Farrar welcomed those in attendance to the meeting and identified that as sponsor for this Forum she would take the chair for the initial part of the meeting.

2.1 Jo Farrar identified that the first item of business for the Forum was the election of a Chair.

The meeting, with 7 members voting in favour and 6 voting against, agreed that once elected the Chair would take the chair for this meeting, from that agenda item onwards. This was standard procedure for member bodies within the Council.

2.2 Jo Farrar invited nominations for the Chair of the Forum. The nominations received were:

Cllr Paul Crossley - nominated by Cllr Rob Appleyard and seconded by Cllr Lisa Brett.

Cllr Bob Goodman - nominated by Cllr Michael Norton and seconded by Cllr Peter Turner.

2.3 Cllr Crossley and Cllr Goodman then made statements, respectively, in support of their candidacies. On this being put to the vote, Cllr Bob Goodman was elected as Chair, by 7 votes to 6

2.4 Jo Farrar then invited nomination for the Vice-Chair of the Forum, the nominations received were:

Cllr Joe Rayment - nominated by himself and seconded by Cllr Jonathan Carr.

Cllr Paul Crossley - nominated by Cllr Lisa Brett and seconded by Cllr Rob Appleyard.

2.5 Cllr Paul Crossley having waived his right to make a statement of support for his candidacy, Cllr Joe Rayment made a statement in support of his candidacy. On this being put to the vote, Cllr Paul Crossley was elected as Vice-Chair, by 7 votes to 6

2.6 It was noted that both of the positions are for one year from this meeting.

2.7 At this point Cllr Goodman took the Chair.

Council agreed that any minor changes to the Terms of Reference are to be agreed by Group Leaders, with any major changes agreed by Council.

The Forum is therefore invited to identify any proposed amendments to the current Terms of Reference (attached) to be considered as above.

3.1 The Chair introduced this item and noted the process for dealing with any suggested changes.

3.2 Cllr Paul Crossley opened the discussion by asking for a review of the working of the Forum at the six month point, when consideration could then be given to any changes.

3.3 Cllr Bob Goodman identified that there should be some minor amendments to the Terms of Reference

3.4 Cllr Patrick Anketell-Jones suggested that it was a good idea to review the Terms of Reference and pass any observations through the Group Leaders, as agreed by Council.

3.5 Cllr Rayment suggested that Standing Orders should apply to the Forum in order to clarify issues such as the role of the Chair in relation to voting and- specifically- the issue of the Chair having a casting vote. Andy Thomas explained that the Terms of Reference for the Forum were in line with the other established Forums that are operating as part of Connecting Communities. It is however for the Forum to decide how it works and the nature of its discussions.

3.6 Jo Farrar agreed to examine potential Standing Orders and would bring suggestions to a future meeting.

3.7 The Forum then agreed, on a vote of 12-1, that a six-month review of the Terms of Reference be carried out.

3.8 In terms of detailed suggestions, Cllr Bob Goodman suggested that three meetings per year might not be adequate. Cllr Paul Crossley agreed that further meetings may be required.

3.9 A discussion took place regarding the casting vote of the Chair. Cllr Paul Crossley suggested that the Forum Chair should have a “casting” vote.

3.10 Cllr Rayment suggested that a casting vote would ‘skew’ the political mix of the Forum. It was however pointed out that once the co-optee members were in place this would not be the case.

3.11 Cllr Appleyard suggested that the Chair should have a vote, and then a casting vote in the event of a tie.

3.12 Jo Farrar explained that where there are even numbers in voting this can create a deadlock there may be the need for some mechanism to resolve this

3.13 Andy Thomas also clarified that the Forum “Steering Group”, in line with other Forums, would normally consist of the Chair, Vice Chair and Sponsor who would meet to plan meeting agendas 

3.14 Cllr Shaun McGall asked about the Area Profile for the Forum area and whether it would be possible to gain data about more specific localities in Bath. Andy Thomas confirmed that profiling data does allow for information to be viewed at a Ward level.

A report is attached with the Agenda

4.1 Andy Thomas announced that there had been 36 applications for the recruitment of co-opted members. It would be beneficial to the Forum’s work to progress the recruitment process as quickly as possible.

4.2 Cllr Lisa Brett explained that she had concerns about the criteria used and the person specification being too ‘city centric’. A wider spread to reflect diversity was required. Cllr June Player agreed with this. Cllr Bob Goodman agreed that balance was required across the membership of the Forum

4.3 Cllr Joe Rayment suggested that a shortlist of approximately twenty should be prepared.

4.4 Cllr Paul Crossley suggested that all elected members of the Forum should see and comment on all thirty-six applications.

4.5 Cllr Bob Goodman agreed that a Panel should be established to consider the co-opted members and the all thirty-six applicants details should be made available. It was suggested that the timings and details of how the applicants were chosen should be transparent.

4.6 Cllr Rob Appleyard agreed and asked when we would expect to announce the successful applicants.

4.7 Jo Farrar agreed to lead a Selection Panel and asked for five nominees for the panel, one from each political group. This was agreed by the Panel.

4.8 Andy Thomas confirmed that the applications would be assessed using the criteria set out.

4.9 Cllr Joe Rayment suggested that the Person Specification used might ‘skew’ the profile of applicants.

4.10 Cllr Shaun McGall also queried the process for establishing the criteria.

4.11 Cllr June Player suggested that people may have been dissuaded from applying due to the criteria being too onerous; she said that she had been approached by constituents who would have applied if this had not been the case. The person felt that the expected calibre was too high and that ordinary people should have a voice for Bath. Cllr Joe Rayment agreed.

4.12 Cllr Patrick Anketell-Jones suggested that, in addition to the co-optees, any residents could come and make a presentation to the Forum Membership of the Forum was not necessary to be heard.

4.13 Cllr Lisa Brett identified that the inclusion of leadership into the criteria presented a challenge. Cllr Joe Rayment agreed and this was echoed from the floor.

4.14 Cllr Rob Appleyard asked whether the specification should be redrafted and the recruitment reopened.

4.15 Jo Farrar explained that the criteria had been based on a process that had been used to recruit similar roles. Leadership experience had been listed as a desirable skill rather than essential in the criteria. Jo explained that it would be possible to invite further applicants if this phase of the process did not lead to all 13 co-optee roles being filled.

4.16 Cllr Joe Rayment suggested that the process be reopened and the person specification changed, and this was supported by Cllr June Player.

4.17 Cllr Paul Crossley proposed that the applications received should be assessed and that a review take place in a year.

4.18 Cllr Bob Goodman agreed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

A presentation will be made to the Forum

5.1 Stephen George from the Planning Policy Team then gave a presentation regarding the Placemaking Plan. (Attached)

5.2 Cllr Paul Crossley asked if there would be uplift in the funds from the community infrastructure levy (CIL), and whether this would be channelled through the Forum such as the method when there is a Neighbourhood Plan.

5.3 Cllr Bob Goodman pointed out that Neighbourhood Planning was specifically excluded from the Forum’s Terms of Reference

5.4 Andy Thomas confirmed this and, in response to a question from Cllr Goodman, that any change to this would need to be determined by Council 

5.5 In response to a query from Cllr Peter Turner, about North Quays, Stephen George confirmed that this was a flagship project and that it was essential that a “Grade A” offering was made in terms of office space. This would be done with a combination of flood defence and waterside development.

5.6 Cllr Patrick Anketell-Jones asked how green spaces and infrastructure would be managed. Stephen George replied that this was built into the policy framework.

5.7 A member of asked about the percentage of affordable housing in the developments and the differences between social and affordable housing.

5.8 Stephen George replied that affordable housing should be 30 – 40%.

5.9 Cllr Bob Goodman mentioned that the Core Strategy suggests this should be around 50%.

5.10 Cllr Rob Appleyard agreed that he could understand the concerns regarding the need for affordable housing but suggested that student accommodation was a bigger issue and that there needed to be a dialogue with the Universities regarding this.

5.11 Cllr Lisa Brett reminded the meeting that it was not possible to change national policy.

5.12 Cllr Shaun McGall agreed that HMOs had become a problem, hence an Article 4 direction being introduced. However, the cap on student numbers being removed would add to pressure. He went on to say that the Placemaking Plan was only considering the development sites and not the consequences of overspill. Buy To Let spreading across the City will compound problems. Cllr Bob Goodman agreed.

5.13 Robin Kerr, Chair of FOBRA, asked to speak from the floor. He suggested that what was needed is a Student Housing Policy and went on to say that the Placemaking Plan has no mention of the City of Bath as a Word Heritage Site and asked why this is the case. He referred back to the Core Strategy which he had recently re-read and suggested that the Enterprise Zone needs to ‘blend’ as one place. There are many items missing and there needs to be far more co-ordination with the Transport Strategy.

5.14 Cllr Joe Rayment asked if it was the role of the Council to cap student numbers. He suggested that this may be counterproductive and that a steer was required from central government.

5.15 Cllr Shaun McGall mentioned SP26 criteria G. The need for accommodation being provided before an increase in academic spaces needs to be decided.

5.16 Patrick Rotheram from FOBRA asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

An update will be provided by the Clinical Commissioning Group which will update on this programme with reference to the implications for Bath

6.1 Jane Shayler made a presentation on Your Care Your Way. She circulated copies of a questionnaire that had been widely distributed in B&NES. The presentation covered how health care services are being reshaped and provided in the community. Questions followed:

6.2 Cllr Shaun McGall asked about the challenges of funding up to 2019, how much of the budget would be spent in Bath and if the option of neighbourhood teams would prove difficult if funding is reduced. Jane Shayler explained that it was likely that the CCG and B&NES Council need to be anticipating savings given that there is significant pressure. Efficiencies will need to be found and delivery through alternative methods in the community will need to be looked at.

6.3 Cllr Peter Turner asked about IT integration and Jane Shayler replied that this had been a significant issue that still had not been fully been completed, inroads are however being made into these issues.

6.4 Cllr Joe Rayment explained that there is a life expectancy gap of eight years between the wards in Bath. When it comes to tackling inequality which model will best fit this? Jane Shayler suggested that probably locality model would be best in that regard, although there will possibly be a fifth model that by the end of this stage of consultation.

6.5 Cllr Shaun McGall asked about personal budgets being moved to individual patients. This could see them having to make their own choices for their care. Jane Shayler explained that whatever model is used it will have to meet statutory responsibilities in adult social care; we do not have the option to say how the money is spent out.

6.6 Cllr Paul Crossley asked about supporting families and volunteers dealing with conditions such as mental health issues and learning disabilities. Jane Shayler replied that such services are everyone’s business and that specialist needs require workforce development to meet demand and that support for carers was being commissioned from a range of providers on top of what was already available.

6.7 Cllr Lisa Brett asked about the flexibility in budgets how much non-statutory service was possible after statutory obligations are met. Jane Shayler replied that she could not answer that question particularly in the light of impacts of the Care Act.

In order to make best use of the Forum’s meetings, a list of potential future agenda items is attached. The Forum is invited to highlight the main issues it wishes to focus on, and any other items not identified, given that its Terms of Reference refer to the “distinctive urban issues affecting Bath”

The Forum is asked to consider how it wishes to structure its Agenda, and in particular whether it wishes to provide for Partner updates and a time-limited session allowing specific issues to be raised by the public where there is no other outlet for discussion.

.

7.1 Cllr Shaun McGall suggested four topics for future meetings

·  Student Strategy

·  Supporting local shopping areas such as Weston and Moorland Road.

·  Syrian refugees.

·  Working with youth in schools to find out their priorities.

7.2 Cllr Paul Crossley suggested that Transport issues and the scope of pedestrianisation were important.

7.3 Cllr Lisa Brett asked that Bath as a Child Friendly City be included. There is also a need to include how this Forum works to provide community engagement.

7.4 Cllr Joe Rayment asked that the budget be included. It was noted that the Forum will be hosting a session on this in November.

7.5 Cllr Jonathan Carr asked that sustainability and Warmer Homes in a Heritage City should be considered. The Gull Strategy and The Refuse strategy were also topics suggested.

7.6 Cllr Patrick Anketell-Jones asked that we look at The Joint Spatial Plan and the position for Bath relative to the West of England including waste and energy strategies. Cllr Bob Goodman added that the number of houses for Bath needs to be discussed.

7.7 Cllr McGall mentioned the Youth Parliament and other groups representing younger people should be considered for inclusion.

7.8 Patrick Rotheram from FOBRA suggested that implementation of the Transport Strategy and the links to Air Quality are important.

7.9 A member of the public made the point about the need to consider independent shops and the retail sector in Bath being helped to prosper.

Cllr Bob Goodman thanked everybody for their attendance and contributions and added that Bath now has a place for its voice to be heard.