Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Guildhall, Bath. View directions

Contact: Mark Hayward 01225 396975  Email: mark_hayward@bathnes.gov.uk

Items
Note No. Item

5 mins

1.

Welcome and Apologies

Cllr Colin Blackburn (Chair) will open the meet and introduce the new co-opted members to the forum.

 

Minutes:

New Co-opted Members

The Chair welcomed the new co-opted members of the Bath City Forum.

Nicolette Boater; Joy Saunders; Andrew Page; Ben Palmer and Penny Coatsworth all commence their initial two year term from 27 March 2018.

 

Councillor Representation

Cllr Jasper Becker has been selected as a Conservative representative on the Bath City Forum; he will be replacing Cllr Michael Norton.

 

5 mins

2.

Minutes and matters arising from the meeting on 17.01.18

Minutes:

The request was made for three corrections to be made to the minutes from the meeting of 17 January 2018:

Item 5 – Cllr Joe Rayment asked for the wording to amend the point made on “who would run a library for profit”. This will now read 

Item 8 - Cllr Joe Rayment asked for the word perishing to be corrected to parishing.

Item 8 - Cllr Dine Romero asked for the wording is altered from who to how in her first comment.

The minutes from the meeting of 17 January 2018 were then agreed by Cllr Rob Appleyard and seconded by Cllr Joe Rayment.

15 mins

3.

Funding recommendations from CIL and CEF pdf icon PDF 93 KB

An update will be provided to the forum on the funding recommendations that have been made by the Neighbourhood CIL for Bath and the Community Empowerment Fund.

Minutes:

Cllr Rob Appleyard explained the way the funding applications are being scrutinised is working well and that the working group is learning through the process.

 

The Neighbourhood CIL applications that are dealt with by the group need to meet specific criteria that show improved infrastructure and links to local development. This group are one of the first in the country that are at the stage of delivering projects to our communities through an area forum, the support of officers and how the guidance is interpreted is helping the group develop well in deciding on its recommendations.

 

Cllr Appleyard went through a list of funding recommendations from the Bath City Forum Working Group for CEF and CIL.

 

Community Empowerment Funding (CEF)

 

  • £3,754 - Benches in Springfield Park
  • £2,000 - Combe Down Firs Field Shaft Wall Project
  • £10,000 – Student Community Partnership 
  • £5,200 -  Bath City Football Club Community & Meeting Facilities
  • £15,000 -  Bath City Football Club School Engagement Project
  • £650 – Last Straw Campaign
  • £100 – Playing Out Alexandra Road

 

Applications for the Bath Festivals; Curo Community Researcher; Refill Bath were not agreed.

 

The CEF funding programme has now closed, a total of £42,665 has been allocated by the Bath City Forum and £1,335 has been returned unspent.

 

 

Bath Neighbourhood CIL Funding

 

  • £5,000 for speed signage on Bathwick Hill / Oakley
  • £4,200 for vehicle access to Brickfields Park, Shophouse Road
  • £43,200 for Alice Park pathways improvements
  • £28,500 for the purchase of a community riverboat
  • £19,600 for refurbishment of the scouts building
  • £19,500 for community engagement activity delivered through the Bath Carnival. This is funding for one year and will be subject to confirmation on outcome being provided. A further amount will be considered for an additional two years but will be subject to outcomes in year one being met.

 

Applications for Camden Crescent Railings; Project 28 Office Equipment; Restoration and enhancement of abutments; Forest of Imagination and Curo Community Researcher were not agreed.

 

Cllr Dine Romero asked if there was a limit on the number of applications that an organisation could submit and how are conflicts are dealt with when the Council and Forum have different viewpoints?

 

Dave Dixon explained:

·  Bids are looked at on merit, not all applications that have been submitted have been successful. The outcomes are considered along with priorities and geographical locations. The CIL funds have criteria which determine how revenue and capital are allocated.

·  The working group are going to meet to review the application form and guidance; this will take into account the learning that has taken place in this process to date. The process needs to allow for creative applications and avoid being too prescriptive.

·  When CIL payments start to be made, successful organisations will receive a funding agreement which will include the requirement to provide feedback on their project outcomes.

·  Where conflict occurs in applications there will be requests made to clarify positions to work out why this is the case. The forum asks for clarity and pushes back when they think something  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

25 mins

4.

The Recreation Ground Stadium Update

Tarquin McDonald, Managing Director of Bath Rugby will provide an update and take questions on the progress of the Stadium for Bath project.

Minutes:

Tarquin McDonald, Managing Director for Bath Rugby attended the forum to provide an update and take questions on the subject The Stadium for Bath.

 

·  The Stadium for Bath project has a broad focus and is looking at the future development plans for the riverside in Bath.

·  The vision of what the future stadium will look like is going to be different for every person, what most people will agree on is that the vision should not be leaving the stadium as it is now.

·  The challenge that Bath Rugby has now is to create a vision from the big picture opportunity by looking to the future and creating a legacy.

·  Bath Rugby sees the central location in Bath as the place that works commercially and continues the long history at the heart of the city where the club has been as a source of strength. 

·  The B&NES Council vision for Bath states that it should be a place for those who live, work and play in city. The MOD sites are creating a place to live, Bath Quays is creating a place to work and the Bath Stadium can deliver the play aspect for all in a recreational space with sport and community facilities. A hub for delivering sport would be a space that is not only about Bath Rugby.

·  The community will be invited to look at solutions where there are social needs. There are opportunities to look at the way of helping the 20% of children in Bath that live in poverty. There are also opportunities for young people who could be offered apprentices roles. 

·  Later this year designs will be produced that which will include the input that has been collected through the wide ranging consultation which has already taken place with residents, supporters, community representatives and city stakeholders.

·  The architect which has been appointed is Grimshaws, they are considered to be a good fit and show they understand the importance of how city life works in Bath.

 

The next stages will be:

·  A briefing with B&NES Council to listen to guidance on following good design practice.

·  Appointment of engineers

·  A technical survey

·  Stimulation of an inclusive debate for a design to be proud of

·  Presentation of visuals in May/June 2018

·  Submission of a planning application

 

Questions and Comments

 

1.  Cllr Peter Turner – It is hoped that Grimshaws have the vision to produce a stadium that complements the history of the rugby team.

 

2.  Cllr Dine Romero – How will you manage the expectations of the work which is carried out with children in the outlying areas of Bath? Will there continue to be an outreach programme of work?

 

Response:

·  There will be opportunities that will take place at the stadium, this will be for community use and transportation costs to the stadium will be considered. 

·  It is intended that work at the Southside Youth Hub where exercise with teenager’s takes place will continue through the charity fund raising which we carry out.

·  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

60 mins

5.

Governance Options for the City of Bath pdf icon PDF 931 KB

A short presentation on the Governance Options for the City of Bath will be given. The forum will then have an opportunity to ask questions.

Minutes:

A presentation was given by Andy Thomas and Maria Lucas on Governance Options for the City of Bath.

 

This presentation was brought to the forum on the request which came from forum members at previous meetings.

 

The presentation has been attached; the slide that refers to community governance reviews had the wrong number in the papers that were distributed in advance of the meeting. The bullet that was shown at the meeting contained the correct number and read

·  Triggered by a petition of >7.5%. The total electorate for Bath as at 1st March 2018 is 62,891, this would therefore require 4,716 signatures

 

Questions and comments were taken following on from the presentation.

 

1.  Cllr Dine Romero –

(i)  Was there a Bath Area Committee that came before Bath City Forum?

(ii)  If Bath was parished what would be the impact on the mayoralty functions?

(iii)  How is the electorate for Bath defined?

(iv)  How is the Bath Boundary defined?

Response –

(i)  There was a Bath South Area Committee prior to the establishment of the Bath City Forum, when the review took place in 2013-2014 this committee was no longer in place.

(ii)  If an unparished area becomes one or more parish council the arrangements in place for the mayoralty become redundant. The new Council/s will have elections for parish councillors and will elect a Chair. Local Councils can decide to have new arrangements for a Mayor which covers the parish area.

(iii)  The electorate figure is taken on a set date from the electoral role and includes the Wards in Bath.

(iv)  There is a Boundary Review underway which reports back on 8 May 2018. Once this has been completed the Bath Boundary will be defined.

 

2.  Cllr Rob Appleyard

(i)  Where is the public support?

(ii)  Is this what is wanted by our communities?

(iii)  What is it that is missing at the moment other that the pressures from funding?

(iv)  When looking at the work carried out previously, 37% of those who responded said an area committee was preferred but when combined the total for the parish options was 50%. 

(v)  The mayoralty of this city is in its 790th year and is still making valuable contributions to Bath.

 

Response from Ashley Ayre – This item has been brought to the forum through a request which came through the agenda setting group. Bath and North East Somerset Council are not proposing a Community Governance Review.

 

 

3.  Virginia Williamson – There has not been a conversation about what is wrong with engagement and comments have not been taken on which reflect what people want to say.

Response –

·  A parish council has differences and would have separately elected parish councillors, the minimum being five councillors for a small parish area. Where parishes have casual vacancies they are able to co-opt, this is usually because not enough candidates stand or due to a resignation. 

·  Candidates that stand can be Independent, a minor party or a conventional political party.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

10 mins

6.

AOB

Minutes:

Workplan

 

Virginia Williamson explained that other forums appear to have a published work plan for their meetings.

 

Virginia asked for the topic of consultations to be an agenda item at a future meeting. Input from democratic services and the way consultation is conducted and reported back upon. 

 

Jeremy Boss explained that the form does hold a list of ideas for future meetings. There is an agenda setting group for the Bath Forum which is held several weeks in advance of each forum meeting.

 

Note: Any forum member can put forward agenda suggestions for future meetings these need to be sent to Mark Hayward and Cllr Colin Blackburn.