Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out in the Notes

The Senior Democratic Services drew attention to the evacuation procedure as set out in the Agenda.

Councillor Mark Shelford had sent his apologies for this 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.

Questions submitted before the deadline will receive a reply from an appropriate Cabinet member or a promise to respond within 5 days of the meeting.  Councillors may ask one supplementary question for each question they submitted, up to a maximum of two per Councillor.

There were 19 questions from Councillors.

[Copies of the questions and responses, including supplementary questions and responses if any, have been placed on the Minute book as Appendix and are available on the Council's website.]

Councillors and members of the public may register their intention to make a statement if they notify the subject matter of their statement before the deadline.  Statements are limited to 3 minutes each.  The speaker may then be asked by Cabinet members to answer factual questions arising out of their statement.

Robin Kerr (Federation of Bath Residents’ Associations) read out a statement (attached as Appendix and available on the Minute Book at Democratic Services) where he highlighted issues around HMOs and a need for a workable Student Housing Policy.

David Redgewell read out a statement (attached as Appendix and available on the Minute Book at Democratic Services) where he highlighted latest rail transport developments and issues around ongoing works along A37.

Cate Le Grice-Mack read out a statement (attached as Appendix and available on the Minute Book at Democratic Services) where she highlighted impact of extreme traffic congestion in Bath on residents.

Mary Walsh read out a statement (attached as Appendix and available on the Minute Book at Democratic Services) where she highlighted impact of the latest WECA Transport VISION on Whitchurch Village and neighbouring villages.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8^th November 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

This is a standard agenda item, to cover any reports originally placed on the Weekly list for single Member decision making, which have subsequently been the subject of a Cabinet Member requisition to the full Cabinet, under the Council’s procedural rules

This is a standing agenda item (Constitution rule 14, part 4D – Executive Procedure Rules) for matters referred by Policy Development and Scrutiny bodies.  The Chair of the relevant PDS Panel will have the right to attend and to introduce the Panel’s recommendations to Cabinet.

A list of Cabinet Single Member decisions taken and published since the last Cabinet meeting to note (no debate).

The Cabinet agreed to note the report.

The Council’s Transport Strategies for Bath, Keynsham and Somer Valley have identified the transport improvements required.  The Council have successfully bid to The West of England Combined Authority (WECA) for funds to develop four key transport schemes and approval is requested to include the schemes in the Councils programme from 2017/18 to 2019/20.

Councillor Dine Romero made an ad-hoc statement by expressing her concern that the Council would not get what they should from WECA funding.  Councillor Romero also said that it would be useful to know what criteria were used for selecting one scheme over another.  Councillor Romero expressed her concern that all current schemes were focused entirely on roads and road improvements and nothing had been considered on sustainable travel and other transport options.  Councillor Romero concluded her statement by suggesting that East of Bath Link should be called North-South connection study.

Councillor Patrick -Anketell-Jones made an ad-hoc statement by welcoming the Freezing Hill junction improvement which would help getting people to Lansdown Park and Ride quicker and easier.  Councillor Anketell-Jones also said that the road from Park and Ride continues to Lansdown Road which had seen noticeable increase in traffic in recent years, and suggested that any calculation on traffic levels should not just stop at the Park and Ride but should include the roads towards the city centre.

Councillor Charles Gerrish introduced the report by saying that the Council had successfully bid to The West of England Combined Authority (WECA) for funds to develop key highway projects. On 30^th October 2017 WECA had approved funding to develop schemes for:

1)  East of Bath Link, £250k

2)  A37 to A362 Improvements to access Somer Valley Enterprise Zone,  £280k

3)  Hicks Gate Roundabout Improvement, £460k

4)   Freezing Hill Lane Junction Improvement, £100k

The four schemes were linked to the strategic improvements identified in the West of England Joint Transport Study and The Council Transport Strategies for Bath, Keynsham and Somer Valley. The schemes would provide significant benefits in reducing delays to vehicles using the Highway Network. The schemes were identified through the Council Transport Strategies and JTS, as the schemes were developed the options would be reviewed.

Councillor Charles Gerrish moved the recommendations.

Councillor Bob Goodman seconded the motion by saying that these four schemes were the right decision for residents of Bath and North East Somerset area.  Councillor Goodman also said that he understood the concerns raised by Councillor Romero though this was just a beginning of a process, and transport developments would follow once road improvements were in place.

Councillor Paul May said that he would support the report.  Councillor May also said that major consultation had been taking place on development in Whitchurch, and although that development would have significant highway impact on the village, there was no feasibility study on A37/A4 link.  The community from Whitchurch and neighbouring villages would not know the exact impact due to the lack of the study.  Councillor May also highlighted that if A350 improvements were going ahead then there would be significant impact on villages around A37 (starting from Farrington Gurney towards Whitchurch).  Councillor May concluded his statement by expressing his concern that original JSP had highlighted need for housing and roads though, at the moment, housing had been going ahead and there was little information about roads.

The rest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

This report presents the financial monitoring information for the Authority as a whole for the financial year 2017/18 to the end of October 2017.

Councillor Richard Samuel made an ad-hoc statement by saying that the monitoring report had been disappointing with a projected budget overspend of £3.751m.  Councillor Samuel expressed his concern that the officers recommendation was to use reserves to mitigate the overspend with planned savings of £1.6m now at risk.  Councillor Samuel also said that previous monitoring report suggested that budget overspend was £5.12m and felt that improvement in overspend was down to drawing out money from social care.  Councillor Samuel concluded his statement by hoping that next report would show an improvement in figures.

Councillor Charles Gerrish said that report format was different from previous months and it had covered a period of seven months.  The report had presented an improvement from the previous report and also an impact of the actions taken since the previous projection.  Paragraph 5.5 of the report highlighted cost pressures and paragraph 5.6 showed additional measures agreed with Adult Social Care - it should not to be seen as money taken out from social care.  Councillor Gerrish referred at the mitigating measures in 5.8 of the report and informed the meeting that the Revenue Budget Contingency Reserve funding figure had been agreed at the February 2017 Budget. Councillor Gerrish concluded his comments by taking the meeting through each portfolio budget and highlighted some of the Capital Projects.

Councillor Charles Gerrish moved the recommendations.

Councillor Paul Myers seconded the motion by saying that based on the improvement to the position reported to October Cabinet, there was currently no requirement to use non-earmarked reserves as part of these mitigations.  The Council's financial position, along with its financial management arrangements and controls, were fundamental to continuing to plan and provide services in a managed way, particularly in light of the medium term financial challenge.

The rest of the Cabinet Members highlighted financial pressures within their portfolios.

RESOLVED (unanimously) the Cabinet agreed that:

2.1  Strategic Directors should continue to work towards managing within budget in the current year for their respective service areas and develop an action plan of how this will be achieved, including not committing any unnecessary expenditure and stringent budgetary control.

2.2  This year’s revenue budget position as shown in paragraph 5.3 is noted.

2.3  The mitigations that will be required shown in paragraph 5.8, if the over budget position cannot be reduced by the end of the financial year, are noted.

2.4  The capital year end forecast detailed in paragraph 5.18 of this report, is noted.

2.5  The revenue virements listed for information in Appendix 2(i) are noted.

2.6  The changes in the capital programme listed in Appendix 3(i) are noted.

To consider the consultation responses received and the rationale behind the proposal of Camerton Church School’s Governing Body to close the school and to decide whether to publish a statutory notice proposing the closure of the school.

Councillor Paul May introduced the report by saying that pupil numbers at Camerton Church School had been falling for several years and for September 2017 only seven pupils in total were expected to be on roll.  Despite the efforts of the Governing Body over the years to increase pupil numbers through publicity; open days; providing a pre-school nursery on site; working closely with other small schools and eventually becoming part of a federation of three schools, pupil numbers had gradually reduced.  At this size, the Governing Body believed it would be extremely difficult to provide a rounded education that meets the academic, social and emotional needs of the pupils at the school.  The Governing Body had therefore concluded that the school was no longer viable either educationally or financially and had asked the Council to commence the statutory process that must be followed when it is proposed to close a school.

Councillor Paul May moved the recommendations.

Councillor Tim Warren seconded the motion by saying that if it was decided to close the school, these seven pupils would be able to remain at Shoscombe School and formally transfer onto the roll of Shoscombe School should they wish to. From 1 September 2018 responsibility for home to school transport for these seven pupils would transfer to the Local Authority.  Alternatively, they would be free to apply to another school. Admission to another school would be subject to available places.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet, based on the educational, social and emotional needs of pupils, agreed to the publication of a statutory notice proposing the closure of Camerton Church School which will allow a further four week consultation period to take place.

Following the successful examination and referendum, this report seeks to make and bring into force the Whitchurch Village Neighbourhood Plan so that it will be used by the Local Planning Authority to help determine planning applications within the Neighbourhood Area.

Whitchurch Village Parish Council is the qualifying body authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Paul May introduced the report by saying that Whitchurch Village Parish Council had indicated that they would like to undertake a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) in September 2014 and the Neighbourhood Area, the first formal stage in the process, was designated by the Council on 3rd November 2014. The Plan was considered by an Independent Examiner in September 2017, who recommended that it should proceed, with modifications, to the final stage, the referendum.  The referendum took place on 16th November 2017.  There was a 38.5% turnout of the overall Neighbourhood Area electorate. A majority (96.5%) were in favour of using the Whitchurch Village NDP to help decide planning applications in the Neighbourhood Area.  Councillor May also commended Councillor Karen Warrington for her involvement in the process and thanked all residents from Whitchurch who turned up for the referendum and at Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) events.

Councillor Paul May moved the recommendations.

Councillor Bob Goodman seconded the motion by praising Councillor May for his involvement in the process and invited residents to get engaged in the JSP consultations.

Councillor Karen Warrington also supported the Plan and commended the community for voting in huge numbers at the referendum.

Councillor Charles Gerrish also welcomed the Plan and invited all residents to get engaged with the JSP and Local Plan consultations.

RESOLVED (unanimously) the Cabinet agreed to:

Make and bring into force the Whitchurch Village Neighbourhood Development Plan, as set out in Appendix 1, as part of the Development Plan for the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Area, in accordance with Section 38A(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016).