Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 5.

The Chair drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure, as set out on the agenda.

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 complete the green interest forms circulated to groups in their pre-meetings (which will be announced at the Council Meeting) 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 4.4 Appendix 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.

To be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair

On a motion from Councillor Kevin Guy, seconded by Councillor Chris Dando, it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of 25^th February 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair made the usual housekeeping announcements about phones and microphones.

If there is any urgent business arising since the formal agenda was published, the Chair will announce this and give reasons why it has been agreed for consideration at this meeting. In making this decision, the Chair will, where practicable, have consulted with the Leaders of the Political Groups. Any documentation on urgent business will be circulated at the meeting, if not made available previously.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Democratic Services Manager will announce any submissions received. The Council will be invited to decide what action it wishes to take, if any, on the matters raised in these submissions. As the questions received and the answers given will be circulated in written form there is no requirement for them to be read out at the meeting. The questions and answers will be published with the draft minutes.

Statements were made by the following members of the public;

Lee O’Bryan made a statement about the Liveable Neighbourhood programme.  He welcomed the decision about the Camden Bus gate and wanted councillors to consider the lessons to be learned from that.  He called for consultation and engagement with the community to be improved, with clear evidence to support proposals.  Consideration needed to be wider than ward level with buses managed in a more effective way.

Paul Stansall made a statement about traffic in our communities, calling for a Citizens’ Assembly for the Liveable Neighbourhood programme.  Councillor Kevin Guy referred to Paul’s mention of the poor state of road surfaces, gutters and drains and asked if Paul had made use of the Fix My Street facility.  Paul replied that he had, and that it was very useful.  A full copy of the statement has been added to the Minute book and the online record.

Patrick Rotheram, Chairman of the Vineyards Residents' Association, made a statement about transport in Bath.  Patrick welcomed the cancellation of the Camden Road Bus Gate scheme but called for a comprehensive city-wide traffic movement strategy to provide a framework for the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme.  A full copy of the statement has been added to the Minute book and the online record.

Alex Keane, Co-Founder of the STBG [StopTheBusGate] collective consisting of 27 Residents’ groups across 4 affected Wards representing 2,000 electorate; a Bath business owner and Walcot resident for the past 22 years, addressed the meeting.  Alex set out reasons why they considered the Liveable Neighbourhood programme was not being successfully delivered and called for more transparent information about how decisions are being made.  Councillor Kevin Guy, in reference to Alex’s statement that hundreds of thousands of pounds would have to be returned to WECA, asked if Alex was aware that this was not the case and that no monies would be handed back to WECA.  Alex replied that he had not been aware of that.  A full copy of the statement has been added to the Minute book and the online record.

Gareth Eynon made a statement about the Walcot Liveable Neighbourhood scheme which he said did not make sense as it just moved congestion and relocated the pollution.  He stated that, without rigorous traffic modelling and robust independent analysis, these proposals were a gamble.  Residents deserved better and needed to be able to trust the process.

Adam Reynolds made a statement in support of the Council’s road danger reduction measures.  He cited statistics for road injuries and deaths and urged Councillors to continue to support the Liveable Neighbourhood Policy to keep through traffic off minor roads and on main roads and thereby encourage safer streets.  A full copy of the statement has been added to the Minute book and the online record.

Jackie Head, a member of Bristol Airport Action Network, made a statement in support of the motion to oppose Bristol Airport expansion.  Jackie highlighted the climate impact and challenged the economic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the work of the Charitable Trust Board in 2023/24.

The Council considered the annual report of the Charitable Trust Board.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Oli Henman, it was unanimously

RESOLVED to note the Annual Report of the Charitable Trust Board for 2023/24.

The Constitution Working Group (CWG) was re-established at Council on 16^th May 2024, primarily to address the outstanding work needed on the Financial Regulations and Contract Standing orders.  They have also considered some minor revisions which are brought to Council for adoption.

The Council considered a report from its Constitution Working Group recommending some minor revisions.

On a motion from Councillor Shaun Hughes, seconded by Councillor Manda Rigby, it was unanimously

RESOLVED to

1.  Agree the amendments to the Council Rules (Section 3.1 of the Constitution) recommended by the Constitution Working Group as set out in Appendix 1 of the report;

2.  Agree that any parallel sections in Cabinet rules (Section 3.2 of the Constitution) are also amended.

This report seeks Council’s approval of the appointment of an Interim S151 Officer.

The Council considered a report seeking approval of the appointment of an Interim S151 Officer.

On a motion from Councillor Kevin Guy, seconded by Councillor Shaun Hughes, it was unanimously

RESOLVED to agree the appointment of Interim Section 151 Officer to Mr Jeff Wring from 1 April 2025 to 31 December 2025.

The purpose of this report is to invite the Council to confirm a Councillor as Chair of the Council (Designate) for the next Council Year beginning in May 2025 and any intentions for the Vice Chair position for 2025/26 (or leave that until the Annual meeting).

The Council was invited to identify a Councillor as Chair of the Council (Designate) and Vice Chair (Designate) for the next Council Year beginning in May 2025, to be formally elected at its Annual Meeting in May 2025.

On a motion from Councillor Kevin Guy, seconded by Councillor Dave Biddleston, it was unanimously

RESOLVED that, for forward planning purposes, the Council names Councillor Liz Hardman to be treated as Chair of the Council (Designate) for the 2025/26 Council Year, and Councillor Shaun Stephenson-McGall as Vice Chair (Designate) for 2025/26.

Council considered a motion proposed by the Labour Group.

On a motion from Councillor Dave Biddleston, seconded by Councillor Matt McCabe it was unanimously

RESOLVED that

Council notes:

1. Like every other council, BNES has government targets for significantly more homes than it had expected to build. New housing developments will bring a clear increase in ‘planning gain’ – developer agreements involving funding or in-kind provision – to mitigate the impacts of development on the immediate surrounding area and its community. This will happen throughout BNES – in Bath, and its surrounding towns and villages, which have many smaller councils (town and parish councils).

2. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 agreements are essential mechanisms for ensuring that developers and developments both contribute to local infrastructure and community improvements, and mitigate the impact of the development.

3. Transparency is important inhow CIL and Section 106 funds are collected, allocated, and spent.

4. The CIL is a tax on certain types of development in the authority area. ‘Strategic CIL’ is a central fund, allocated to essential strategic infrastructure as identified in our Infrastructure Delivery Plan. ‘Neighbourhood CIL’ is made up of a proportion of the CIL funds collected from new developments, which is passed to the Town or Parish Council, or the Bath Neighbourhood CIL committee, where the CIL was generated, for that council to address local priorities. If Neighbourhood CIL funds remain unspent after 5 years, they are returned to the strategic pot.

5. Section 106 agreements are specific obligations attached to a planning approval and are negotiated on behalf of the local community by the planning officer. The condition will be fulfilled either by the Council or the developer as part of the permission.

6. Throughout Bath & North East Somerset, the effective and transparent allocation of these funds, with appropriate consultation, is critical to maintaining public trust, as well as to ensuring local communities see developments’ tangible benefits.

7. A growing number of councils have therefore adjusted their processes, e.g.:

·  Watford has launched a Neighbourhood Grant Portal which allows local people to apply for Neighbourhood CIL funding to address the impact of new development.

·  Chichester has created an Infrastructure Business Plan to improve tracking of need and delivery of Strategic CIL.

·  Sevenoaks has developed an interactive Neighbourhood CIL dashboard so developers and residents can access information on all allocations, in real time, including the total amount passed to town and parish councils.

8. The Council’s Head of Planning has confirmed that the resolutions in this motion are contained within the existing Planning Service budget.

Council Believes:

9. A healthily functioning planning system needs greater accountability, transparency about the mitigation of impact, and funds being allocated in a timely and effective manner – as per the development agreement.

10. Residents, and those working and studying here, have a right to know and understand how locally-generated development contributions are being used to benefit their local areas and to mitigate development impact.

11. Clear and accessible reporting of CIL and Section 106 funds will enhance community confidence in BNES’ strategic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Council considered a motion from the Liberal Democrat Group.

On a motion from Councillor Dave Harding, seconded by Councillor Paul May, it was

RESOLVED that

Council:

1. Reaffirms its opposition to the expansion of Bristol Airport as previously expressed in March 2019 as part of the Climate Emergency Declaration and again in July 2022.

2. Notes that communities in Bath and North East Somerset, local campaign organisations and communities in neighbouring authorities also oppose expansion of Bristol Airport.

3. Regrets that Bristol Airport controversially won permission to expand from 10 million to 12 million passengers a year in the face of overwhelming opposition expressed by local communities, organisations and elected politicians, and are now consulting on a further expansion to 15 million passengers a year, of which they estimate that 12 million will reach the airport by private transport, including up to 1000 increased night flights each year, and an extended runway to enable services by larger aircraft types.

4. Notes the government has expressed support for airport expansion (both the Chancellor and Prime Minister have expressed support for a third runway at Heathrow and the Transport Secretary has “set out a path” for the expansion of Gatwick airport) in conflict with the advice given to government by the Climate Change Committee, who have repeatedly cautioned against airport expansion without a framework in place to manage overall national capacity.

Council believes that:

5. Airport expansion is incompatible with the action being taken by West of England Councils to tackle the Climate Emergency, the UK Government’s legally binding climate targets, and advice from the Government’s own Climate Change Committee.

6. The health and wellbeing of B&NES residents will be adversely affected, through increased air, noise and light pollution and through congestion, rogue parking and rat running through our rural villages and narrow country lanes.

7. “Sustainable aviation” is a meaningless phrase, regularly used as greenwash by the airport and fossil fuel industries.  Sustainable Aviation Fuel is an unproven technology with no clear feedstocks which would permit deployment at meaningful scale.

Council therefore:

8. Hereby determines to oppose expansion of Bristol Airport in its response as a statutory consultee to any forthcoming planning application.

9. Calls on all locally elected representatives and all candidates for the forthcoming West of England Combined Authority elections to oppose expansion of Bristol Airport.

10. Calls on the government to consider all airport expansion applications on a national basis and to make decisions in line with the advice from the Climate Change Committee, which has said there should be ‘no net expansion of airports’; and taking into account the cumulative impact of CO2 emissions and their impact on the UK’s legally binding journey to net zero.

11. Requests that the Leader write to the Secretary of State, the aviation minister, and local MPs to inform them of Council’s position.

[Notes;

1.  The above successful resolution was carried with 44 Councillors voting in favour and 3 Councillors abstaining.]

The Council considered a motion from the Green group.

It was moved by Councillor Joanna Wright, seconded by Councillor Saskia Heijltjes, and following a vote, it was

NOT CARRIED

Council Notes:

1.  Strategic Aims of the Liveable Neighbourhoods Programme, also referred to as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs):

LTNs aim to improve air quality, enable more trips by active travel, and reduce congestion.  However, these objectives are at risk of being undermined by poorly designed interventions that displace traffic from one set of residential streets onto another. The recent Camden Road bus gate E3418 posed this risk, as it would divert traffic to already congested residential areas like Snow Hill, Fairfield Park, Lambridge, and London Road. These areas already suffer from high levels of traffic, poor air quality, and insufficient active travel infrastructure, making the Camden Road bus gate a threat to the very goals it is supposed to support.

2.  Traffic Displacement and Congestion:

The lack of proper traffic modelling and pre-implementation analysis has resulted in unanticipated effects. The Camden Road bus gate E3418 would have caused adverse effects and without proper traffic modelling and pre-implementation analysis, the extent of these risks is opaque and questionable. The Full Business Case (FBC) fails to include essential data such as comprehensive traffic surveys or road safety assessments for affected areas like London Road, Snow Hill, and Fairfield Park. This oversight raises concerns that the council may be rushing to implement a scheme without fully understanding the potential for congestion and displacement across Bath’s residential areas.

3.  Increased Carbon Emissions and Air Pollution:

In line with the Council’s own research, 1 in 4 to 1 in 12 new asthma cases in UK children each year are linked to NO2 pollution from vehicle emissions. Areas like London Road and Snow Hill, which already suffer from air pollution due to heavy traffic, would likely see these conditions worsen if the Camden Road bus gate was implemented without proper evaluation of the consequences on air quality. The FBC completely overlooks the air quality impact of diverted traffic, particularly around schools, health centres, and residential areas like Fairfield Park. There is no assessment of how displaced traffic will affect pollution hotspots, nor does it address how the scheme could conflict with Bath’s Clean Air Zone objectives. This lack of foresight risks undermining the environmental goals of the LTN.

4.  Lack of Clear Evidence in the FBC:

The FBC fails to meet the standard of evidence-based decision-making required for such significant interventions. There are no measurable targets, traffic reduction assessments, air quality improvement data, or road safety evaluations in the FBC. This undermines the council’s ability to make an informed decision about whether the Camden Road bus gate will truly deliver on its intended benefits. The WECA approval process, which did not require an independent scrutiny of the FBC, raises questions about the lack of accountability and governance in this decision-making process.

5.  Absence of a Fully Modeled Traffic Management Plan:

Another flaw was that the Camden Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

The Chair made reference to the Q&A document that had been circulated, and is attached to the online record.

The Council is asked to consider passing the following resolution;

“that having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A) because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

On a motion from Councillor Kevin Guy, seconded by Councillor Lesley Mansell, it was

RESOLVED

that having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A) because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires a member of a Local Authority to attend at least one meeting of that Authority within a period of six consecutive months, in order to avoid being disqualified as a Councillor. This requirement can be waived and the time limit extended, if any failure to attend was due to a reason approved by the Authority, in advance of the six month period expiring. The Council considered such a request.

On a motion from Councillor Kevin Guy, seconded by Councillor Tim Warren, it was unanimously

RESOLVED

1.  To note and approve as set out in the report.