Agenda item

The draft Service Delivery Medium Term (Service & Resource) Plan (MTSRP) is presented for consideration by the Panel:

·  To set out the overall Medium Term plans at Departmental level, before more detailed Service Action Plans are considered at Divisional level in January;

·  To enable comment on the strategic choices inherent in the medium term plan;

·  To enable issues to be highlighted for further consideration in January by the Panel; and

• To enable issues to be referred to the relevant Portfolio holder at an early stage.

The Panel is asked to:

·  Comment on the medium term plan for Service Delivery;  

·  Identify any issues requiring further consideration at the January meeting of the Panel; and

• Identify any issues arising from the draft plan it wishes to refer to the relevant portfolio holder for further consideration.

The Chair invited Henry Brown (Federation of Bath Residents’ Association – FOBRA) to address the Panel with his statement.

Henry Brown said that he welcomed what was proposed in the Medium Term Service & Resource Planning (MTSRP) but that he had few comments and suggestions to add to it.  He had concerns that litter enforcement would require additional resources for its implementation.  He was also concerned about the pricing of parking charges in Bath and expressed his concern, in terms of transport development, that bus subsidy would be reduced.  Henry Brown suggested that the Highways and Transportation elements of Environmental Service and Planning Services should be managed as one service (due to many issues that could easily fit within remits of both services) and that there are similarities of function between Police Community Support Officers had similarities with the parking Civil Enforcement Officers, so they should be operating more as one service.

Glen Chipp responded that litter enforcement would require more resources but the service would keep ensure that costs incurred were marginal.  The effect of the parking charges over last 2 years had been monitored and that there was little elasticity (i.e. demand had not fallen due to higher prices). Impacts of any increases would continue to be monitored, in particular whether the pricing policy made people use Park and Ride more.  Glen Chipp also said that the service would not be looking at reducing bus subsidies but there would be a reduction in the cost of posts.  In terms of Highways and Transportation being two separate services, he explained that policy development would be within Planning Services whilst implementation of those policies would be within the Environmental Services remit.

The Chair said that the subject of Litter Enforcement had been scheduled for discussion at the January 2011 meeting of the Panel. 

Councillor Wood said that the parking enforcement issue, how the team operates, seems to be confusing to many people.

Matthew Smith replied that one member of the Enforcement staff was now based in Keynsham whilst other staff member were mobile.  He also said that it would be helpful if Councillors report any issues that require parking enforcement services so that he could ensure that appropriate arrangements are made.

David Redgewell read out the statement in which he highlighted the following issues: buses – dismantling of essential public transport services; how do you get to work if buses are cut; more traffic jams; bus wars; jobs affected by bus cuts; rail stations improvements; electrification; and regeneration.

A full copy of the statement from David Redgewell is available on the minute book in Democratic Services.

David Redgewell also said that festivals and events in Bath should be also paying for the carbon footprint.  He added that the money should go to bus services instead to festival and events in Bath that were controlled by the Future Bath Plus.

Glen Chipp introduced the report.

The Panel asked the following questions and made the following points:

The Chair said that the whole of Service Delivery took huge cuts and asked what other services across the Council generate income.  She also said that the service would lose 36 posts for this coming year and asked if a similar reduction in staff would be made across the Council.

Glen Chipp responded that some other Council services had not had budget problems last year – this was why his service had to make cuts in staffing.  He also said that he thought that the commercial estate generates most income for the Council.  If all services hit 5% of savings for this year, the Council would reach its target.

The Chair said that there were 40.1 full time employed (FTE) in Transport Planning whilst there were 36 FTE in Transport Design and she queried the balance of it.

Glen Chipp and Matthew Smith replied that the number of people employed depends on the size of capital projects.  There was also statutory obligation for the Council to carry out a number of Transport Planning functions.

The Chair expressed her concern about the quality and quantity of work done in highway maintenance and whether the work required had been done properly.

Matthew Smith replied that the Atkins Highway Maintenance and Operations (company contracted by the Council to do highway repairs) were generally working well.  The Council had had a huge increase in demand on highway repairs last year.  The quality of the work was still there in terms of its finish and it was good value for money.  Matthew Smith also said that on one occasion the Council saved quite a lot of money and reduced environmental, impact by recycling material in one resurfacing project. There were currently concerns about the quality and timeliness of white lining works but this was being actively addressed.

The Chair said that her concern was that if the work was not done with particular quality, it would have to be done again with the possibility of claims against the Council.  She also said that complaints team had been doing a great work in handling complaints.

Matthew Smith confirmed that any remedial works required are not done at an extra cost to the council – they are met by the contractor.

Councillor Gerrish said that the Council was fixing the potholes and not rebuilding the roads.  He also praised the work of the complaints team on this matter.

Councillor Symonds said that the surfacing of roads worked very well.  He suggested that the co-ordination of putting notices up, doing the road work and putting notices down didn’t work that well.  Councillor Symonds also said that it would be good for the Panel to see what changes would be in terms of planning fees after the adoption of the Localism Bill.

Councillor Wood asked if there was a possibility to approach Tesco in Keynsham and ask them if they would want to financially contribute towards number plate recognition cameras on the nearby car park.

Matthew Smith said that this was a possibility although it may not be financially viable.

The Chair questioned the Bath Package costs and asked how those could be scrutinised without the figures in the report.

Glen Chipp explained that the Council had detailed figures but not yet the funds for this project.  The point was to have the scheme in progress.

Councillor Wood asked if the money for the Bath Package would come from the pot of £600m allocated by the Central Government.

Glen Chipp replied that the money would come from the pot of £600m and there were 21 other authorities bidding on funding from this pot.  He also said that the bid from the Council would be at risk if there were too many changes to the proposal.

Councillor Symonds said that the loss of the Government funding for Road Safety, Cycle and Pedestrian training was not acceptable to him and that he was against any cuts related to the Road Safety.  He suggested that funding for this area should be obtained from somewhere else.  He also said that nothing had been done on cycling improvements from Highways apart from couple of cycle stands.  Councillor Symonds also questioned the reasons for having lean reviews across the Council.

Councillor Gerrish replied that lean reviews would enable services to distinguish if the delivery of services to the people could be done better and quicker.  He disagreed with Councillor Symonds that nothing had been done for cycling improvements considering that Council funded some of the projects (Two Tunnels, etc).

Matthew Smith suggested that a report on the Cycling Infrastructure and Improvements could be presented to the Panel at the next meeting.  The Panel agreed with the suggestion.

Councillor Symonds said that the Council should have better service from the First considering that the Council invested in many services, such as subsidised buses and concessionary fares.  He also welcomed that Councillor Gerrish supported Panel’s recommendation of the Public Transport Liaison Panel re-establishment.  Councillor Symonds asked if Council officers get sent to other Councils or countries to learn/monitor about their developments in order to improve performance for this area.

Glen Chipp replied that the deal about concessionary fares was a good deal with the First.  Matthew Smith said that the staff did go to the other councils and countries to observe best practice there.

Councillor Gerrish added that, in terms of developing Oyster Card, the Council was well ahead of the other authorities in West of England area.  He also said that the subsidised buses tendering process achieved savings this year.

The Chair asked about the closing of Old Welton Transfer Station and if that would make savings.

Matthew Smith replied that the closing of Old Welton Transfer Station would not only make savings but it would contribute towards the reduction of carbon emissions and traffic.

It was RESOLVED that:

1)  The officers take on board comments made by the Panel Members; and

2)  The Panel requested to have a report/update on Cycling Infrastructure and Improvements for January 2011 meeting.