Agenda item

This report presents the Council’s Organisational Plan 2019/20 to the Panel for consideration and feedback as part of the Council’s operational planning and budget development process.

The Director for Partnership & Corporate Services introduced this report to the Panel. He explained that the Organisational Plan is an annual plan, which has been aligned with the budget planning process. He said that the Organisational Plan for the first time introduces the Council’s new Core Service Offer and its 3 new priorities.

(1) Protect and Care for our most vulnerable

(2) Nurture residents health, safety and wellbeing

(3) Provide ways for everyone in the community to reach their full potential.

He stated that in essence, a core services offer is the best service offer we can deliver based on the resources currently available to us.

He said that the plan outlines the draft budget savings proposals where appropriate, which will be proposed as part of the budget setting process for the Council 2019 – 20 budgets which will be considered by the Cabinet and Council at their meetings in February. He added that the plan also outlines the Emerging Capital Bids for 2019/20 that will be proposed as part of the budget setting process to be considered at the same meetings.

Councillor Liz Richardson queried whether the figures relating to supporting the 21 children with the most complex needs were necessary (P.34) in the plan.

Councillor Charles Gerrish replied that the figure is there to illustrate the costs associated with this type of support and that he felt it gives the public a better understanding of how resources are used.

Councillor Richardson asked if the proposal to remove the non-domestic rate exemption for listed buildings would affect local village halls (P.38).

Councillor Gerrish replied that it would not as they would not be classed as empty.

Councillor Richardson commented that she would have like to have seen Planning Services recognised on the list of examples on P.38/39.

Councillor Barry Macrae asked if manufacturers, alongside the public, will be encouraged to reduce waste and stop over-packaging items.

Councillor Gerrish replied that this was recognised as a national issue and that the Council has been lobbying through the LGA on this subject.

The Corporate Director added that the Council had responded to a recent Government consultation paper regarding managing waste.

Councillor Rob Appleyard commented that he was concerned at the time taken to assess and meet the needs of children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. He also wished to raise the issue of the support given to Fostering / Adoption families when a diagnosis of this nature is recognised.

Councillor Gerrish replied this was more a matter for the Children & Young People Panel, but said that he was aware of the need to increase the speed in which Education, Health & Care Plans (EHCPs) are carried out. He added that he felt that local Councils were not funded appropriately following the SEND reforms.

The Chairman queried the language used within the Organisational Plan, such as ‘Offer’ and ‘Nurture’. He asked if a list of statutory services could be provided.

The Director for Partnership & Corporate Services replied that this was open to interpretation to a certain degree and that the Plan was supposed to highlight the key services that the Council are able to provide for the public.

Councillor Gerrish added that Waste Collection is a statutory service, but that the frequency with which it is carried out is not specified. He added that in terms of ‘nurturing’ all Councillors have a role through being Corporate Parents.

Councillor Liz Richardson stated that she was not wholly satisfied with the answers given in Appendix 4, which shared feedback from the Local Forums. In particular she referenced Response 3 on P.52 and Response 5 on P.53.

Councillor Gerrish replied that the document supplied reflects accurately what was said at those meetings.

The Director for Partnership & Corporate Services added that he would check the document for factual clarification.

The Chairman asked how Heritage Services planned to increase its income by £1m and explain how this is classified as a medium risk.

Councillor Gerrish replied that the figure is based on this year’s performance and included sites such as the Costume Museum and the Victoria Art Gallery as well as the Roman Baths. He added that an increase in entrance fee to Roman Baths was planned in an attempt to reduce numbers and therefore enhance the visitor experience. He said that the products available within the shop at the Roman Baths were also due to be assessed.

The Director for Economy & Growth added that a review had been carried out relating to ticket prices and that a tiered ticketing system was to be introduced. He said that tickets would range in price from £16 in low season to £22 in high season. He stated that a contingency sum of £300,000 has been taken into account with regard to Brexit. He said that there would be a 10% discount for advance bookings.

With regard to the risk assigned he said that the Council have been working with consultants who have introduced this new ticketing system at other attractions across the country. He said that he felt that the Council could over achieve their target rather than under achieve.

Councillor Barry Macrae said that he was sceptical about the figures given and that the increase would affect peak season visitors from America and China.

Councillor Gerrish replied that the data available to support this decision should not be underestimated. He added that there is a growing market in visitors from India and said that holders of a Discovery Card would be unaffected.

Councillor Appleyard said that he supported the work of Heritage Services and that to enhance the visitor experience should be welcomed.

Councillor Colin Blackburn asked if an increase to the size of the shop at the Roman Baths had been considered.

Councillor Gerrish replied was being kept under review. He stated that a premises opposite the Baths had been previously considered, but was not viable.

Councillor Appleyard asked if consideration had been given to installing terminals within the shop so that orders can be made for products that may be out of stock or just available online.

The Director for Economy & Growth replied that he was aware that this had been discussed, but did not know the outcome. He added that he believed that the availability of online products was to be expanded.

The Chairman asked for further information regarding the figure of £350,000 relating to Destination Management.

Councillor Gerrish replied that Bath Tourism Plus (BTP) had become a Council owned company a number of years ago and that this figure related to a reduction in their subsidy. He added that BTP had already repaid a £150,000 loan from the Council. He said that the Christmas Market continued to be successful, but that a risk associated with this would be how the Market would be affected if adverse weather conditions were in effect at this time of year.

Councillor Barry Macrae asked for further information regarding the income share from the Bath Casino.

The Director of Development and Public Protection replied that this was part of an agreement for the Council to receive an income split following the Gambling Act 2005.

Councillor Liz Richardson asked for the reason behind introducing a Section 106 Planning Obligations Compliance Advice Service.

The Director of Development and Public Protection replied that is intended to be a service to respond to enquiries from solicitors.

The Chairman asked if anything had gone wrong with the Neighbourhood Planning process in regard to the budget saving proposed.

The Director of Development and Public Protection replied that there was nothing wrong and that it was simply a case of the saving only being in place for two years and the requirement of it to be reversed.

The Chairman said that he was slightly concerned with the proposal to retain fees related to Permitted Development applications and how this would affect the Council’s relationship with the public.

The Director of Development and Public Protection replied that the fee would be minimal, around £200 and said that decisions were borderline on occasions.

Councillor Appleyard stated that he would welcome the figure of £40,000 that was assigned to Air Quality Monitoring Equipment being used instead for the provision of back office support within the Music Service for Children & Young People.

Councillor Gerrish replied that the two items identified come from different budget streams, Capital -v- Revenue, and therefore whilst acknowledging the issue this would not be possible.

The Chairman thanked the Panel for their comments and said that their feedback would be given to the Resources PDS Panel on the 4^th February to allow them to collate all PDS Panel responses to the Cabinet and Council.