Decisions

This report proposes the preparation of a Sustainable Construction Check List Supplementary Planning Document.

The Cabinet Member agrees that the Council should consult on the Sustainable Construction Checklist Supplementary Planning Document.

The Bath City Forum is requesting approval for the first four projects which it wishes to fund through the neighbourhood portion of CIL for Bath.

The Cabinet Member agrees that funding be provided from Neighbourhood CIL Project Funding for Bath:

To agree a £70,000 allocation from the Bath CIL neighbourhood portion for application BA-008, a contribution to the road junction situated at Marlborough Buildings and Julian Road.

To agree a £7,500 allocation from the Bath CIL neighbourhood portion for application BA-026, a contribution to the Bath Festival of Nature 2018.

To agree a £25,000 allocation from the Bath CIL neighbourhood allocation for application BA-025, a contribution for restoration works at the Free Fields Site in Foxhill.

To agree a £3,500 allocation from the Bath CIL neighbourhood portion for application BA-027, a contribution to the Bathscape Walking Festival 2018.

To give consent to the West of England Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018 – in principle.

The Cabinet Member agrees to:

(i) Give consent to the West of England Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018.

(ii) Delegate to the Chief Executive, authority to make all related decisions and provide written authority to the Secretary of State of consent to the West of England Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018.

The Plan outlines the current level of provision and pupil projections in detail up to 2021 and in broader terms up to 2036. Estimates of the number of school places likely to be required and how and where these might be provided are also included.

The Children & Young People Panel at its meeting on Tuesday 20^th March 2018 resolved to:

i)  Note the proposed strategy for the provision of school places within the 2017 – 2021 plan period.

ii)  Note the proposed strategy for the provision of school places over the longer term within the Core Strategy period and the emerging approach for the Local Plan period.

CALL IN

The Cabinet Decision E3037 “Primary and Secondary School Organisation Plan 2017 - 2021” has been Called In by 10 Councillors on 18^th April 2018 (verified on 25^th April 2018).

Reasons for a Call In of Decision E3037:

1. The Greater Bath Consortium Planning Area is too large to be practical as a means of planning the distribution of school places. Whilst a sufficient number of places are currently available across the whole city, this mechanism does not meet families’ needs as it does not take geographical context into account. This creates a different system for Bath children compared to those from North East Somerset (where geographical divisions form part of the plan), which may be discriminatory.
2. Families from the South West of Bath are being disproportionately penalised by being allocated places at schools which are the furthest from home. This puts the biggest burden of travel on families from the part of the city which has on average the lowest family incomes. This may be an equalities issue which has not been fully considered.
3. The planning system fails to consider the air quality implications of home to school travel as well as issues of congestion, time taken, and cost to families.
4. Pupils with special educational needs or extra needs may be disadvantaged by the challenge of independent travel.
5. Pupils travelling long distances to school may be disadvantaged in their social development by not living close to classmates.
6. The planning system does not make an allowance for the number of children from outside of Bath and North East Somerset attending Bath schools, nor does it allow for the reciprocal arrangements adopted by Hayesfield and Beechen Cliff schools for siblings.
7. It fails to look to the longer-term with regards to provision requirements at secondary level and the potential need for new schools.

Signatories:

1. Councillor Paul Crossley – lead
2. Councillor Dine Romero
3. Councillor Rob Appleyard
4. Councillor Steve Hedges
5. Councillor Michelle O’Doherty
6. Councillor Richard Samuel
7. Councillor Tim Ball
8. Councillor Will Sandry
9. Councillor Nigel Roberts
10. Councillor Shaun Stephenson-McGall

The Call In request will be considered by the Children and Young People Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel on 15^th May 2018.

NOTE:

The Children and Young People Policy and Development Scrutiny Panel have dismissed the Call In on 15th May 2018.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed:

2.1  Approve the proposed strategy for the provision of school places within the 2017 – 2021 plan period.

2.2  Approve the proposed strategy for the provision of school places over the longer term within the Core Strategy period and agree the emerging approach for the Local Plan period.

To consider the rationale behind the proposal to close the school and any representation responses received during the Statutory Notice period and decide whether to proceed with the closure of Camerton Church School.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed with the closure of Camerton Church School on 31 August 2018.

The Parish Charter was endorsed by Council on 10^th May 2018, following previous consieration by Scrutiny and Cabinet.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Cabinet agreed to:

2.1  Adopt the revised Parish Charter attached as Appendix 1 to the report, with the exception of the revised Terms of Reference for Parish Liaison which are for Council to determine.

2.2  Recommend that the Council’s AGM in May endorse the Parish Charter and that it reviews and adopts the revised Terms of Reference for Parish Liaison set out in Appendix 1 of the Charter document.

2.3  Agree that the implementation of the Charter be reviewed and evaluated in the first year of its operation in order to make any further refinements required as part of the Council’s Changing Together programme.

2.4  Acknowledge and thank the members of the Working Group for their contributions and the parish councils who responded to the consultation.

To enter into a Cooperation Agreement with Keynsham Community Energy (KCE). KCE is a not for profit social enterprise which develops renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the Keynsham area. KCE is set up to retain the economic benefits of renewable energy in the local area through a community fund and involving local residents in energy projects through local share offers. KCE's projects will help Council to meet its climate change and energy security aims. Since 2011 the Council has had a Cooperation Agreement with Bath & West Community Energy (BWCE) which will be used as a template for the Agreement with KCE.

The Cabinet Member agrees that the Council should enter into a

Cooperation Agreement with KCE for five years, from 2017 to 2022.

The Head of Business, Finance and Pensions presented the report.

He said that a number of things had impacted on resources and workload, including the Brunel project on the investment side, the large number of schools converting to academies and the increase in the number of employers. The range of work is huge, and the Pension Board had quite rightly said that we should be putting more resources in to deal with it. However, it is important that resources are properly targeted, so resources have been allocated to undertake a number of specific projects. These would come from a mix of allocating existing and employing additional resources, together with some reorganisation of functions. It was proposed that the budget should be increased from £2.7m to £2.9m. Additional resources would be allocated to the actuarial team, particularly for the covenant assessment work, and to the investment team. There was a two-year transition period for pooling, and given their already high work load it would be prudent to add additional resource to the investment team now, rather than wait for a full review. On the administration side there were a number of specific projects, as detailed in Appendix 5. IConnect would be rolled out to all employers to help them provide the Fund the information it required. Software suppliers have been improving products, and with telephone, online and Skype training it would no longer be necessary to visit all employers to give on-site training. This would require some investment. 55% of data is now provided electronically. The revised Administration Strategy, which would be presented to the Committee in September, would play an important part in promoting more effective working.

The Vice-Chair asked whether there was adequate support for the Fund’s IT systems. The Head of Business, Finance and Pensions replied that there were very few suppliers providing software for LGPS funds. The Fund probably used more products from Heywood than other LGPS funds. Heywood supplies the member portal and the employer portal. He was quite confident that a system could be built that would efficiently and economically serve members and employers. The alternative would be to invest significantly in an alternative system, as one fund had unsuccessfully tried to do before reverting to their previous supplier.

A Member commented that the academies issue was not going to get any easier, and wondered whether a dedicated person or other resource might be provided to deal with them. The Head of Business, Finance and Pensions responded that one way forward might be to acknowledge that the academies would not be able to cope with pensions work and for the Fund to do it for them and charge them for it. However, this raised issues about the Fund’s independence and how it could avoid conflicts of interest.

A Member noted that the member address rectification project had been outsourced and asked whether there was potential for outsourcing other work. The Head of Business, Finance and Pensions replied that the member address project was a small discrete piece of work; outsourcing major functions was more problematic. In the first place there were few suppliers in the market place, so there was limited scope for major outsourcing. Some funds had shared services, like Devon and Somerset, and on the whole he thought this would be a better option. A Member said that he believed outsourcing would be a serious error in the light of the recent problems experienced by major providers of outsourced services. In addition, outsourcing would lead to a loss of control of administration by the Fund. There was sufficient turbulence to the Fund caused by the establishment of Brunel, so it would be very unwise to add to it by outsourcing any administrative functions.

The Investments Manager said that because of the costs of Brunel, there would be no savings on the investment side this year, but work was being done nationally on how to analyse and disclose the costs of pooling. The Head of Business, Finance and Pensions said that an increase in investment managers’ fees had to be expected in a buoyant market.

A Member referred to the Budget and Cash Flow Forecast on agenda page 61, and noted that the table had a line for investment income received as cash and one for divestments, and a statement that one of the sources for net cash requirements would be divestments. This made him wonder how the gap between the Fund’s income and the amount paid out in pensions would ever be closed. The Investments Manager pointed out that deficit recovery was another source of income. A significant portion of deficit contributions from employers were received as lump sums in year 1 and were invested. The deficit contributions would make the Fund cash neutral over the valuation period. Cash income could be received from the low-carbon portfolio. Income is also received from other investment manager mandates, but this is reinvested by the managers. Marginal divestment would be required from time to time to maintain cash flow.

A Member asked about the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation. The Head of Business, Finance and Pensions said that there was a cross-Council project on this. It was a requirement that there should be a central register recording all information transfers and how they are controlled. Arrangements were supposed to be in place by 25^th May, but few organisations will achieve this deadline. The important thing is that there should be a project plan; this will be presented to the Pension Board in May or July and will come to the Committee thereafter. 

RESOLVED to approve the 3-Year Service Plan and Budget for 2018-21 for the Avon Pension Fund.

To consider applications for grants to provide community transport services in 2018-19

The Cabinet Member agrees that, under authority delegated by the West of England Combined Authority (WECA), the funding proposals in Appendix 2 to the Report be approved and implemented.

Approve the secured funding for the period of the project to March 2021 enabling implementation of the above work packages.

The Cabinet Member agrees that Option 1 the preferred option is approved and adopted.  This covers the following:-

Approve the fully secured GULW funding of £776,158 for the period of the project to March 2021 which will enable the above work packages to be implemented.  The GULW Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) scheme is a provisionally approved item on the 2017/18 capital programme.

Approve the secured funding for the period of the GULW project to March 2021 which will support the conversion of Council fleet vehicles to Ultra Low Emission Vehicles.

The Cabinet Member agrees that Option 1 the preferred option is approved and adopted.  The Option one was to:

Approve expenditure using the fully secured GULW funding of £136k for the period of the project to March 2021 which will enable the conversion of up to 17 of the Council’s fleet to ULEVs.  As the appropriate capital schemes come forward for approval this funding will be transferred to those programme items.