These minutes shall remain draft until confirmed at the next meeting of the Panel.
BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL
ENTERPRISE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL
Tuesday 9th September 2008
PRESENT-: Councillors: Colin Darracott, Peter Edwards, Richard Maybury Dine Romero, Martin Veal (Chairman) and Brook Whelan
Apologies: Councillor Nigel Roberts
Also in attendance: Peter Rowntree (Director, Customer Services), Jeremy Smalley (Divisional Director - Development & Regeneration), Derek Quilter (Divisional Director - Project Management), Tom McBain (Divisional Director - Property), Rhodri Samuel (Regeneration Manager), Tony Crouch (World Heritage Manager), Susan Bowen (Funding and Programme Manager), David Trigwell (Divisional Director: Planning & Transport Development), Peter Dawson (Group Manager, Planning Policy & Transport), David Lawrence (Divisional Director - Tourism, Leisure & Culture) and Adrian Clarke (Transportation Planning Manager).
Councillor Charles Gerrish: Cabinet Member for Customer Services.
Councillor David Hawkins: Cabinet Member for Development and Major Projects.
External Contributors: Colin Skellett, Andrew Cooper and Mohammed Saddiq (Future Bath Plus)
116 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.
117 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE
The Chairman drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda.
118 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Apologies were received from Councillor Nigel Roberts and Councillor Bryan Chalker.
120 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr Whelan declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest as an employee of Capita Symonds with regard to Item 8.
Cllr Veal declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest as Vice-Chairman of Bath Tourism Plus with regard to Items 11 and 14.
121 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIRMAN
There was none.
122 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COUNCILLORS - TO RECEIVE DEPUTATIONS, STATEMENTS, PETITIONS OR QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THIS MEETING
There were none at this point in the meeting, although a number of members of the public had registered to speak regarding Agenda Items 12 and 15 and would do so directly before those items were debated.
123 MINUTES: TUESDAY 15TH JULY 2008, TUESDAY 15TH JULY 2008 (EXEMPT) AND THURSDAY 21ST AUGUST 2008
These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments to the minutes of Thursday 21st August 2008:
The fifth paragraph under Item 7 (Regional Spatial Strategy) should begin `Councillor Dine Romero said that there were no adjustments for the economic climate of the area at this moment in time.'
124 MAJOR PROJECTS ROUTINE REPORT
The Divisional Director for Development & Regeneration introduced this item to the Panel. He in formed them that a number of studies had been completed recently to progress work on the Core Strategy options and the Regeneration Delivery Plans for Bath, Keynsham and the Somer Valley.
The Chairman asked at this point if any discussions were ongoing with the owners of the Old King Edwards School site.
The Divisional Director for Development & Regeneration replied that it had not been possible to make contact recently.
The Divisional Director for Property added that the Council were making attempts to engage with the owners at the highest level, but without any current success.
Councillor Colin Darracott urged the officers to be strong on this issue as a scheme is required to move forward.
He then asked what if any funding was available to the work on the Public Realm.
The Divisional Director for Property replied that the Property Options Review identified a clear strategy detailing the means by which the Council could access capital funding over the next ten to fifteen years for approved schemes.
Councillor Colin Darracott felt that land owners of all sizes could benefit from Public Realm improvements and called upon organisations such as Future Bath Plus to bring land owners together.
The Divisional Director for Development & Regeneration replied that he felt this would be a very good idea.
The Chairman asked if the Flood Risk Strategic Policy had been formed and delivered and did it include areas such as the prospective Park & Ride scheme.
The Divisional Director for Development & Regeneration replied that it had been completed and that work was now ongoing with the Planning department with regard to the mitigation strategy. This will include the proposed sites for a new Park & Ride.
The Panel RESOLVED to note the contents of the report.
125 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
The Panel RESOLVED that, having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, and 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 because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended.
126 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT MEMBER CHAMPION'S STATEMENT
The World Heritage Manager was present for this item in the absence of Councillor Bryan Chalker.
The Panel thanked Councillor Chalker for writing the statement and commented that maybe in future years it could include more aspects of North East Somerset.
The Panel RESOLVED to note the statement.
127 COUNCIL FUNDING TO EXTERNAL BODIES
The Funding and Programme Manager was present for this item.
Councillor Colin Darracott wished to congratulate the report author on the content of the report. He did feel though that this issue is still a problem area of the Council and that there should be more options to oversee Council spending. He recalled that last year the cuts in Arts funding were a real issue and that therefore value for money must be assured. He suggested that this did not necessarily have to be carried out formally, but could be achieved through some workshops.
The Chairman agreed that allowing more scrutiny to this subject area would be a good idea.
Councillor Colin Darracott added that it would allow Members to gain confidence and input into the process.
The Funding and Programme Manager felt that the current process was inclusive of Members, but that quite a number of smaller grants can sometimes be attached to larger agreements. She added that there is a monitoring process that is rigorously implemented.
Councillor Dine Romero asked if all Members invited to procurement presentations.
The Funding and Programme Manager replied that only Portfolio Holders are invited.
Councillor Dine Romero replied that she felt all Members should be invited on areas that affect the whole community.
Councillor Richard Maybury felt that Members could become involved in areas where the grants are discretionary.
Councillor Colin Darracott agreed and suggested that the subject of discretionary grants to third parties should be added as a future workplan item for the Panel
The Panel RESOLVED to agree with this proposal.
128 BATH PACKAGE FEASIBILITY - PANEL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC STATEMENT
The Chairman introduced this item by reminding the Panel and those members of the public present of the statement made by Mr Bryn Jones to the 11th March 2008 meeting.
A number of registered speakers then addressed the Panel. A summary of their statements follows (Full copies are available on the Panel's Minute Book).
Mr Peter Davis:
It is my concern that the leaflets issued to the public include some gross mistakes, which seriously mislead residents - and which may have already misled the Cabinet to misdirect some of its £3m expenditure in this financial year on site investigations, design works and borrowing.
I therefore want to speak about the false claims in the leaflet on an Eastern Park and Ride, in particular about costs and the alternative site at Charmy Down. I think the Cabinet is quite right to reject the site at Lambridge, and I applaud that decision, but, of the two alternatives to Lambridge, officers may have chosen the wrong one.
I intend to show that the officers' costings for it are so flawed as to make their conclusions totally unsafe. To do this, I've used information from within B&NES and also from Batheaston Parish Council (which has commissioned research into a Park and Ride at Charmy Down).
The officers seem to have made three easy but fatal mistakes. One was to follow the wrong sequence in their assessment - if instead of asking first "What's the cheapest site?", they'd asked "Which sites are most environmentally damaging?", they might not have wasted any more time and money in looking at a site on Bathampton Meadows.
The second mistake was to assume that all other Park and Ride sites would cost as much to lay out as one on Bathampton Meadows. Not so. For example, the Charmy Down site is set in a shallow bowl on one of Bath's hills and on a disused ex-field. It is therefore out of sight of Bath to all but a handful of houses. So it doesn't need an expensive terminal building - a very simple rustic terminal is much more appropriate. As an ex-airfield, it already has its level roads and runways, whereas Bathampton Meadows has nothing. Furthermore, Bathampton Meadows would seemingly cost the Council much more to operate, in terms of buses and their crews, than Charmy Down unless it had a dedicated bus lane up to the A4/A46 roundabout, and, during the all-important peak hours, a bus lane there would be largely ineffective unless a new, vastly expensive, bridge was also built over the Avon.
The third mistake was in not confirming the right position of the Charmy Down access, as stated to officers, and the identity of the landowners. And it is not the case that land at Bathampton Meadows is "free" and that land elsewhere would have to be paid for, since the land relinquished at the Meadows would bring in funds to pay for land purchase elsewhere.
The claim, at para 4.4 of the officers' report that "The Council has now conducted a review of key aspects of the Bath Transportation Package and the results have been published" may be true, but clearly their key review of Charmy Down is totally unsafe.
I therefore ask the Panel to reject the report before them and to make a strong recommendation that the enactment of E1851 should explicitly exclude item 2.5 until cost data has been publicly proven and the matter has subsequently been reviewed by the Cabinet members responsible, and that their decision comes back to the Panel at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Steve Mackerness:
I wish to express concerns regarding this agenda item and in particular I make reference to the leaflet entitled Tackling Congestion: Park & Ride East.
You are being asked (Paragraph 4.3 of the officers' report) to substitute a site off Batheaston bypass for the previous site at Lambridge in the Department for Transport submission of the Bath Transport Package.
I am concerned that if you were to do so based on the information that you have been given - you would be committing a serious error which will be both highly embarrassing, but more importantly, detrimental to the further progress of the Bath Transportation Package - which as we might all agree is crucial for the future of transportation needs in Bath & North East Somerset.
I wish to bring three particular items to your attention.
1. The very large cost discrepancy reported in the leaflet - regarding comparison of construction costs for the preferred Batheaston P&R site and the Charmy Down site. Unless and until this discrepancy is reconciled - it would seem most prudent to NOT formalise the proposed site substitution. In addition to other criticisms levelled at these calculations today, I suggest that if a P&R site were constructed at Charmy Down, it would be a major draw for traffic travelling south on the A46 - and it therefore brings into question the need to expand Lansdown P&R, which is the target for such traffic today.
My point, therefore, is that if it were found that a site at Charmy Down obviated the need to expand Lansdown or Newbridge, then the anticipated costs of expanding these sites should be recognised as an `extra under' item for the Charmy Down location.
2. The additional expandability of the Charmy Down site has not been properly taken into account in the `extra over' calculations. Since Charmy Down could be built to accommodate any number of vehicles up to (say) 3,000 - it is disingenuous to simply calculate the average cost per vehicle based on the 1,200 spaces in the original (now withdrawn) planning application.
3. Finally, the admission that B&NES had no knowledge of the landowners at Charmy Down defies belief. As was noted in many of the letters to the Chronicle, it only serves to indicate that the review which is claimed to have been made of the Charmy Down alternative, was anything but thorough.
I suggest that this Panel rejects the recommendation contained within the report - until such time as a) modelling work is performed to show that Lansdown expansion is required if Charmy Down were selected; and b) these matters have been thoroughly reviewed by Cabinet Members, - with costings agreed with the previous Charmy Down applicant. To do otherwise is fraught with potential for serious and embarrassing consequences for the Bath Transportation Package.
Mr David Batho (Statement read by Mr Sydney Fremantle):
In respect of the A4 (Batheaston) P&R proposal it is a matter of fact that prior to the recent evaluation of P&R options by B&NES, a P&R there had already been evaluated and rejected by the 2004 Bristol Bath to South Coast Study (BB2SC) which was commissioned by Government Office for the South West (GOSW). In the final report it stated "....that a large adverse impact on the landscape can be expected. At this location, the site would be very visually prominent and would require extensive mitigation measures that are likely to affect the character of the local area"....
It is clear that this major 2004 study into Bath transportation options, which was co-sponsored and co-steered by B&NES Council, rejected the A4 (Batheaston) P&R option which B&NES is now proposing. Given that nothing has changed significantly since 2004, are the conclusions of the study now really considered to be flawed?
If they are not then -
- The proposed P&R site appears not to be viable and
- The Panel should therefore invite the Cabinet to reconsider making further investment of the public resources into an already rejected scheme which would have, in the words of the BB2SC Study, 'serious adverse environmental impacts'.
Mr Sydney Fremantle):
Early in 1991, Air Vice-Marshall Sir Michael Giddings, at the conclusion of his Public Inquiry, ruled against having a link between the A36 and the Batheaston By-pass, at the site now proposed by the Cabinet for a Park and Ride facility, even though it would have led to a reduction in traffic along the London Road. He concluded that it was 93intolerable in its landscape impact and devastating to recreational amenity94.
The Report commissioned by the B&NES Council from Halcrow Fox rejected a Park and Ride at the site now proposed as 93its position is such that its visual impact would be significant94.
Both the Steer Davies Gleave Report of April 2000, and the Environmental Statement for Lambridge of December 2002 prepared by Nicholas Pearson, accepted and adopted the Halcrow Fox conclusions. So five independent studies, looking in depth at development proposals on Bathampton Meadows, all agree with the Government assessment reported by Mr Batho.
Batheaston commuters, by bus as well as by car, probably suffer the most from the traffic congestion by the A46/A4 roundabout and on the London Road. So they would gain most from a park and ride sited before the start of that congestion. However, a recent complete survey of all the 2164 residents on the electoral roll of Batheaston found that while a definite majority of respondents favoured a park and ride at Charmy Down, a massive 85% opposed a park and ride in the Bathampton Meadows.
I hope the Panel will urge the Cabinet to review the proposal to build a park and ride in the Meadows and to look properly at the advantages of Charmy Down. The site there is partially visible from only 4 houses, rather than about 4,000. The financial cost of a park and ride there looks likely to be lower than one on the Meadows - and the environmental costs would be vastly less.
Mr David Robins, Chairman of Batheaston Parish Council Planning Committee:
In the light of the B&NES Statement of Community Involvement under the 2004 Act I have serious reservations about the validity of the procedures being followed B&NES in respect of the Bathampton Meadows proposal. The modified Local Plan as approved last year deleted Policy T21 and changed T22 to read,
The Council will safeguard land shown on the Proposals Map for purposes at Lambridge, Bath, adjacent (to) the A4. The expansion of existing Park and Ride schemes or the development of additional sites will be permitted if there is no unacceptable impact on:
- i. the environment with particular reference to the policies relating to the Green Belt, AONBs, the open countryside, the WHS and the need to minimise light pollution;
- ii. agricultural, nature conservation, water environment and archaeological interests;
- iii. the amenities of local residents;
- iv. other public transport provision;
- v. the surrounding road network and its capacity to safely accommodate potential traffic generation and, in addition;
- provision is made for the need of those with impaired mobility and for the safety and security of all users.
There are obviously serious objections to B&NES's interpretation of `no unacceptable' in relation to (i). I think likely that the hatching of the proposal in an atmosphere of profound secrecy has run counter to the expected procedure in the Local Development Framework (LDF) system.
Bathampton Meadows is arguably the most significant development affecting East Bath. Admittedly, we are still in the gestation period of the LDF but there is no doubt that Bathampton Meadows represents a departure from the recently-approved Local Plan which will necessitate its reference to the Secretary of State if it becomes the subject of a formal planning application.
My conclusion is that the District Council has taken an unduly cavalier view of the scope of its responsibilty to consult under the 2004 Act and its own Statement of Community Involvement.
Mr Tony McCann:
I fully support the comments made by Batheaston Parish Council. The site at Charmy Down has only been discussed superficially and I urge the Panel to reject the recommendation within the current report until new data regarding the site has been published.
Jo McCarron:
I wish to address the Panel with regard to the Bath Rapid Transit element of the Bath Package.
I believe it is impossible for Councillors to make informed decisions on this route without a full and rigorous study of the economic and developmental impact the route will have. I do not believe a satisfactory study has been conducted of these matters. I urge the Panel to request a full and independent study of the economic and developmental impact of the route, to be conducted by independent experts not associated with the proponents of the route.
The future economic development of Bath does not rest on this particular route being implemented and there are several other ways in which parking and congestion issues could be addressed - including a route down the Lower Bristol Road.
As residents our main objection to the route is that it will threaten the viability of Newbridge and Lower Weston as a living environment. The impact on directly affected households will be severe and should on its own be sufficient reason not to proceed with the proposed route.
The route will impact on the viability of the area in a number of ways:
- Property values immediately adjacent to the route will certainly be negatively affected and local estate agents indicate that this is already the case. This will combine with the impact of the credit crunch to impose a very difficult economic burden on many householders.
- The route will form an impenetrable physical barrier along the length of the neighbourhood - leading to segregation and division of the community.
The proposed route will lead to expropriation of a number of viable and long established businesses. I believe the Panel should be addressing the following questions:
- Have Councillors seen a full and detailed assessment of how the route would impact on businesses in the area?
- What will be the full cost of Compulsory Purchase Orders, relocation costs and other forms of compensation for businesses along the route?
The green space which would be lost offers a significant opportunity to develop and improve a high quality environment for the benefit of the whole community. I urge Councillors to require a full investigation of the potential alternative uses of this land as this should be a key consideration in future development plans.
Alison Millar:
Sloping of the Bathampton Meadows would have a serious effect on the development and be prone to flooding. It would also become a highly congested area of traffic.
There has been no mention so far in the leaflets provided of the impact the proposed scheme will have on the landscape.
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development responded to the statements made. He spoke of how the Department for Transport had approved the Package and how it had achieved programme entry in October 2007 following a rigorous business case being established.
He felt that the need for improvement was unquestioned and that completion of the Package may take up to 20 years.
It is unfortunate however that the greater benefits for the majority of the Council will have an adverse effect on the minority - we do understand the public concerns though.
The Council has received a Regional Funding Allocation from the Government for the Package which required a submission of bids against other Councils.
As with any developer the Council will need to submit a Planning Application for elements of the Package and Environment, Economic and Transport studies will need to be carried out. Public consultation will also take place as part of these processes and will be taken under consideration by the Council.
The Chairman asked if he could give an assurance that comments from this meeting will be taken on board?
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development replied that would be the case and that to have this dialogue opened up between the Parishes is welcomed.
He added that the Development Control Committee will also need to understand these concerns and he hoped to address some of the concerns in the period of pre-application.
With regard to Charmy Down the specialist consultants that have been enlisted are happy with the scope of the detail at the present time.
If substantial amendments to the Park & Ride scheme were required then an additional application would have to be made to the Government for funding - under the new system the Council would have to contribute 10% of the cost of that new scheme.
The Group Manager for Planning Policy & Transport added that cost was not the only concern when considering the proposals. Even if the site at Charmy Down did prove to cost less it would not be an appropriate site on the grounds that it would add an extra 10 miles on the journey in some cases for the public.
Councillor Dine Romero asked if all other options had been truly considered and specifically why could the scheme not be built at Charmy Down?
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development replied that there would be a large cost implication to the Council if the scheme had to be re-applied for on a different site. Any significant change would more than likely lead the Government to ask for the scheme to be re-applied for. The Council would then have to make a 10% contribution to the cost of the scheme and given that the present one is set at around A354m that would mean a A35.4m contribution.
The average distance of the journey to the site is also a real factor in the placement of the scheme.
Tony McCann stated that he believed there could be up to a 50% difference in the cost quoted for the scheme at Charmy Down. He asked if that was the case then the information should be published.
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development replied that he would be happy to share information with the public. He added that regular discussions do take place with the Department for Transport regarding the scheme.
Steve Mackerness also stated that he believed Charmy Down would cost less than Bathampton Meadows and asked the Council engages with the Parishes for further discussions.
The Chairman suggested that concerned parties met for further discussions within the next 10 days and he asked to be personally notified if this were not able to happen.
A member of the public asked if the value of the visual / environmental impact had been assessed yet.
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development replied that it had not been assessed yet and that the cost for mitigation would be hard to judge.
Councillor Peter Edwards asked Mr Fremantle how many responses he had received to his survey to achieve the figure of 85% against the proposed scheme.
Mr Fremantle replied that the reponse to the survey was around 60% which equated to around 1,100 people.
Councillor Colin Darracott asked if there was any discretion to amend the scheme without the need to re-apply.
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development replied that no, there was not.
Councillor Darracot then wished to summarise the debate. He felt that it was clear that at either end of the Package there were two options that were open for further discussion. The Park & Ride: Mill Lane / Charmy Down and the Bath Rapid Transit: New purpose built road / expansion of the Lower Bristol Road.
Park & Ride: Will Charmy Down be used by a significant amount of the public against the other option of Mill Lane?
Bath Rapid Transit: Has the option to improve access along the Lower Bristol Road been properly assessed?
These issues must be brought into the public domain.
The Chairman proposed the following recommendation:
(1) The Panel agrees to note the officer report and the many challenges to the public documents on the prposals for a Park & Ride to the East of Bath.
(2) The Panel asks that officers consult further with the Parishes on the issue of the Park & Ride to the East of Bath.
(3) The Panel asks that any new evidence regarding the proposals for Park & Ride to the East of Bath and the Bath Rapid Transit scheme are placed in the public domain.
The Panel RESOLVED to agree unanimously with these recommendations.
The Divisional Director for Planning & Transport Development wished to add that a meeting is scheduled to take place with the Parishes in around a weeks time and he hoped that the outcomes of this meeting would be able to be presented to the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview & Scrutiny Panel that is due to meet on September 25th 2008 where this item will be discussed further.
It is hoped that a Planning Application will be submitted for the Park & Ride scheme to the Development Control Committee by the end of the year - consultation with the public will be a part of this process. The final proposals for the scheme should be in place in November and the public will be allowed to comment fully on these proposals.
129 BT PHONE BOXES - PROPOSED CLOSURES
The Chairman introduced this item by reading two e-mails from BT which asked for further clarification of the views of the Council. It also stated that while waiting for confirmation it had commenced proceedings for the recovery of 21 payphones and logged objections to 19 removals.
The Chairman also challenged the lack of information that had been provided in relation to 999 usage of the boxes in question.
Councillor Peter Edwards informed the Panel that he had heard of a Parish Council that wished to preserve one of the red phone boxes (K2) - The Parish Council were told by BT that it would cost A31,300 to decommission the box.
The Chairman suggested that all issues regarding the preservation of K2 boxes be referred to the Historic Environment Member Champion. Councillor Peter Edwards agreed.
The Chairman proposed that he write a further letter to all Parishes and Ofcom with support from the Equalities Officer in an effort to save as many boxes as possible.
The Panel RESOLVED to agree with this proposal.
130 FUTURE BATH PLUS LTD
Colin Skellett, Andrew Cooper and Mohammed Saddiq representing Future Bath Plus were present for this item and gave a presentation to the Panel (a full copy of which can be found on the Panel's Minute Book).
Colin Skellet introduced the presentation and informed the Panel of the structure of the organisation. Future Bath Plus is a company limited by guarantee and has two owners, Bath & North East Somerset Council and The Chamber of Commerce and Initiative. It has four public sector directors and eight private sector directors. The company will focus on City Centre Management for Bath and Tourism and Festival support for Bath & North East Somerset.
Mohammed Saddiq then addressed the Panel on the issue of City Centre Management. He spoke of how the company has achieved a minimum of A350k a year for three years from the private sector and that this has been matched by the Council. A partnership board has been created from a broad coalition of public and private representation. Andrew Cooper was appointed as City Centre Manager in May 2008.
Colin Skellet stated that one of the aims for the City Centre is to install a high quality public toilet facility. An overall clean up of the City Centre should be considered from the centre outwards.
The Chairman asked what provision was being made for toilets with regard to the Christmas Market.
Andrew Cooper replied that they would be working with retail businesses to gain better public access to their toilets.
The Chairman asked if a temporary facility could be provided.
Colin Skellet agreed with this suggestion.
Colin Skellett addressed the Panel on the subject of Culture. He stated that the independence of existing festivals should remain unchanged. Future Bath Plus will have an influence on funding of the cultural activity within Bath & North East Somerset and offer common support for festivals, eg planning, traffic management, banners etc.
Councillor Colin Darracott commented that the structure of the company needs strength and power. Bath Tourism Plus needs to be on board, the City Centre Manager needs to identify where quick wins can be achieved and that it should be noted that the work surrounding the issue of Culture will be substantial.
Colin Skellet concluded the item by asking three questions of the Council. Why does the Park & Ride currently close on a Sunday? When will there be a definitive solution to the Coach Strategy? When will homelessness within the City be fully tackled?
The Panel thanked all three representatives for attending and for giving the presentation.
131 COACH STRATEGY - UPDATE (CHRISTMAS MARKET)
The Divisional Director for Tourism, Leisure & Culture introduced this item to the Panel. He stated that next year this must be included within an overall parking strategy for the Council. He added that since the publication of the report a further option has been proposed, the use of Colerne Airfield on either the middle weekend of the Christmas Market or for the full period of the market. Should this option not come to fruition I would ask that we revert to last years plan of around the city parking.
The Chairman commented that he wished for a solution to this problem to be in place a lot earlier next year.
Councillor Colin Darracott stated he preferred Option 1(Bath Race Course) as stated in the report . He felt that every solution would have its problems, but to have them within the City would be awful.
Annette Martin from Bath Aqua Glass addressed the Panel. She spoke of the need to have a dedicated site outside of the City Centre that enabled drivers access to proper rest facilities and refreshments. This would then enable the drivers to rest adequately for longer which in turn allow visitors to spend a longer time within the City.
Councillor Peter Edwards gave his support in attempting to use Colerne Airfield.
The Chairman commented that ultimately an all year round coach park should be incorporated as part of a Park & Ride scheme to the East of Bath.
The Panel RESOLVED to agree that their preferred option was to use Colerne Airfield as a Coach Park for the duration of the Christmas Market and urged officers to act upon this as soon as possible.
Option 1 (Bath Race Course) within the report would be their second choice with Option 2 (Centre and vicinity) becoming their third choice.
132 SAFECAM - WEST OF ENGLAND ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP
The Transportation Planning Manager introduced this item to the Panel. He informed them that in 2006 the change in government funding for safety camera enforcement and other road safety initiatives through direct Road Safety Grant rather than through speeding fines resulted in the creation of the West of England Road Safety Partnership.
The West of England Road Safety Partnership involves a range of partners to help reduce road accident casualties, including Safecam, which is responsible for camera enforcement, publicity and the Speedchoice road safety workshops. Bath & North East Somerset Council currently contributes A3162,449 towards Safecam from its total annual Road Safety Grant allocation of A3302,667 in 2007/8.
The change in emphasis away from simply speed enforcement towards driver education and training made possible by the creation of Road Safety Partnerships has significantly changed the way Safecam operates. Drivers who marginally exceed the speed limit are now offered a half day speed awareness course as an alternative to being issued with speeding fines and penalty points on their licence. This training programme has been particularly successful and there are now plans to introduce a national speed awareness course.
The Panel RESOLVED to note the report.
133 PANEL FUTURE WORKPLAN
The Chairman introduced this item to the Panel. He asked that they look at the proposed list of items attached to the workplan and discuss their allocation to a specific meeting.
Councillor Colin Darracott proposed that the following items listed under Future Items could be grouped together and discussed at the January meeting of the Panel: Arts Funding, Cultural Strategy & Funding, and Economy of Bath & North East Somerset Creative Industries.
The Panel RESOLVED to agree with this proposal.
The meeting finished at 4.00pm.
Chairman.
Date confirmed and signed