To receive apologies for absence (to include reasons, where appropriate) from Members/Officers

Apologies for absence were received from the following Members for the reasons as given:-

Councillor J McCarthy – Prior engagement

Councillor Y Nott – Constituency business

Councillor D Sage – Medical appointment

To receive declarations of personal and prejudicial interest (if any) from Members/Officers in accordance with the provisions of the Members’ Code of Conduct adopted by Council from 1 September 2008

All Members present at the meeting other than Councillors R Williams, A Davies and C R Griffiths, declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5., entitled Town and Community Council Fund 2015-16, in that they were either County Borough Councillors, Town/Community Councillors or both, and had an indirect interest in Projects either approved in 2014/15 or proposed (by way of bids) in 2015/16, in their Wards.

To receive for approval the Minutes of a meeting of the Town and Community Council Forum dated 30 March 2015

RESOLVED:                       That the Minutes of a meeting of the Town and Community Council Forum dated 30 March 2015, be approved as a true and accurate record.

The Corporate Director – Communities submitted a report, the purpose of which, was to advise the Forum of the current School Crossing Patrol (SCP’s) Policy and Site Assessment Criteria.

By way of background information, the Head of Neighbourhood Services confirmed that there were around 24 permanent SCP’s employed by BCBC, with no relief SCP’s employed at the present time. Both the recruitment and retention of these employees had proven difficult, including those occupying relief positions, especially since the removal of a retention payment that had been previously given.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services explained that there were 39 SCP sites, though a few of these were historical sites and needed to be investigated further to determine their exact status and ascertain if they were still required or could be considered for disestablishment.

He then referred Members to Paragraph 3.4 of the report, which gave details of the pertinent pieces of legislation that were relevant in respect of School Crossing Patrols.

Paragraph 3.5 of the report confirmed that while local authorities could appoint School Crossing Patrol Officers at SCP’s, it was not a legal/statutory requirement to do so. These Officers however, if appointed, did have the power to stop traffic, with those drivers that failed to do so facing a fine, penalty points on their driving licence or a possible disqualification under the Road Traffic Act 1984. In terms of children crossing SCP’s the onus was on their parents or guardians to ensure they did safely.

As detailed in the Road Safety GB School Crossing Patrol Service Guidelines, consideration of the provision or disestablishment of SCP’s in any given location should be carefully thought through, and appraisals conducted of the different sites, should be carried out objectively and be capable of withstanding challenge or criticism. Guidance that should be followed represents best practice, but as confirmed above, is not statutory. Details of site assessment criteria etc, was detailed in Appendix 1 to the report.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services recognised that the removal of an SCP could cause some unrest in the community within which it is situate, however, if it did not meet the criterial laid down by the necessary guidelines then the funding for the continued provision of this could be met by the appropriate Town/Community Council or Community group, though the SCP would still require to be employed by BCBC but funded for by the community.

A Member referred to page 12 of the report and some additional factors that should be taken on board when considering Site Assessment Criteria for the provision or disestablishment of a SCP. He noted these factors, however, he added that inspections of sites should not only be carried out as a ‘one-off spot check’, but a few times ie at different times of the day, as traffic is busier at certain times of the day at certain locations as opposed to others. He added that the appropriate Town/Community Council should also be advised when a survey is undertaken, as a form  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

The Corporate Director – Resources submitted a report, the purpose of which, was to bring to the attention of the Town and Community Council Forum the capital allocation for Community projects for 2015/16 as identified in the Capital Programme.

By way of background information, the Finance Manager – Communities and Corporate referred Members to Paragraph 3.1 of the report which outlined in bullet point format, the criteria followed for the allocation of this fund, as approved by Cabinet.

Future reviews of the criteria for allocation of this fund would be reported to both Cabinet and the Forum in due course.

The Finance Manager – Communities and Corporate then referred Members to Paragraph 3.2 of the report, which outlined a Table (1) that provided an update on all the historic projects approved in 2014/15, upon which she gave an update on their status.

She then explained that in terms of the present situation, bids for the allocation of the 2015/16 budget (£50k), were invited from all Town/Community Councils, and the following projects have been submitted and were detailed in Table 2 of the report, entitled ‘Bids Received 2015/16’.

Table 2 included the Total Project Cost of all the total number of bids received, and this amounted to somewhere between £202,464 - £217,464, of which a total of £84,992 had been committed by the local authority. The paragraph that followed this Table ie 4.2 gave a more detailed description of the bids and the type of work being provided as part of the respective bids.

The Finance Manager – Communities and Corporate concluded her submission, by confirming that a detailed review of spend against allocation on projects between 2008/09 and 2011/12, identified an underspend of £35,356. She explained however, that Cabinet had approved to utilise this underspend to meet the shortfall against projects submitted in 2015/16 (£34,992). Furthermore, funding had now been approved for all the projects as detailed in the report.

Members positively acknowledged the financial commitment made by the Authority for the Community Projects as detailed in the report, which they felt would be invaluable to the various communities they served.

A Member felt that the manner within which funding was being contributed by the local authority for such Projects was a very effective use of budgeting through a type of match funding style. He asked however, if there was any possibility of the Cabinet considering an increase in the budget allocation for future such Community Projects for the next financial year and beyond.

The Chairperson (and Leader) advised that consideration would be given to this in terms of the overall budget. He agreed that the funding was excellent in that it allowed for Town/Community Councils to develop different schemes that they felt were required and would be of benefit in their own community.

RESOLVED:                              That the report be noted.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report, which informed the Town and Community Council Forum of items that may be considered at future meetings as part of the Forward Work Programme (FWP).

These items were outlined in Appendix A to the report.

The Chairperson (and Leader) urged representatives of the Town and Community Council Forum to write to the Democratic Services Section at a future date, should they wish for any further items to be considered for placing on the Committee FWP.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer – Committees reiterated this, adding that any items to be considered as part of any future business of the Forum, should satisfy the terms of remit of the Committee, which was “items of mutual interest to both tiers of Authority”

RESOLVED:                           That the report be noted.

To consider any other item(s) of business in respect of which notice has been given in accordance with Rule 4 of the Council Procedure Rules and which the person presiding at the meeting is of the opinion should by reason of special circumstances be transacted at the meeting as a matter of urgency

There were no urgent items

The meeting closed at 4.54pm