To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Harlow.

None.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2017.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive questions from members of the public.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Monday 11 December 2017.

Accepted questions will be published as a supplement prior to the meeting.

Please see https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/getinvolved for information on how to submit a question.

Questions received and responses given are attached as appendix 1 to the minutes.

To receive questions from councillors.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Monday 11 December 2017.

Accepted questions will be published as a supplement prior to the meeting.

Please submit questions to: councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk.

No questions were received from councillors for this meeting.

To consider consultation feedback and confirm next steps of delivery of the South Wye Transport Package (SWTP) Active Travel Measures (ATM).

The cabinet member infrastructure introduced the item. The purpose of the report was to consider the feedback received to the consultation on the south wye transport package active travel measures and to seek approval for the next steps towards delivery of these measures. A list of proposed schemes was put forward for specific consultation from 12 September 2016. The questionnaire was well responded to and there was a high level of support for the measures, with some scoring higher than others. The cabinet member noted that some of the measures would be able to be implemented ahead of the construction of the southern link road while others would have to come after. Funding had been achieved through the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) of £27m within a budget of £35m. The strategic outline case put to the LEP in the bid for funding estimated the cost of the southern link road in the region of £29.75m with public realm schemes at £3m and cycle and walking schemes at £2m. As the detail of the road and active travel measures were developed further these estimates would be updated and presented in the full business case for the project, which would be signed off by the Department for Transport (DfT).

The head of infrastructure delivery summarised the purpose of the report and the outcomes of the consultation into the active travel measures. She noted that other suggestions had come forward in the response to the consultation other than those specifically consulted on. These suggestions would be evaluated alongside the options actually consulted on. 

The cabinet member for finance, housing and corporate services noted that the ATMs within the development would enhance the lives and health of residents in the areas which were affected. He asked for more details of those measures which might be brought forward ahead of the SLR and an idea of the timescales involved in their delivery. The head of infrastructure delivery responded that a number of the measures consulted on did not rely on the SLR for implementation such as a wider implementation of 20mph limits in residential zones, improvements along Holme Lacy Road and some other routes remote from Belmont Road. The analysis needed to move forward these schemes could be completed within a 12 month period.

Group leaders were invited to give the views of their group.

The leader of the Its Our County group thanked officers for the detailed data provided and relayed the following points:

·         disappointment regarding the lack of recognition for the strongly supported alternative proposals, in particular for a light tram system and park and ride provision; the intention to evaluate these suggestions alongside the options in the consultation was noted and the group asked that due weight be given to the strongly supported and excellent suggestions;

·         whether it would be possible to apply any 20mph restriction for residential zones to the whole city rather than area by area;

·         a desire to see the active travel measures delivered before the SLR  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To approve the allocation of budget to deliver the mobilisation phase of the procurement programme following the appointment of a developer to work in partnership with the council in delivering the development and regeneration programme.

The cabinet member contracts and assets introduced the item. He noted that the past months had been spent evaluating a preferred development partner for the development and regeneration programme (DRP). The report currently before cabinet was to support the finalisation of the contract and set out the costs involved.

The programme director housing and growth summarised the report. He highlighted that:

·         in June 2016 cabinet decided to carry out a procurement exercise to identify a strategic development partner;

·         the objective of the programme was to achieve maximum benefit for the council from the land and assets it owned, particularly in relation to economic and housing growth;

·         many authorities across the country were going through similar processes;

·         in July 2017 cabinet approved a recommendation to appoint Keepmoat Homes as the preferred development partner;

·         since that decision the council had undertaken due diligence in the relation to the contract and the stand still period set out in the procurement arrangements had been fulfilled; and

·         the recommendations now put before cabinet sought to mobilise the contract and start work on the first phase of sites to be assessed for potential development.

The cabinet member finance, housing and corporate services asked whether, in light of the additional projects on the potential list for the development partner to assist in delivering, the council should consider allocating additional capital to this area of spend over the next two years. The current allocation being £20m.

The programme manager confirmed that there might be future requests for additional funding based on a case by case assessment of each site appraisal.

The cabinet member infrastructure queried how the figure of £503k for client side capital costs was arrived at. The programme manager responded that the figure was simply an assessment of the requirements as seen at the time.

Group leaders were asked to give the views of their group.

The leader of the Its Our County group asked for confirmation that full due diligence had been carried out, whether the preferred development partner had expressed an interest in delivering student accommodation and whether the council would have sufficient input or control over the dwelling mix on sites developed for housing to meet local housing needs.

The programme manager confirmed that full due diligence had been carried out, that Keepmoat Homes had expressed an interest in developing student accommodation and had previous experience of delivering such accommodation. He also confirmed that the mix of dwellings on housing sites would take account of the latest housing needs assessments at the time they were developed.

The leader of the green group sought assurance that due diligence had been carried out on Keepmoat Homes. She stated that detailed questions on the delivery of the objectives and of affordable housing would be sent outside of the meeting. The group leader reported that Keepmoat Homes had not performed well in dealing with the community when redeveloping the barons cross estate in Leominster. It was hoped that this bad experience was a one-off. The role of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To seek approval for the council to act as the accountable body for public funding allocated to the new Hereford university, NMiTE (new model in technology & engineering), during its establishment phase.

The leader of the council introduced the item. He noted that the council had undertaken a great deal of work to support the proposed university. This included support in preparing documentation for bids for funding and a willingness to make appropriate sites available for consideration.

The cabinet member finance, housing and corporate services introduced the report. Following a green book business case funded by the council and a bid to the local enterprise partnership (LEP) the university had been awarded £15m from the department for education (DfE) and £8m from the department for communities and local government (DCLG) via the LEP. The requirements of the DfE and the LEP required the council to become the accountable body for this funding. The role of the accountable body would be to give assurance that the university was fulfilling its business case and meeting the key milestones. The accountable body would ensure that spending was in accordance with the conditions of the grants.  

The chief finance officer confirmed that the arrangements for the two grants allocated were different. The council would be the accountable body for the £15m allocated from the DfE. The primary accountable body for the grant from the DCLG would be the LEP but the council would act as accountable body for the university project as a whole.

Group leaders were asked to relay the views of their group.

The leader of the Its Our County group commended all those who had worked to get the project this far and stated that his group had always supported the university project. It was understood that the council was the only acceptable accountable body in the eyes of the DfE but it should be made clear that the council’s accountability was only for the public funding. Any subsequent private sector funding would not fall within this role.

The leader of the green group commented on the full debate at the general scrutiny meeting. She stated she was happy to see the project going forward with the checks and balances discussed at the scrutiny meeting.

The cabinet member finance, housing and corporate services expressed thanks to members of the scrutiny committee who had examined the request in detail. The recommendations of the scrutiny committee and responses to these that had been published as a supplement to the main report were referred to. The cabinet member also expressed thanks to the officers who had worked on producing the report in a short length of time.

Resolved that:

(a)  the responses to the recommendations of the general scrutiny committee at appendix 4 be approved;

(b)  Herefordshire Council act as accountable body for public funding to support establishment of a new university in Hereford; and

(c)  the chief finance officer be authorised, following consultation with the monitoring officer and cabinet member corporate strategy and budget, to complete such legal documentation as is appropriate to protect the council’s interests and take all operational decisions necessary to implement the above recommendations.

To approve an updated strategic approach to re-settlement of refugees and asylum seekers and the provision of support to them.

The cabinet member health and wellbeing introduced the item. He commented that the refugees the council had already accepted since 2015 had settled in well and integrated into their new communities. Fourteen families were now safe and happy in the county. Seven individuals were volunteering within the county and 4 had found employment. The home office was now asking the council to consider taking further refugees as part of its various resettlement schemes. The proposal was to accept a further 40 asylum seekers and 35 refugees in family groups. The cabinet member noted that in 2015 the council had little experience in this area. Officers had worked hard to develop professional skills and expertise.

The cabinet member finance, housing and corporate services noted that there were no immediate cost implications of the recommendations but asked what the longer term effect of the arrival of these groups might be on the economic welfare of Herefordshire.

The community capacity and wellbeing manager responded that with regard to refugees the numbers involved were fairly small but they were expected to have a positive economic impact in the long term. Herefordshire had the highest proportion of new arrivals in employment in the west midlands. Others were volunteering in the hope of securing employment in the future. There was the expectation that all those refugees who would normally be economically active would find employment in the long term.

The situation for asylum seekers was more complicated as they were not allowed to be employed while their application for asylum was processed. The council had no direct statutory duties to them in normal circumstances. It was possible that a small number would opt to remain in Herefordshire once their application for asylum had been approved. Where families chose to remain they would place some demand on public services such as schools and primary care. In a very small number of cases there could be short term problems in migrating refugees onto the benefit system.

The cabinet member finance, housing and corporate services asked whether unspent funds from the European social fund to support access to employment for disadvantaged groups could be used to assist refugees.

The refugee and asylum seeker coordinator responded that the building better opportunities fund would start from January 2018. All settled refugees were referred to that fund to support them in moving into employment.

The cabinet member young people and children’s wellbeing stated that this was an example of Herefordshire doing the right thing and commended officers for the success to date. He asked what the risks were of volunteering to take additional refugees and asylum seekers where other authorities might not be willing or able to do so.

The community capacity and wellbeing manager explained that the council would expect to be asked to take additional numbers by the home office. Officers were aware of at least two other west midlands authorities who were considering voluntarily expanding the number of refugees they would take. The council could at any time decline  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.