In opening the meeting, the Chairman welcomed Councillor Peter Jinman, the newly-elected Member for Golden Valley South.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Greenow, Hardwick, Holton, Hyde and Skelton.

Councillor Phillips declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item no. 7 as a justice of the peace.

Councillor Rone declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item no. 12 as the council appointee to Herefordshire Housing Ltd.

Councillor Lester declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item no. 5 as the recommended Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board.  

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2017.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2017 are confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive the Chairman and Chief Executive’s announcements.

Council noted the Chairman’s announcements as printed in the agenda papers.

The Chairman passed a petition concerning the condition of rural roads in Richards Castle, received from Richards Castle Parish Council to the Cabinet Member Transport and Roads.

The Chairman noted the resignations from the Council of Councillors Patricia Morgan and Mark Mansell. On behalf of the Council, he thanked them for their services and wished them well for the future.

The Chairman announced that the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Mercia had confirmed that a formal proposal had been submitted to the Home Office to assume governance of the local fire service. As the four principal authorities in West Mercia had all objected to the proposal, the Home Office would now refer it to a panel for a proper assessment. .

The Chief Executive introduced his announcements including the following:

·         A bid of £95million had been submitted to the Communities Agency for infrastructure funding;

·         Preparations for  an adverse winter were being undertaken;

·         The city link road was on schedule to be opened by the end of the year;

·         The next phase of the broadband rollout was progressing;

The target date for the opening of the city link road was questioned, progress on the site appearing to be slow. It was confirmed that the link road was currently ahead of schedule and that work on the new road was undertaken at night.

The distinction between the Chief Executive’s announcements and the Leader’s report was queried and it was confirmed that ahead of the next meeting it would be assessed to see if any changes should be made.

To consider the membership of the Council and to appoint the chairman of the health and wellbeing board in line with the rules of the constitution.  

Council considered a report relating to the appointment of the Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board and a request to grant a leave of absence to enable Councillor Skelton to resume his duties. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and Council requested that the Chairman write to Councillor Skelton to express its good wishes.

The recommendations in the report were proposed by the Chairman and seconded by the Leader. The recommendations were approved by a majority of the Council.

Resolved – that:

(a)  Councillor JG Lester is appointed as the Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board; and

(b)  An extended period of absence from meetings, pursuant to Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972, for Councillor WC Skelton, to expire on 12 March 2018, is approved.

To receive questions from members of the public.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Tuesday 10 October.

A copy of the public questions and written answers, together with supplementary questions asked at the meeting and answers, is attached to the Minutes at Appendix 1.

To approve and endorse the Youth Justice Plan 2017/18.

Council considered a report which proposed the approval of the Youth Justice Plan 2017 -2018. The Plan was moved by Councillor JG Lester, Cabinet Member Young People and Children’s Wellbeing who commented that the rates of youth offending in the county were relatively low and a downward trend in rates of offending was attributed to a greater emphasis on preventative and early intervention programmes. 

Council made the comments below in the debate which followed:

·         The rate of reoffending detailed in the Plan was a concern.

·         Clarification regarding the proportion of looked after children in rates of offending was requested. The re-establishment of the looked after children reference group was commended and further detail was requested as to when this would be completed. Councillor Lester confirmed that as of 31 July 2017 6.7% of Herefordshire young people on the youth justice service caseload were looked-after children. The Corporate Parenting Strategy included actions to address the issue. A written response regarding the timing of the re-establishment of the looked-after children reference group would be provided.  

·         Facilities that young people within the criminal justice system were detained within were queried and whether they were appropriate institutions. It was confirmed that during the course of the year there had been one custodial sentence. A written response would be provided with detail of the institutions to which young people were referred.

·         A query was raised regarding the outcomes of the review of mental health proposed in an earlier version of the Plan. There was very little mention of the impact of mental health in the current plan. The impact of mental health on the Plan and youth offending was acknowledged and it was confirmed that there was a part-time Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) worker in the Herefordshire Youth Justice Team.

·         It was requested that the draft Plan be circulated to the general scrutiny committee at an early stage next year to ensure effective engagement on its content. Further work was needed to ensure effective working arrangements with partners and other local authorities and the notion of joint scrutiny with other councils involved in the Plan was proposed. Greater involvement of scrutiny to assist in policy development in the area of youth offending was also raised. It was confirmed that an attempt would be made to involve scrutiny at an earlier stage during the production of the Plan in future years.

·         The relative proportions of boys and girls committing offences were queried and why the split was so wide. This was an important societal question.

The recommendation in the report was approved by a majority of the Council.

Resolved – that the Youth Justice Plan (at appendix A) is approved.

To approve the Travellers’ Sites Development Plan Document for pre-submission publication and submission to the Secretary of State.

Council considered a report concerning the Travellers’ Sites Development Document which was introduced by the Cabinet Member Infrastructure who confirmed that the report contained the pre-submission documents which would be sent to the Secretary of State for approval. It was confirmed that during the preparation of the document there had been extensive consultations carried out with the gypsy, traveller and travelling show people communities.

Council raised the comments below in the debate which followed:

·         The identification of additional stopping places within the document was welcomed, it was felt that an additional stopping site close to Leominster was required but the location proposed in the document was questioned. The cabinet member explained that there had been significant assessment of the proposed new stopping sites with a lot of comment received. The Council continued to investigate other potential sites in the county and was working with the Showman’s Guild.

·         The requirement for the adequate maintenance of existing sites was raised. The proposal at the Turnpike site for an area of grazing or an orchard was queried and the ongoing maintenance that would be involved. It was suggested that the land be let to the adjacent owner of the property recently sold by the Council. The cabinet member confirmed a response would be provided.

·         The fence between the Turnpike site and the Kington Road required maintenance to ensure it provided adequate protection from the highway. The cabinet member confirmed a response would be provided.

·         The playground and play facilities proposed in the document needed to ensure they complemented the development of traveller children. The cabinet member confirmed a response would be provided.

·         Concern was expressed that the targets identified in the document were not sufficiently ambitious and more sites should be taken forward for development.

·         The arrangements for monitoring the success of the document were queried and it was recommended that a review of the entire development plan document should be conducted every five years. The cabinet member confirmed that the document would be subject to continual, ongoing review.

·         The incidence of illegal encampments within the county was raised and enforcement measures. It was queried whether there was sufficient resource in the council to undertaken adequate enforcement. The cabinet member confirmed that the comments of the council would be passed back to officers involved in enforcement.

·         The welfare of animals on sites was raised as a significant issue.

The recommendations in the report were approved by a majority of Council.

Resolved – that:

i.    the draft Travellers Sites Development Plan Document 2011 – 2031 at appendix 1 is approved for pre-submission consultation;

ii.   authority is delegated to the Programme Director Housing and Growth, following consultation with the Cabinet Member Infrastructure, to make any technical amendments required to the draft Travellers Development Plan Document and supporting documents resulting from the completion of ongoing technical work before pre-submission consultation begins;

iii.   authority is delegated to the Programme Director Housing and Growth, following consultation with the Cabinet Member Infrastructure, to make any minor textual or graphical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To approve an amendment to the minimum revenue provision policy in the treasury management strategy.  

Council considered a report concerning an amendment to the minimum revenue provision (MRP) contained within the Treasury Management Strategy. The Cabinet Member Finance, Housing and ICT introduced and moved the report and explained the statutory requirement on the council to set an MRP. Guidance issued in 2008 proposed four options for establishing a prudent MRP; following guidance from specialist financial advisors it has been recommended that the annuity method was used to calculate the MRP.

The comments below were raised during the debate:

·         There was concern that the proposal would place a burden on future generations of taxpayers and local residents by delaying the repayment of debt.

·         The proposal was not felt to take adequate account of the capacity of the Council to be able to service debt and make increased repayments from the 2030s onwards. It was noted that the proposal only concerned the debt currently held by the council and not any future borrowing which may occur; the proposed approach would potentially restrict the council’s capacity to borrow in the future. It was noted that a number of cells in the last column of appendix 3 should be coloured red rather than green to denote outstanding debts of £14million by 2066. The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that the underlying loans would not change and loans from the Public Works Loans Board were fixed. It was the accountancy treatment of those loans that would change through the MRP proposal. Inflation had not been taken into account in the calculations in the tables which would reduce the liability to the council in future years.

·         Clarity was required regarding the management and assessment of an assets useful life. It was commented that assets were not necessarily available for their projected life and could become liabilities to the council which was not adequately assessed in the report. There was concern that the proposal would result in greater cost to the council. The cabinet member finance, housing and ICT explained that inflation would have an effect and the proportion of the budget of the council in future years dedicated to the repayment of debt would be reduced. Assets were reassessed and revalued during the course of their lifetime. Interest costs would be tied to the lifetime of assets.

·         The approach had been adopted at other authorities and surprise was expressed that it had not already been implemented at the Council.

·         It was noted that few local authorities had adopted the approach and a significant risk concerned its complexity and impact on staffing. It was not felt that the external auditors had provided a clear endorsement of the proposal. A large number of councils had adopted the policy and a list could be provided if required. The Chief Finance Officer confirmed the external auditors would form an opinion every year about the MRP. 

·         The report outlined a technical accounting issue which had been endorsed by CIPFA. It was felt that members should be focused on the Fairer Funding review report to assess whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To advise members of requests from local parish councils for governance reviews in their areas and agree commencement of reviews.

Council considered a report to provide approval to eight Community Governance Reviews (CGRs). The Chairman informed Council that the correct version of appendix (a), containing the terms of reference for the individual CGRs had been circulated as part of the correction supplement and that the recommendation had been corrected to seek approval for eight CGRs. Councillor PD Newman OBE, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee moved the report and advised Council that such reviews should be conducted every 10–15 years. The Audit and Governance Committee agreed an information gathering exercise in 2015, involving a county-wide assessment of the potential for CGRs. Following this exercise the eight CGRs contained in the report were proposed for approval.

The recommendation in the correction supplement to approve the terms of reference from appendix (a), also in the correction supplement, and commence eight CGRs was agreed by a majority of the Council.

Resolved – that the terms of reference for eight community governance reviews in the version of appendix (a) contained in the correction supplement is approved.   

To agree the appointment of the external auditor for a period of five years from April 2018.

Council considered a report by the Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee to appoint an external auditor. The report was moved by Councillor PD Newman OBE, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, who advised Council that the Committee recommended that the appointment proposed by Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited (PSAA) be accepted.

Council voted to accept the recommendation set out in the report and appoint Grant Thornton as the external auditor for a period of five years from April 2018 at fees to be determined by the PSAA.

Resolved – that Grant Thornton is appointed as external auditor for a period of five years from April 2018 at fees determined by PSAA.

To receive a report from the leader on the activities of the executive (cabinet) since the meeting of the council in July 2017.

The Leader presented his report on the activities of the Cabinet since the meeting of Council on 14 July 2017. An update was provided by the Cabinet Member Health and Wellbeing on the Better Care Fund and Council was informed that the submission recently made to central government with the CCG had been approved by NHS England. The initial concern that funding would be withheld had been assuaged; written evidence was still awaited to provide definitive confirmation. 

Questions were invited to the Leader which included those issues raised below:

·         The success of companies based at Rotherwas and the contribution played by the access road which had initially faced opposition from element of the Council. It was noted that improvements to the route to Rotherwas were still required and concerns that the height of Green Crize bridge and clearance for large loads intended for the nuclear industry had been raised by businesses at the site. Comments were raised that the construction of a bypass needed to be expedited. The Leader agreed that the success of companies at Rotherwas attracted funding through the Local Enterprise Partnership and the bypass was a priority.    

·         The peer review relating to directorate performance reviews was welcomed. Responsibility for the situation concerning financial irregularities had been attributed by the Leader to officer error and members for not calling-in the issue. Ultimate responsibility was felt to rest with the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Contracts and Assets and a number of questions were posed regarding the tenability of their current positions on the Executive. The unfortunate public perception of the situation was highlighted and the requirement for the Leader to ensure that confidence in the council was restored. The Leader confirmed that the reasons for the issue at Blueschool House included a lack of scrutiny over the decision and it was confirmed that the Cabinet Member would not have been aware of the actions of officers to appoint the contractor on the project. 

·         A query was raised regarding the response to the collective letter from West Midlands authorities to the Secretary of State for Heath regarding funding. It was queried if there would be closer working with Worcestershire in future. The Leader confirmed that the issue would be discussed with Group Leaders and the correspondence would be shared.

·         The tendering process had not been properly followed in respect of Blueschool House. The situation had demonstrated weaknesses in governance arrangements for capital projects which was an issue that internal and external auditors had raised in the past. The Leader was asked for an assurance that the correct tendering process was observed in other areas of the council. Detail was requested concerning the number of contractors listed on the framework agreement. The Leader confirmed that a framework agreement was in place for Blueschool House which had appointed a preferred contractor; there were a number of examples of framework agreements across the county. The appointment had gone through agreed processes. A written response would be provided regarding the number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To consider Notices of Motion.

Council considered two notices of motion. The Chairman informed Council that the third notice of motion concerning blue badges had been withdrawn from the meeting and would be deferred to a future full Council meeting.

Council debated the first motion set out below:

Motion 1 – Timings of meetings of the council

In moving the motion Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes made the following points:

·         The timings of meetings during the day did not encourage local residents to engage in local issues or influence decision making. Employment prevented people from attending meetings during the day;

·         Day time meetings were also a disincentive to local residents with jobs from standing for election as councillors. As a consequence members on the council were not representative of the local community;

·         The chairmen of the committees at the council had the discretion to adjust the timings of meetings outside of core working hours. Since this had been introduced under the new constitution no meetings had been scheduled at times that would be more convenient for local residents;

The following principal points were raised by members in the debate:

·         At evening meetings of other public bodies there was limited attendance from members of the public;

·         Chairmen of the committees could adjust the timings of their meetings if it was felt appropriate;

·         Travelling long distances in the dark following evening meetings posed a risk to councillors;

·         The lack of public transport in the evening militated against public attendance at meetings scheduled later in the day;

·         Other authorities with evening meetings failed to attract a good turnout from the public;

·         There was sympathy for the principles and sentiment that had motivated the motion;

·         It was commented that requiring half of all meetings to be outside of the council’s core hours was felt to be excessive;

·         The impact on officer time was raised and the cost to the authority of attendance at evening meetings;

·         The council covered a large rural area and there were a number of local responsibilities members had in the evenings including parish council meetings;

·         The scheduling of meetings in the evening had been attempted before and had not been a success;

·         Members were urged to approve the motion for a trial period of six months to assess the effectiveness of evening meetings;

·         A members had recently had to resign from the council because work commitments were incompatible with the requirement to attend daytime meetings;

·         The current scheduling of meetings during the day discouraged members of the public from becoming councillors or attending meetings; and

·         The current scheduling of meetings had resulted in a uniformity of councillors. 

In seconding the motion Councillor A Warmington made the following points:

·         It was disappointing that the debate had been trivialised;

·         Although chairmen had the discretion to adjust the timings they had chosen not to change the time of meetings to accommodate members of the public;

·         It was very difficult to be a councillor if you had a full time job. An understanding employer was required;

·         The current membership of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

To receive any written questions from members of the Council.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Tuesday 10 October.

A copy of the Member questions and written answers, together with supplementary questions asked at the meeting and their answers, is attached to the Minutes at Appendix 2.