To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Hardwick, Jennie Hewitt and Mark Millmore.

To receive declarations of interest in respect of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Other Interests from members of the Council in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Gemma Davies declared a schedule 1 interest in agenda item no. 9, notices of motion, Minor Injury Unit (MIU) closures, as an employee of the Wye Valley Trust.

Councillor Graham Andrews declared an other interest in agenda item no. 9, car park passes as a councillor with a ward in Hereford City.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2020.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2020 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive the Chairman and Chief Executive’s announcements.

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

The Chairman introduced his announcements and expressed his thanks for the work of the emergency services during the recent flooding incidents. He also commended the community spirit and resilience that had been displayed by local residents.

The chief executive introduced his announcements and explained that a recent letter had been sent to central government requesting additional help for the council in response to the recent floods. An update on the latest situation concerning the coronavirus was provided.

A member raised the issue of motorists ignoring road closed signs during flooding incidents.

To receive questions from members of the public.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Monday 2 March.

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

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

To receive any written questions from members of the Council.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00pm on Monday 2 March.

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

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.

To approve the council tax amounts for each category of dwelling in Herefordshire, including precepts from West Mercia Police, Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority and Herefordshire parishes for the financial year 2020/21.

Council considered a report by the cabinet member finance and corporate services and the supplement containing the updated recommendations circulated on 28 February. The Chairman introduced a correction to the detail in the report: Cradley and Storridge Parish Council replaced reference to Cradley Parish Council.

The monitoring officer explained that there were no declarable interests for members by virtue of membership of the Council, the Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority or local parish councils.

The cabinet member finance and corporate services moved the report and explained the careful consideration that had taken place across precepting authorities in determining precept levels for 2020/21. The support and assistance available to local residents experiencing financial difficulty was reiterated and the importance of keeping the thresholds for support under review. Parish councils had set precepts to ensure that budgets were sufficient to allow them to operate effectively and respond to challenges such as the recent flooding.

The principal points below were raised during the debate:

·         The proportionate increase for householders in Council Tax Bands E-H compared to bands A-D was raised. It was acknowledged that bands were set nationally and any revaluation of properties might cause additional problems.

·         A correction to the details in the appendices was raised, to ensure reference to Ross-on-Wye Town Council.

·         It was suggested that one of the objectives for the Market Towns Forum should be that value for money was provided through the precept. The Market Towns Forum was working with local communities to determine how services in localities could best meet local need.

·         The reduction in funding from central government was raised and the need for local councils to raise revenue at a local level to provide services for vulnerable residents.

·         The burden the increase in precepts represented to some local residents was outlined and the need to ensure value for money. A member expressed concern that precept increases above the rate of inflation may lead to the local authority being regarded as out of touch.

·         Community Asset Transfer and devolution to parish councils was raised. The role of parish councils to assume responsibility for local services could be facilitated through precepts.

The Leader seconded the report and explained that the Market Towns Forum had established an effective dialogue between the localities and the council. Recent flooding and the uncertainty concerning the coronavirus highlighted that the level of precept increase was prudent.

The cabinet member finance and corporate services closed the debate and explained that the vote was a technical exercise to set the overall council tax in the county.

A recorded vote was held to set the council tax and precepts for 2020/21, as contained in the published supplement, and was approved by a simple majority of the Council.

For: (49) Councillors Graham Andrews, Paul Andrews, Polly Andrews, Bartlett, Bartrum, Bolderson, Boulter, Bowen, Bowes, Chowns, Crockett, Davies, Durkin, Fagan, Foxton, Gandy, Guthrie, Harrington, Harvey, Hey, Hitchiner, Howells, Hunt, I’Anson, James, Jinman, Johnson, Graham Jones, Mike Jones, Lester, Marsh, Matthews, Milln, Norman, Phillips, Price, Rone, Seldon, Shaw, Stark,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To receive a report from the leader on the activities of the executive (cabinet) since the meeting of Council on 11 October 2019.

The Leader presented his report on the activities of Cabinet since the meeting of Council on 11 October 2019. The Leader provided his thanks to all those who had been involved in the response to the floods and highlighted issues including the strategic planning of new housing development and farming methods which had an impact on flooding in the county.

The Leader received the following questions:

·         Whether the £5.6 million grant to the timber technology centre needed to be underwritten by the council. The Leader explained that the grant would be subject to a further decision but would be provided to the council rather than the LEP. There was no requirement for the council to underwrite the amount and a risk analysis of the arrangement would be completed.

·         What plans were in place to address the increase in rough sleepers in Herefordshire and why was it an issue in the county? The cabinet member housing, regulatory services and community services explained that the homelessness prevention and rough sleeping strategy had been implemented recently and a building in Blackfriars Street had been identified to provide a better level of care in future. There was concern that rough sleepers did not feel listened to and therefore did not seek help; it was hoped that the new facility would address this concern.

·         What action plan was in place to respond to the concerns outlined by Ofsted during the recent inspection? What actions were being taken to address concerns around the recruitment of social workers? The cabinet member children and families explained that the inspection had recognised some improvements including work with children with disabilities and work undertaken on peer on peer abuse policies. Difficulties continued to be recognised around shortages of funding and staff. The action plan to address the issues raised by Ofsted would be circulated. The chief executive explained that clear plans were being taken forward for the recruitment of social workers but it was acknowledged that it was a difficult market place.

·         There needed to be greater policing of road closure signs. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that it was an offence to ignore road closure signs and the council was reporting incidents to the police and had requested extra patrols of those areas subject to road closures.

·         Would extra resources be provided to the drainage team to deal with problems caused by the flooding? It was requested that a briefing note concerning the Bellwin scheme be sent to members. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that the lengthsman schemes would resource parish councils to clear blocked drains. Where drainage issues existed, parish councils were encouraged to report them to the council and it could be investigated whether the work could be supported through the Bellwin scheme. The Leader explained that a briefing to all members on the Bellwin scheme would be provided.

·         Clarification was requested regarding the flooding grant scheme for parish councils. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that a mechanism for the grant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

To consider Notices of Motion.

Motion 1 – Car park passes

The Chairman explained that the seconder to the car park passes motion had withdrawn since the publication of the agenda. Councillor Rone proposed the car park passes motion and asked for a seconder.

The motion was not seconded and was therefore withdrawn.

Motion 2 – 20 mph speed limits

In moving the motion Councillor Felicity Norman made the following points:

·         There was significant and growing support to reduce speed limits in residential areas.

·         The stopping distance at 20 mph was half that at 30 mph.

·         The introduction of 20 mph speed limits would encourage children to play outdoors and support public health objectives.

·         The lower speed limit would also contribute to environmental objectives by helping to reduce fuel use, improve air quality and reduce noise.

·         The recent Stockholm declaration on road safety supported 20 mph speed limits.

·         A wide range of public health, governmental and medical bodies supported 20 mph speed limits.

In seconding the motion Councillor Ange Tyler made the following points:

·         The Local Transport Plan (LTP) contained a speed management commitment to work with local communities to introduce 20 mph speed limits where appropriate.

·         Local communities were concerned about speeding.

·         The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) had produced guidance which indicated that the severity of accidents was reduced by cars travelling at 20 mph.

·         To ensure compliance could be achieved area-wide speed limits would need to be introduced.

·         It was important to realise safer communities through road safety initiatives.

The following principal points were raised during the debate:

·         The LTP included provision for the introduction of 20 mph speed limit. Local residents should be consulted on implementing 20 mph limits.

·         There was concern that additional signage would cause the public realm to appear cluttered.

·         It was felt that even with a 20 mph limit there would still exist reckless drivers who would drive at excessive speeds.

·         The 20 mph speed limit would be difficult to enforce and would not be supported by the police force unless the limit was self-enforcing.

·         Speeding was a priority for a number of local parish councils.

·         Reduced speed in residential areas would improve the quality of life for local residents.

·         The introduction of 20 mph limits was consistent with objectives to reduce carbon emissions.

·         The motion called on the executive to undertake an investigation. During such an investigation the areas of concerns raised during the debate could be reviewed.

·         The implementation of 20 mph speed limits would require traffic regulation orders (TRO) to be progressed. It was noted that there was a significant waiting list for TROs.

·         The investigation should consider the impact of 20 mph zones on animals.

·         It was noted that Pembridge had requested a 20 mph limit and the request was currently on the TRO waiting list. It was suggested that a 20 mph limit in Pembridge could be used as a pilot.

·         A 20 mph limit could help encourage cycling and reduce congestion.

Proposed amendment – Proposed by Bernard Hunt,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The next meeting is the annual meeting of Council on 22 May 2020.

Council is asked to approve the schedule of full Council meeting dates in 2020/21 as below:

17 July 2020

9 October 2020

12 February 2021 – Budget meeting

5 March 2021

21 May 2021 – Annual meeting

Council noted the date of the annual meeting on 22 May 2020 and considered the setting of meeting dates during 2020/21. The dates printed on the agenda were supported but it was requested that an additional meeting date was arranged and it was suggested that the Chairman set the additional date in consultation with the monitoring officer after the current meeting had concluded.

Councillor Bob Matthews proposed and Councillor Barry Durkin seconded the amendment to the printed dates in the agenda; that Council undertook six meetings a year and the Chairman be authorised to agree the sixth meeting date with the monitoring officer.

The amendment was put to the vote and was carried.

The original recommended dates for meetings of Council during 2020/21, as amended by the motion to include a sixth meeting, was put to the vote and was carried.

RESOLVED: That:

·         The following dates are agreed for Council meetings during 2020/21:

-       17 July 2020

-       9 October 2020

-       12 February 2021

-       5 March 2021

-       21 May 2021

·         The Chairman is authorised to agree a sixth meeting date of the Council in consultation with the monitoring officer.