To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor SP Anderson, and from Councillor FM Norman one of the signatories to the call-in.

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

Councillor RJ Phillips substituted for Councillor SP Anderson.

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

None.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

Details of the scheme and related guidance are available here:

 https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/info/200148/your_council/61/get_involved

Please submit questions to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk

The deadline for the receipt of questions is Monday 25 March 2019 at 5.00 pm.

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

A copy of the public questions, supplementary questions and answers is appended.

To receive any written questions from members of the council.

Deadline for receipt of questions is 5:00 pm on Monday 25 March 2019.

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

Please submit questions to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk

None.

To consider the call-in of the decision of the cabinet member infrastructure on Hereford Transport Package.

The Committee considered the call-in of the decision of the cabinet member - infrastructure regarding the Hereford Transport Package.

The decision had been called in accordance with the Scrutiny Rules at part 4 section 5 of the constitution by the following 7 Councillors:  Councillors EPJ Harvey, JM Bartlett, EE Chowns, FM Norman, AJW Powers, A Seldon and AJ Warmington.  The grounds for the call in were: that there was inadequate evidence on which to base a decision and that not all relevant matters had been fully taken into account; and that the decision was disproportionate to the desired outcome.

The Chairman outlined the protocol for the conduct of the meeting a copy of which had been circulated to all members.

Cabinet Member - summary of his decision.

Councillor PD Price – cabinet member – infrastructure provided a brief summary of his decision.  He made the following principal points:

He considered the call-in unnecessary.        

Public consultation had indicated majority support for the objectives of the Hereford Transport Package.

Cabinet in July 2018 had approved a preferred route for the Hereford Bypass to the west of the City, together with further work to develop the detail of the scheme and the development of a package of complementary active travel measures.

Consultation had been carried out in January on a range of potential transport improvements across the City.

The HTP including the bypass was essential to deliver the transport infrastructure the city needed.  It was a key project to drive the economic growth of Hereford and the region.  It was identified as a priority in the council’s strategic policies as well as in the strategic economic plan for the Marches and the Business Connects Regional Transport Strategy.

The HTP would provide improvements to encourage people to lead more active lifestyles, improve road safety and reduce air and noise pollution in the City.

The allocation of funding for the project was included in the capital programme approved by council. The decision authorised officers to take the project forward.

All political groups had been consulted in drafting the report on which he had based his decision and no objections had been raised.  The report set out what was being authorised.

Presentation of Reasons for the Call-in

Councillor Harvey as the lead call in member spoke on the call-in followed by Councillors Seldon, Bartlett, Warmington and Chowns. A short statement was read out on behalf Councillor Norman.  The following principal points were made:

•                  The proposal was to delegate the entire 2019/20 budget for the scheme to officers, with the potential for that entire sum to be committed prior to the council elections in May.  The project was not supported by all parties.  The decision was premature.  Should there be a change in political priorities following the forthcoming elections this project may be affected.

·        It would be better to spend the period before the election putting the project into the Council’s approved project management system.  Time could also be spent on considering the results of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.