To receive a report from the leader on the activities of the executive (cabinet) since the meeting of Council on 12 July 2019.

Council received and noted the Leader’s report. The Leader introduced his report and provided clarification concerning the status of funding from the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). He explained that in respect of the funding of £27 million that had been dedicated to Herefordshire Council for the south wye and Hereford transport packages there was no legal justification for the LEP to recoup any funding. It was confirmed that at a recent meeting of the LEP board there had been no deadline set for the funding to be used or an amount proposed for the Council to repay to the LEP. The new administration at the Council had considered infrastructure projects and had taken a decision to pause and review those schemes in progress. The LEP had identified that there was a possibility that funding allocation to the infrastructure schemes would not be spent and in such circumstances it was hoped that the money would be reallocated to other projects in Herefordshire. Discussions in relation to this matter were ongoing with the LEP. The potential of the loss of any funding did not provide sufficient reason to pursue the infrastructure schemes that were currently subject to pause and review; other considerations were required before a final decision was made on the projects including the response to the climate emergency.

The following was asked of the Leader:

·         Why was the renewal of the council’s insurance cover for a period of five years? The Leader explained that a response would be provided following the meeting.

·         The indemnity of £850k to Nmite was queried and whether Council’s money had been put at risk. It was asked whether the correspondence between Tony Bray and Shropshire Council be placed in public domain by the Leader.The Leader explained that the risk was currently being assessed and he was discussing the potential release of the letter with the monitoring officer. He would confirm in due course if it could be released.

·         It was noted that the Enterprise Zone was close to breaching the peak 300 movement limit and it was queried how prospective new employers and their employees would access the site if the bypass is not built and Highways England did not support an increase in numbers? The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that there was room for negotiating the movements cap at the enterprize zone with Highways England and a written response would be provided to the issues raised.

·         The Leader was asked whether he believed that the projects at skylon park including the shell store and cyber centre could succeed without key infrastructure projects such as the southern link road. The Leader explained that the implications of infrastructure projects on the climate emergency would be assessed which would include the southern link road.

·         The Leader was asked whether the Council would express concern regarding the governance arrangements at the LEP and the role of the business board was queried and its support for the bypass. The Leader explained that there was an issue with governance arrangements at the LEP which were being investigated. The role and statements of the business board also required clarification.

·         The Leader was asked how the three areas in the LEP could work together to ensure low-carbon projects were taken forward. The Leader explained that there was a need to work together in the LEP and co-ordinate across the three areas.

·         The Leader was asked about the problems affecting the five year land supply and if this encouraged predatory development. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained the core straetgy still carried weight and was out for review.The problems affecting the five year land supply had been ongoing for a long time and needed to be addressed. Part of the solution would be the construction of council housing and there was no expectation that development would be allocated to all villages.

·         The Leader was asked how the administration would seek to promote tourism in the County. The Leader explained that the current position had been inherited by the administration and there was little expenditure on tourism. The LEP would look at the potential for combining an approach to tourism across the three regions.

·         It was important that the council worked closely with the LEP and was not too critical of the structures in place. A potential amalgamation of the LEPs may minimse Herefordshire’s advantage from the arrangement. The Leader explained that a priority was to work with the LEP but it was acknowledged that improvements were required to the governance arrangements.

·         The Leader was asked whether he thought that heavy goods vehicles posed a serious problem to air quality in Hereford or if they posed no hazard to health. It was asked what relief was planned for the impact of lorries. The Leader explained that HGVs were harmful and their impact needed to be assessed in the wider decisions concerning infrastructure in Herefordshire. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that there was no evidence that the bypass would relieve congestion or HGVs travelling through Hereford; other solutions were currently required to prevent HGVs idling through hereford such as withdrawing those traffic lights which inhibited traffic flow.

·         It was noted that a primary source of congestion in Hereford was cars used by one person only; it was asked whether innovative approaches to address congestion would include car sharing apps. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that the approach would be looked at and explained that the majority of journeys undertaken in Hereford were under two miles which required a different solution to park and ride schemes.

·         It was asked how the fund to support Leominster town centre was being progressed. The chief executive explained that it was being taken forward with partners and clarification of any conditions attached to the funding from central government was required.

·         It was asked whether the Leader felt that the future of the county would be best served by attempting to build its independence outside of the LEP or within its structures to assist economic development? The Leader explained that he would work closely with the LEP and look at the wider, regional picture; tourism was an example of a benefit for all parterns in the LEP. It was also important to seek innovation for Herefordshire which the enterprise zone was achieveing as an initiative that was unique to the county in the Marches LEP structure.

Councillor Christy Bolderson declared a pecuniary interest, under agenda item no. 11, Leader’s Report, as a local resident to the proposed southern end of the Western Bypass and outlined the dispensation granted by the monitoring officer. 

·         There was concern regarding the five year housing supply. The Leader was asked if the pause and review and the suspension of planning applications in the North of the county undermined the delivery of the County’s housing requirements and if the 5 year housing supply was not met how parish councils would be reassured that the neighbourhood development plans they had in place were worthwhile. The Leader acknowledged that the five year housing supply was problematic; the latest data was available on the Council’s website; and it was important that parish councils were reassured. The cabinet member infrastructure and transport explained that the core strategy was sound but the county had not kept up with the five year housing supply; a written response would be provided to the question.

·         The campaign literature used by the Leader during the election in May 2019 was queried and whether it contained a commitment to stop the bypass. The Leader explained that his election material explained that he did not support road schemes.

There was a brief adjournment at 12.55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1.05 p.m.