To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence had been received.

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

No named substitutes had been received.

To receive declarations of interest from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

No questions had been received from members of the public.

To receive any written questions from members of the council.

No questions had been received from members of the council.

To provide an update to the scrutiny committee on the establishment of new waste recovery contract and an update on roll-out of garden waste collection.

The Chair took the report on Waste Recovery Contracting as read and opened the item up for debate. The key points of discussion included:

1.     Members asked about the council’s landfill target and current performance. The officer explained that the target had been to send no more than 1% of waste to landfill, a level the council had achieved consistently for years. Landfill had been used only for materials that could not be treated otherwise—such as asbestos—or during planned maintenance when the energy?from?waste facility had temporarily been unable to accept waste.

2.     Members queried whether future waste disposal contracts (post?2029) would maintain the same landfill reduction targets. The officer confirmed that the council intended to retain similar environmental commitments, although the landfill site was due to revert to the contractor in 2029, meaning the council would no longer directly control landfill capacity.

3.     Members asked whether the single end?to?end contract could be replaced with multiple contracts and whether risks of fragmentation had been considered. The Cabinet Member said the council had been exploring various procurement options and that fragmentation might have posed challenges but also offered flexibility, particularly in light of national policy changes such as extended producer responsibility and deposit return schemes.

4.     Members questioned whether higher recycling rates might have reduced inputs to the energy?from?waste facility and affected revenue. The officer noted that the forthcoming Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), due from 2028–29, was expected to introduce carbon costs, encouraging waste minimisation, and that the facility could accept waste from commercial sources or other councils if required.

5.     Members expressed concern that the facility required consistent feedstock and might have created a need to source waste. Officers confirmed that a continuous supply had been required for efficient operation but noted that this waste need not have come solely from council collections and could be sourced from other authorities or commercial operators.

6.     Members asked if the garden waste subscription service was on track to break even. The officer said forecasting uptake had been difficult but noted that other councils had seen 4–15% first?year uptake. Herefordshire had approximately 3,700 subscribers, with numbers expected to rise during spring and summer.

7.     Members asked how private providers might have affected subscription levels. The officer noted that private services operated on rolling contracts, meaning residents can switch to the council’s competitively priced service as their contracts expired.

8.     Members asked how early?stage financial pressures had been managed. The officer explained that the council had agreed reduced operational resources with the contractor while subscriber numbers remained low and had established a financial reserve to mitigate early financial risk.

9.     Members sought assurance about introducing a separate food waste collection. The Cabinet Member confirmed that the council had remained committed under the Environment Act 2021, but highlighted that expected government funding had not been provided and that implementation—estimated at £2.6 million per year—would have required new funding and governance arrangements.

10.  Members suggested that separating food  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

To seek the views of the Environment and Sustainability Scrutiny Committee on the draft Local Cycling Walking and Wheeling Infrastructure Plan, prior to its consideration by Cabinet.

The Chair took the report on the Local Cycling Walking and Wheeling Infrastructure Plan as read and opened the item up for debate. The key points of discussion included:

1.     Members asked what activities and users were meant to be included within the term “wheeling”, noting it might not be widely understood. Officers responded that it reflected national LCWIP terminology and broadly referred to the use of wheeled mobility devices such as wheelchairs and mobility scooters, with acknowledgement that further explanation could be added to the plan for clarity.

2.     Members asked how accessibility for disabled users would be addressed and whether the council risked legal challenge if infrastructure did not accommodate wheeled users, and officers explained that each scheme would undergo equality and environmental impact assessments and that, where full accommodation was not possible, the council would document constraints and consider mitigation, with proper equality consideration forming part of the justification for design decisions.

3.     Members sought clarification on how schemes would be prioritised within the LCWIP and whether those supporting multiple forms of active travel would be favoured, and officers advised that prioritisation used a range of criteria and that schemes benefiting walking, cycling and wheeling were likely to score more highly

4.     Members asked whether projects funded through different sources would need to support all active travel modes, and officers explained that Active Travel England–funded schemes were expected to support walking, cycling and wheeling, while council?funded schemes were strongly encouraged to adopt inclusive design though requirements could vary by project type.

5.     Members questioned whether including reference to the Hereford bypass might be misleading given long?term delivery timescales, and officers clarified that the LCWIP functioned as a flexible, reviewable planning document and that the reference simply identified a possible future opportunity for active travel infrastructure rather than a near?term commitment.

6.     Members asked whether the structure and content of the LCWIP could affect the council’s ambition to achieve Active Travel England Level 2 status, and officers confirmed the authority was currently Level 1, that achieving Level 2 remained a priority for funding opportunities, and that adopting the LCWIP and maintaining engagement with inspectors would support progress.

7.     Members queried the use of a 10 km threshold for analysis and whether it would limit route consideration beyond that distance, and officers explained that the threshold followed national guidance for modelling likely cycling journeys but did not prevent the inclusion of additional routes where locally justified.

8.     Members asked whether the LCWIP contained enough detail for councillors and communities to understand which routes had been included, and officers stated that the document provided a strategic framework and that future updates and scheme development could be shaped through further engagement.

9.     Members asked how councillors would be involved in future LCWIP reviews, and officers said the plan would be periodically updated and that opportunities for member engagement could be built into review processes.

10.  Members asked whether the plan placed too much emphasis on cycling relative to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

To consider the draft work programme for Herefordshire Council’s scrutiny committees for the municipal years 2025/26 and 2026/7.

1.    The committee noted that the objectives for the upcoming June meeting on land use management had been revised following a productive officer meeting, making them more specific to what the council could realistically deliver.

2.    Members were asked to review the changes, and an informal work programme meeting would be scheduled to discuss the objectives and the overall programme leading up to the 2027 elections.

3.    The Chair emphasised the importance of adding the Carbon Management Plan to the work programme, noting that the committee could not avoid addressing it given its central role in achieving the council’s 2030 net?zero target. This addition might require adjusting the order of existing work programme items to ensure proper consideration within the year.

4.    Flooding and drainage were also highlighted as issues requiring attention within the work programme, and the committee would need to determine where these topics fit best.

Wednesday 17 June 2026, 10am

Wednesday 17 June 2026, 10am