To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies had been received.

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

There had been no named substitutes.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of 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 2 March 2026.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2026 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 the committee with an overview of the council’s role, remit and responsibilities in relation to highway protection, riparian responsibilities, drainage, enforcement and public rights of way, to support effective scrutiny of current arrangements.

The report was taken as read and the item was opened up to committee members and attendees. The key points of the discussion are detailed below: 

1. Members asked whether the council paid sufficient attention to land use across the county and whether it maintained a clear record of how land was being used. Officers explained that while detailed mapping existed through the Environment Agency, the council itself mainly tracked broad trends such as changes from pasture to arable land. Because farming practices change year to year, there was no fixed or complete inventory, but there was general awareness of major shifts and their implications.

2. The committee questioned what powers the council had over land use and whether it could control how landowners managed their land. The response clarified that the council had very limited direct powers. Its role was mostly to influence through advice, engagement, and partnership working, only stepping in with enforcement where land use caused clear harm to public assets such as roads, drainage systems, or public rights of way.

3. Members enquired what the council was doing, in practice, to monitor harms arising from land use. Officers responded that the focus was less on monitoring land use itself and more on identifying its impacts. This was done through inspections, reports from the public, and local knowledge, with intervention occurring when issues such as flooding, runoff, or obstructions arose.

4. Members asked what more could be done to prevent problems before they occurred rather than reacting afterwards. Officers and Cabinet members highlighted work on engagement and education, including partnerships with organisations like the NFU and CLA, as well as initiatives such as the River Conference, natural flood management schemes, and farm-level environmental support. These efforts aimed to influence behaviour early, although they depended on voluntary cooperation.

5. The committee queried how engagement with farmers and landowners currently operated and whether it was sufficient. Officers explained that there were established channels such as the Herefordshire Rural Hub and Farm Herefordshire partnership, which acted as key routes for disseminating advice and encouraging good practice. However, it was acknowledged that engagement had its limits, particularly with those who were less willing to participate.

6. The committee asked about the costs associated with maintaining the public realm and how much was spent overall. The response stated that approximately £6.5 million was spent annually, covering roads, rights of way, trees, and infrastructure. Historically, only a small proportion of this had been directed toward preventative work, although this was now increasing.

7. Turning to enforcement, members asked whether the council’s current approach was effective and consistent. The response acknowledged weaknesses in the system, noting that while a process existed -- from informal discussion through to potential legal action -- it did not always progress as intended. Cases could stall before reaching formal enforcement, which reduced the deterrent effect.

8. Members asked why enforcement often failed to progress. Officers and cabinet members explained that this could be due to resource constraints, complex legal processes, or breakdowns in the escalation process. In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

Verbal update from the group Chair.

The Chair of the task and finish group provided the committee with an update. The key points are detailed below:

1. Limited funding was a primary constraint on improving services, despite clear ambition and capability within the council and among some operators. Alongside this, poor data availability -- particularly from commercial bus operators -- limited the council’s ability to assess performance, compare services or make informed decisions.

2. Community transport played a vital role beyond mobility, delivering social connection and health benefits. While these services were relatively low cost due to volunteer involvement, their capacity was limited. The group supported strengthening their role and representation in decision-making, while recognising that traditional cost measures underestimated their wider value.

3. The group had examined home-to-school transport, including steps to reduce reliance on costly taxi provision. A detailed case study of the subsidised Route 66 was being undertaken to assess usage, costs and contract terms, as it provides accessible data not available for most commercial routes.

4. Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) schemes often had high costs and low passenger numbers, with a high national failure rate. However, some successful examples showed potential where targeted appropriately, particularly in rural areas, and this option remained under consideration.

5. The government’s free bus travel scheme for under-16s presented both challenges and opportunities. Operator participation could be limited due to administrative burdens, and the group was exploring ways the council could provide short-term financial support. The scheme was also seen as an opportunity to gather valuable data to support future funding bids.

6. The council should prioritise trying to increase its Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding allocation, as comparable authorities received significantly more. Achieving this would require stronger data collection, clear evidence of ambition, and delivery of low-cost improvements such as service pilots, updated policies, and progress on decarbonisation.

7. The transition to greener bus fleets was constrained by operator resources. One potential solution was a leasing model, where the council owned vehicles and operators ran them, helping to overcome financial barriers to investment.

8. The county’s rural geography and low population density significantly limited service viability and funding potential. This context underpinned the group’s pragmatic approach and would be central to explaining its recommendations.

9. The group would complete its final review, agree recommendations, and engage key decision-makers before submitting its report for September 2026. The focus would be on producing practical, deliverable actions to improve the council’s ability to secure funding and strengthen bus services within existing constraints.

To consider the work programme for the committee.

The committee discussed its work programme, this included planning future items on:

• Carbon management, including whether the council can achieve net zero and/or net negative emissions.
• The role of carbon capture, particularly given the county’s rural characteristics.
• A rail strategy review, covering improvements to existing infrastructure and potential new rail links.

Resolved: The committee agreed to hold a work programme planning session at the earliest convenient opportunity.

Monday 21 September 2026, 10am.

Monday 21 September 2026, 10am