The Reverend Christine Mundell led the Council in prayer.

The Chairman and Council stood in silent tribute in memory of Councillor Dick Burke, Member for Leominster South, who had died since the last meeting of Council.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors CM Bartrum, WLS Bowen and TM James.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest in agenda item 4 as Cabinet Member for the Environment in the previous administration of 2003/07.

The Chairman asked Council to join with him in support of Councillor Lloyd-Hayes who would be taking part in a charity sheep drive over Tower Bridge in London.  The Chairman also informed Council of the launch of the Extra Care Facilities which was taking place at the Rose Gardens in the afternoon and thanked those Members involved in the work leading up to the launch.

To receive any written questions from Councillors.

Councillors may ask questions of Cabinet Members and Chairmen of Committees so long as a copy of the question is deposited with the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Democratic Services at least 3 working days prior to the meeting. A list of questions, set out in the order in which they had been received, was circulated at the beginning of the meeting. Councillors may also, at the discretion of the Chairman, ask one supplementary question on the same topic. The questions and summary of the answers are set out below.

Question from Councillor MAF Hubbard

Please list all meetings between members of the Cabinet and representatives of JS Bloor Ltd from January 1st 1998 to the present day

Answer from Councillor RJ Phillips, Leader of the Council

There are no records of any formal meetings taking place between Cabinet and representatives of JS Bloor Limited from 1 January 1998 to the present day.  It has not been possible to access the diary of the previous administration from 1998 to May 2003, though it is understood that a number of informal meetings did take place.  Since May 2003 there has been three informal meetings involving Cabinet Members on 1 May 2003, May/June 2007 and on 12 August 2008.  I have also met with JS Bloor Ltd., on 25 June 2003 with a B Morgan and I Green and one on 21 November 2007. The Leader was not aware of any other contacts between Members of the Council and representatives of JS Bloor

In response to a further question, Councillor Phillips advised that formal records of any meetings between Council officers and the developers would have been recorded but that meetings between Members and the developers would not have been.

Questions from Councillor AT Oliver

Would you please advise what the current position is with the planning application by Bloor Homes Ltd for 300 houses at Bullinghope.

The letter from Boyer Planning of 21/01/2004, on behalf of Bloor Homes Ltd, to the Chief Planning Officer of Herefordshire Council appears to dictate to our Planning Department the conditions under which they would get planning permission for the Bullinghope site, and also to outline the way it could be included in the revised UDP under the appropriate strategic policy context.  Does the Cabinet Member for the Environment believe it is appropriate for a developer to be instructing this Council’s planning officers on how to run their department, or is this the normal way that forward planning is developed within this Council?

Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis, Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing

Given the current legal proceedings on the inclusion of the Bullinghope site no further work is being carried out on the current application submitted by Bloor Homes on this site.

The letter from Boyer is entirely typical of letters sent to the Council during the UDP process.  Its purpose was to promote the site for inclusion in the Plan and to suggest the basis on which that could be achieved.  In the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider any Notices of Motion.

Councillors ACR Chappell and GW Dawe have submitted the following Notice of Motion as a matter of urgency:

NOTES the Judgement by Mr. Justice Collins in the case of the Dinedor Hill Action Association v Herefordshire County Council.

NOTES that the Rotherwas Access Road has been completed without any financial contribution from JS Bloor Ltd.

NOTES that JS Bloor Ltd have submitted a Planning Application to build 300 houses at Bullinghope without any socially affordable element.

RESOLVES that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Political Group Leaders, should appoint suitable persons independent of the Council to conduct a full and public enquiry and to publish the outcome.

INSTRUCTS the Chief Executive to include in the Terms of Reference for this Enquiry:

The circumstances that on 28 July 2006 led the Leader of the Council to move the rejection of a decision by his own Cabinet, despite assurances given to the contrary less than 24 hours previously.

Whether Councillor Phillips and others were warned by Legal Officers as to the conduct now found unlawful by Mr Justice Collins.

A full and detailed chronology of discussions, proposals and responses between Council Members, Council Officers and representatives of JS Bloor Ltd, concerning the Rotherwas Access Road and housing allocations at Bullinghope.

An investigation of whether or not inappropriate pressure was placed on Planning Officers during this process, and if so by whom.

What professional advice was given to Councillor Phillips concerning the Planning Inspector’s view on future housing numbers.

How have the Government’s targets for housing in Herefordshire been determined and whether that process has been influenced directly or indirectly by JS Bloor Ltd.

What evaluation was made of proposals for alternative methods of funding the Rotherwas Access Road.

What understandings have been reached with JS Bloor Ltd about issues additional to the application for 300 houses at Bullinghope.

What pre-application discussions were held with JS Bloor Ltd in relation to Flood Risk, water supply, sewerage and traffic.

Why the Council submitted its evidence to the High Court late and withheld crucial evidence.

Why the Council’s Scrutiny procedures failed to challenge the conduct that has led to the current circumstances.

Whether any Members failed to Register or declare Interests that should have been registered or declared in relation to JS Bloor Ltd.

Any other matters that they believe to be relevant to the matter and that the public would expect to know.

The Chairman will rule whether the motion is urgent.

Councillors ACR Chappell and GW Dawe submitted the following Notice of Motion:

“NOTES the Judgement by Mr. Justice Collins in the case of the Dinedor Hill Action Association v Herefordshire County Council.

NOTES that the Rotherwas Access Road has been completed without any financial contribution from JS Bloor Ltd.

NOTES that JS Bloor Ltd have submitted a Planning Application to build 300 houses at Bullinghope without any socially affordable element.

RESOLVES that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Political Group Leaders, should appoint suitable persons independent of the Council to conduct a full and public enquiry and to publish the outcome.

INSTRUCTS the Chief Executive to include in the Terms of Reference for this Enquiry:

The circumstances that on 28 July 2006 led the Leader of the Council to move the rejection of a decision by his own Cabinet, despite assurances given to the contrary less than 24 hours previously.

Whether Councillor Phillips and others were warned by Legal Officers as to the conduct now found unlawful by Mr Justice Collins.

A full and detailed chronology of discussions, proposals and responses between Council Members, Council Officers and representatives of JS Bloor Ltd, concerning the Rotherwas Access Road and housing allocations at Bullinghope.

An investigation of whether or not inappropriate pressure was placed on Planning Officers during this process, and if so by whom.

What professional advice was given to Councillor Phillips concerning the Planning Inspector’s view on future housing numbers.

How have the Government’s targets for housing in Herefordshire been determined and whether that process has been influenced directly or indirectly by JS Bloor Ltd.

What evaluation was made of proposals for alternative methods of funding the Rotherwas Access Road.

What understandings have been reached with JS Bloor Ltd about issues additional to the application for 300 houses at Bullinghope.

What pre-application discussions were held with JS Bloor Ltd in relation to Flood Risk, water supply, sewerage and traffic.

Why the Council submitted its evidence to the High Court late and withheld crucial evidence.

Why the Council’s Scrutiny procedures failed to challenge the conduct that has led to the current circumstances.

Whether any Members failed to Register or declare Interests that should have been registered or declared in relation to JS Bloor Ltd.

Any other matters that they believe to be relevant to the matter and that the public would expect to know.”

The Chairman ruled urgency.

Councillor ACR Chappell spoke on the Notice of Motion and stated:

• He believed there was a need for a public enquiry into the allocation of the land as Members might have been “whipped” into making their decision at Council in July 2006.

• A meeting took place between Council officers and Bloor Homes representatives in Leominster in September 1998 where it was suggested that a bypass for Hereford could be built in exchange for permission to build five thousand homes.  Planning officers expressed concern at the proposed routing and plans were never made public for discussion.

• He judged it was inappropriate for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To inform Members of the outcome of the High Court challenge to the allocation of land for housing at Bullinghope.

Wards Affected: Countywide – but with focus on Hollington and St. Martins and Hinton

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services presented the report updating Council with the current legal position in respect of the recent High Court challenge to the Council resolution of 28 July 2006.

He said there remained an outstanding leave to appeal and that the Court of Appeal may overturn the ruling of Lord Justice Collins. He reiterated that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in 2006 and replaced the Local Development Framework (LDF). These changes were adopted by Council in July 2006. The UDP was judicially reviewed and heard in the High Court on 27 and 28 June 2008. Lord Justice Collins, in his judgement, said that land at Bullinghope should be deleted from the UDP. JS Bloor is appealing against the High Court ruling and Herefordshire Council has been served as an interested party in the case.

He pointed out that if the appeal is unsuccessful, the UDP would need to be modified to remove the Bullinghope land.

Councillor Phillips moved the recommendations of the report with Councillor Jarvis seconding the recommendations.

RESOLVED

That:

(i)                 Council note the outcome of the High Court decision which is the subject of appeal;

(ii)               Council receive a further report from the Assistant Chief Executive – Legal and Democratic following the completion of legal proceedings; and

(iii)             Council notes the proposed amendments to the Unitary Development Plan at this stage.