To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors KG Grumbley, B Hunt and RV Stockton.

To receive any details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

Councillor PJ Watts was present as a substitute for Councillor KG Grumbley; Councillor JD Woodward for Councillor B Hunt; Councillor JHR Goodwin for Councillor RV Stockton.

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.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

No suggestions were received.

To consider the Cabinet Decision Reference No: 2009.CAB.036 to conclude negotiations and enter into the Edgar Street Grid (ESG) Retail Quarter Development Agreement between Herefordshire Council, ESG Herefordshire Ltd, and Stanhope following an initial European procurement process and subsequent detailed financial and programming negotiations agreed at the Cabinet Meeting on 25 June 2009 that has been called in by three Members of the Committee.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS

In the opinion of the Proper Officer, the next item will not be, or is likely not to be, open to the public and press at the time it is considered.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act as indicated below.

ESG RETAIL QUARTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPENDICES THREE AND FOUR

Not for Publication: This item discloses information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The Committee considered Cabinet’s decision to grant approval to enter into the Edgar Street Grid (ESG) Retail Quarter Development Agreement between Herefordshire Council, ESG Herefordshire Ltd, and Stanhope.

The decision had been called in by three Members of the Committee: Councillors DJ Benjamin, GFM Dawe and MAF Hubbard.

The stated reasons for the call-in were

·      There being no previous indication that a 250 year lease was being considered, and insufficient explanation as to why this was necessary.

·      The ‘Masterplan’ was negotiated before the start of the credit crunch and there has been no public re-negotiation of plans for the Retail Quarter since those events.

·      With due regard to matters of commercial confidentiality, there is insufficient  information about the structure of the financial arrangements in relation to the Retail Quarter itself, and also between the Retail Quarter and other parts of the ESG project.

The Chairman explained how he proposed to conduct the meeting.   He emphasised that the focus of the meeting should be on the merits of the Cabinet decision of 25 June.

A Member proposed that Mr R Clay, a city resident, should be co-opted onto the Committee for the part of the meeting open to the public outlining his qualifications and the support he had provided to those initiating the call-in.

The Committee considered the matter and decided not to co-opt Mr Clay.

A statement was then made on behalf of those initiating the call-in.  The principal points are summarised below:

·         Too little information had been made available about a momentous decision for the City and the County.

·         There were considerable unanswered concerns on the part of the business and related professional community in the City.

·         The recent resignation of Clive Richards as Chair of the ESG Company was unexplained.

·         That the scrutiny process was flawed.

·         That the Community Services Scrutiny Committee had not previously conducted any in-depth or robust examination of the ESG project.

·         A criticism of the role of the Chairman of the Committee and the appropriateness of his chairing the meeting.

·         A concern that Cabinet had taken its decision on the ESG Retail Quarter Development Agreement before planning approval had been given to the new relocated Livestock Market which it was suggested raised the question of predetermination.

·         Criticism that a number of people had not been invited to appear before the Committee as witnesses.

·         That those initiating the call-in had not been granted their wish to have an advisor of their choice co-opted onto the committee to assist them.  This made it difficult for them to challenge the professional representatives attending the meeting on behalf of the Council and ESG Board.

·         That depending on the outcome of the meeting it was intended to pursue the matter including by holding a public meeting where the concerns of the citizens and its business community could be given a full airing.

·         It was suggested that the way in which the call-in had been handled had impaired the attempt to hold the Executive to account and therefore might increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.