To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors CA Gandy and A Warmington.  Apologies were also received from Councillor P Rone – cabinet member – transport and roads and from Mrs A Fisher, one of the statutory co-optees.

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

Councillor GJ Powell substituted for Councillor CA Gandy and Councillor A Seldon for Councillor A Warmington.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

Agenda item 10 – Passenger Transport Review Consultation

Councillor A Seldon declared a non-pecuniary interest as Chairman of Bromyard Community Transport.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2016.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2016 be approved as a correct record.

To consider suggestions from the public on issues the committee could scrutinise in the future.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised.  Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

No suggestions had been received.

To note questions received from the public.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a scrutiny committee meeting subject to the question being directly relevant to an item listed on the agenda below.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than 5.00 pm on Wednesday 9 November to councillorservices@herefordshire.gov.uk.

Questions had been received in relation to agenda item 8: Proposed 2017/18 Capital Budget from Mrs E Morawiecka and Mrs V Wegg-Prosser.

The questions and responses had been published in a supplement to the agenda.

To seek the committee’s views on the budget proposals for 2017-18 and updated medium term financial strategy (MTFS).

(This meeting followed on from the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to which members of the General Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been invited. The presentation made to that Committee on the draft 2017/18 budget and medium term financial strategy had also been circulated to members of the General Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a supplement to the agenda.)

The interim director of resources reiterated that a further report would be made to the Committee in December updated in the light of the Autumn Statement.

The Chairman invited further questions and comments from committee members.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        The budget proposals and savings plans indicated that there would be increasing pressure on local communities to take on responsibility for delivering services if they wished them to continue in their locality.  It was suggested that the Council should promote discussions with Parish and Town Councils about funding services in a co-ordinated way.  It was also noted that in response to question 4 in the budget consultation that a number of respondents thought that their parish council should charge extra to carry out certain activities.  A further suggestion was made that there might be different discussions to be had with the Town Councils and larger Parish Councils compared with the smaller more rural councils.

·        It was questioned whether houses were being built at a sufficient pace to meet the council’s targets.  Only some 10% of development for which planning permission had been granted appeared to be being progressed.  The largest housebuilding companies seemed to be more interested in maintaining land banks.  Infrastructure issues were also holding back development in the county.

The interim director of resources (IDR) commented that the updated version of the budget report would comment on the robustness of the budget assumptions about housing delivery.

The IDR acknowledged the uncertainty over the implications of the government’s proposals for business rate retention and that the position would need to be monitored.

·        In response to a question about the Council’s legal proceedings against Amey as its former contractor the Director of Economy, Communities and Corporate (DECC) commented that Amey was seeking leave to appeal the recent decision of the Court to award a sum to the Council.  The Council was proceeding on the basis that it might take some 18 months to resolve all the matters under dispute and it would not be prudent to allocate any of the funds secured until the process had been finalised.

·        With reference to paragraph 47 of the report the weight that could be given to the response to the budget consultation was discussed.  A view was expressed that it was clear from the responses that the consultation had reached a wide demographic.  The respondents also included a number of Parish Councils and other groups which represented the views of many residents.  The suggestion in the report that the respondents may not represent the views of the general population was therefore challenged.  The consultation response that 53%  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

To provide Cabinet with comments on the proposed capital budget for 2017/18 onwards for recommendation to Council on 16 December 2016.

The Committee was invited to provide cabinet with comments on the proposed capital budget for 2017/18 onwards for recommendation to Council on 16 December 2016.

The interim director of resources presented the report.

A number of members had detailed questions that they wished to ask and indicated that they were content for these to be dealt with by written answer and appended to the Minutes.

RESOLVED: That written answers be provided to questions raised at the meeting and appended to the Minutes.

To enable the committee to consider the options available to the council prior to entering into longer term arrangements on the stadium premises.

The Committee considered the options available to the council prior to entering into longer term arrangements on the stadium premises.

The development manager presented the report.

Mr K Kinnersley, Chief Executive Officer of Hereford FC had been invited to address the meeting.  He gave a short statement reminding the Committee of the background to the Club’s position.  When considering forming a new football club the view had been that the Edgar Street stadium would be key to maintaining support. He outlined a range of measures the club was undertaking to continue to secure support including plans to maintain and encourage community involvement.

He reported that the Club’s aim was to a return to National followed by Football League status. In relation to the ground this meant returning the stadium to four sides to comply with league Regulations.  A long lease of some 35-50 years would be required at some point in the future to achieve that ambition as it would require the construction of a new stand. In the meantime a ten year lease would be welcomed as an interim measure prior to seeking grant funding for future development.

In discussion support was expressed for the football club’s efforts and the principal consideration was whether a longer lease should be considered.  Mr Kinnersley confirmed that a 10 year lease was satisfactory at this stage.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     the executive be advised that the Committee supports the proposed grant of a new lease to the current tenant for a term of 10 years, commencing at some point prior to the expiry the current lease; and

              (b)     a further report is presented to the Committee setting out the long term proposals for the Edgar Street stadium following an appraisal by the football club, council and potential development partners of the options.

(The meeting adjourned between 1.15pm to 1:20pm.)

To seek the committee’s views on the options under consideration as part of the passenger transport review and seek comments on the outputs of the bus service consultation.

The Committee’s views were sought on the options under consideration as part of the passenger transport review and comments sought on the outputs of the bus service consultation.

The head of transport and access services presented the report.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        It was difficult to make bus routes viable.  Many were sustainable only if there was one contractor.

·        The impact of the Health service strategic transformation plan needed to be considered.  Many bus journeys were for health appointments.

·        Many bus journeys were by older people and if bus services were cut and there was no community transport as an alternative they faced difficulties.

·        Consideration needed to be given to the bigger picture, growing the service to reduce car traffic, using new technology and offering incentives to travel by bus.

·        The local transport plan was focused on bus routes to and from Hereford.  More consideration needed to be given to routes from the market towns to neighbouring counties.

·        Significant reductions in bus services had already been made.  It was questioned whether the further savings being proposed were deliverable.  These implied a reduction in service to a core network with no rural provision.

·        Consideration should be given to the needs of residents and how these might best be met.  One option might be to look at community transport areas and the social, economic and environmental advantages of continuing to provide a bus service. Because services ran across parish council areas it was not an issue that could easily be addressed in discussion with them.

·        Regard needed to be had to the wider consequences of reducing bus services which could include increased costs to the council to address other issues the service reduction inadvertently created.  There were indications, for example, that a removal of evening services in one area had led to an increase in the crime rate in the evenings, as a consequence of reduced social opportunities for young people.

·        The use of the word “subsidy” had a negative connotation.  Funding of the bus service should rather be regarded as an investment or spend to save initiative.  The proposed savings represented 0.6% of the revenue budget but would have a disproportionate effect on people’s quality of life.

·        Account should be taken of wider research and rural transport initiatives including for example the Local Government Association publication: Missing the Bus, and initiatives developed using the national Total Transport pilot fund.

·        The scope for Parish and Town Councils to use the powers available to them under S137 of the Local Government Act 1972 should be assessed.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     rather than considering the findings of the passenger transport review in isolation, the executive is recommended to explore the scope for developing proposals to address the needs of local communities as a whole;

              (b)     consideration be given to initiatives developed using the national Total Transport pilot fund and other rural transport initiatives; and

              (c)     the scope for Parish and Town Councils to use the powers available to them under S137  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

To consider the committee’s work programme.

The Committee considered its work programme.

The Chairman reported changes to the membership of the Task and Finish Group on Devolution. The Group now comprised himself, and councillors James, Phillips and Powell.

RESOLVED: That the draft work programme be noted.

The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday 17 January 2017 at 10.00 am.

It was noted that whilst the next scheduled meeting was Tuesday 17 January 2017 at 10.00 am, an additional meeting would be held before then to give further consideration to the revenue budget.