To receive questions from members of the public.

Under the Constitution a member of the public can ask a Cabinet Member or Chairman of a Committee any question relevant to a matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties, or which affects the County, as long as a copy of the question is deposited with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services more than six clear working days before the meeting.  A number of question s had been received and were included in the agenda.  The questions, together with a summary of the responses, are set out below:

 

Questions from M Wilson, Lugwardine, Hereford

 

“Why does the local Standards Committee not follow the Standards Board for England’s procedures when carrying out a local investigation?  Viz issuing the investigating officers report in draft so that misunderstandings, misinterpretations, error of fact and bias can be corrected before the report is presented to the Committee?

 

Having had errors reported to them, why does the Committee use a report containing all the above errors as the basis for the findings?

 

What appeal procedures are available to challenge the procedures of the Monitoring Officer and the local Standards Committee in carrying out local investigations into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct, when the Director and Chief Executive decline to use the Council’s complaints procedure and the Standards Board for England have washed their hands of the matter in passing it to the Monitoring Officer?”

 

Answer from Mr Robert Rogers Independent Chairman of the Standards Committee

 

With permission, Chairman, I will answer these three questions together as they are closely related.  I say questions, but they are more in the nature of allegations, regrettably intemperately phrased.

The questioner made seven complaints against Members of Herefordshire Council; all seven were referred by the Standards Board for England for local investigation, and then were subject to local determination by the Committee which I chair.

The fact that these matters have been considered by the Committee means that it would be wholly improper for me to revisit the evidence and the decisions in public.  But I can comment upon the procedures followed.

The questioner alleges that the Committee did not follow the procedures recommended by the Standards Board for England.  This is unfounded.  We have now determined 13 cases locally, and in every one the SBE’s procedures for local investigation and local determination, as appropriate, have been followed exactly.

The Monitoring Officer, not the Committee, appoints the investigating officer (who must not be an adviser to the Committee).  Under the SBE’s procedures, it is for the investigating officer to decide whether or not to issue a draft report before a final report goes to the Committee.  But when the Committee considers the final report, it must analyse the evidence and take a view on all the interpretations and deductions made by the investigating officer.  This is what we did in these seven cases, carefully considering some 700 pages of evidence in all.  We were fully aware of the evidence upon which the allegations were founded.  Our Decision Notices set out very plainly and in detail why we found the complaints to be wholly without foundation.

The SBE are reviewing these cases – as they review all local determinations. The questioner is welcome to ask them for the outcome.

I cannot finish without commenting on the fact that Question 1 accuses the investigating officer of bias.  This is a damaging allegation to make against a conscientious public servant who also has professional obligations as a solicitor of the Supreme Court.  I reject the allegation.

It sometimes happens that those dissatisfied with the decision of a tribunal seek to attack the process; but there are better ways of doing it than this.

 

Questions from P Cocks, Hereford

 

“Observation of the traffic flow at the junction of Ross Road and Holme Lacy Road indicate that the percentage of heavy goods vehicles against light vans and cars turning into Holme Lacy Road is very small.  What is the evidence that the Council carried out a detailed traffic survey to justify the Rotherwas Relief Road.  Sites for a survey need to have been at the junction of the A49 and Holm Lacy Road, also at the entrances to the Rotherwas Industrial Estate, in the following categories?

 

1)                  Pedal Cycles

2)                  Two wheeled motorised vehicles

3)                  Cars and taxis

4)                  Buses and coaches

5)                  Light goods vehicles

6)                  HGV rigid 2 axles

7)                  HGV rigid 3 axles

8)                  HGV rigid 4 axles

9)                  HGV articulated 3 axles

10)              HGV articulated 4 axles

11)              HGV articulated 5 or more axles

 

The above formula is from the Ministry of Transport.    It is used by many councils, from 07:00 hrs to 19:00 hrs.  If Herefordshire Council has not carried out such a categorized traffic Census then what detailed data can you produce to justify the Rotherwas Road?

 

A weight restriction is proposed for Holme Lacy Road.  At what weight will the restriction be set?  Will this limit include vehicles carrying waste and domestic rubbish to Rotherwas?  How stringent will the enforcement of the weight restriction be and what is the calculated cost of this enforcement?

 

Earlier proposals for Holme Lacy Road included a restriction of traffic at the Railway Bridge on Holme Lacy Road to force the majority of vehicles to use the new Rotherwas road.  Is this proposal still under consideration?

 

It would be appreciated if an answer to these questions be given as an item and not as on the 9th February 2007 included in an all encompassing statement, which was designed to confuse.”

 

Answer from Councillor DB Wilcox, Cabinet Member (Highways and Transportation)

 

Considerable data collection, analysis and traffic modelling was undertaken during the development of the Rotherwas Access Road scheme to demonstrate the need for the scheme.  New data was collected in relation to traffic movements at various points on both the A49 and Holme Lacy Road.  Data was also supplied by the Highways Agency in relation to traffic on the A49. This data  was collected in line with  Government guidance. This data was used to enable detailed traffic modelling work  to be undertaken to forecast and demonstrate the traffic effects and the likely benefits of the scheme both now and in the future with the expected development of the estate.  The benefits identified include reducing HGV movements along Holme Lacy Road to improve the environment of this residential area.  This modelling work was used in the preparation of the Transport Assessment which accompanied the Planning Application for the scheme and the Major Scheme Business Case that was submitted to Government.

The planning consent for the access road requires the introduction of a weight restriction banning vehicles above 7.5tonne on Holme Lacy Road no later than 12 months after the access road is opened  to further reduce the number of HGVs using this route.   The Council ha s commenced the required statutory consultation associated with the associated Order to enable this restriction to be in place next Spring to coincide with the opening of the access road.  Enforcement  of the weight restriction will be the  responsibility of  West Mercia Police.  

The planning consent for the access road does not make specific reference to measures at Holme Lacy Road  Railway Bridge. However an overall package of improvements for road users once the weight restriction on Holme Lacy Road is in place is being considered  to reinforce the weight limit.  Scoping, feasibility and costings reports are being prepared to determine  the extent and programme of works  to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists .

 

Questions from R Hattersley, Hereford

 

“What is the extent of the research the Council have undertaken into the potential for tourism for the Ribbon? What plans do the Council have for investigating this before covering the find up?  Have the Council undertaken any research into the concept of a Heritage Park on Dinedor Hill and surrounding area? Do they intend to do so?”

 

Answers from Councillor A Blackshaw, Cabinet Member (Economic Development and Community Services)

 

Despite claims made by those who oppose the road that the Ribbon would be a viable tourist attraction, the fact is it does not make a significant visual impact of anything like the nature of Stone Henge, The White Horse at Uffington nor, indeed, the serpent feature in the United States. The fact that those making these claims were, and remain, opposed to the building of the road is, I think, no coincidence. The Council would need to find considerable funds to both move the course of the road and to provide a permanent structure to cover the site. Therefore the question of funding research into the viability of the site at this time as a tourist attraction is premature.

Once Cabinet has made a decision on the course of the road, the preservation of the site and further investigation of the Ribbon tourism and/or educational potential can be explored in detail.

The Council has not undertaken research into the concept of a Heritage Park on Dinedor Hill but would welcome any proposals from interested parties for consideration.

 

“How important do the Council believe to be the views of local tourism business, and how do the Council intend to consult with them on the potentially positive impact the ribbon could have on their business? How important do the Council believe the views of the Herefordshire public to be on what should be done with the Ribbon? When and how do the Council plan to take these views into account?”

 

The Council take into account the views of local tourism business as well as other economic, community and environmental aspects of life in the County. As above, detailed consideration of the tourism impact of the Ribbon at this time, ahead of a Cabinet decision, is premature.

The Council thinks the views of all residents are important, including the 5,000 who signed a petition asking government for funding for the road. All views will be taken into account before a decision is made.

 

“In a recent letter to businesses in Rotherwas, the Council's Director of Environment stated, "The Ribbon has not even a fraction of the intrinsic interest enjoyed by Stonehenge..." On what evidence was this statement based?”

 

The full text of the passage to which the questioner refers is “The Ribbon has not even a fraction of the intrinsic interest enjoyed by Stonehenge nor the visual impact.” This statement is based on the evidence that Stone Henge, described by English Heritage as “one of the wonders of world” comprises a stone circle 284 feet in diameter, standing stones weighing up to 4 tonnes, some of which were transported for hundreds of miles. Stone Henge is a world heritage site, the Ribbon has not yet even been scheduled as an ancient monument by English Heritage.

 

Questions from J Hines, Hereford

 

“What date was the Ribbon actually discovered, when was its significance realised, and when was English Heritage informed?”

 

Answers from Councillor JG Jarvis, Cabinet Member (Environment and Strategic Housing)

 

The earliest indications that the Ribbon might exist was on 24 April. English Heritage visited the site on 2 May. The full significance became apparent during the excavations and was confirmed on 13 June.

 

“Had the solution to cover the Ribbon with the road been formally approved by English Heritage when the Council made this proposal public and what alternative options had been investigated other than the proposal to cover the Ribbon with the road? Has any analysis been done of the potential effect of ground vibration and compaction caused by the road on the Rotherwas Ribbon?”

 

The design solution we have considered has been developed in conjunction with English Heritage. It had not been formally approved when we made the find public. Other options under consideration for a decision by Cabinet include stopping the road, diverting left or right, going under the site and building a bridge structure over the site. Details of these options will be made public in the Cabinet report. The solution under consideration is one employed to protect a site on Salisbury Plain subject to the passage of tanks over it. Our proposed solution includes vibration monitoring for a period of 3 years.

 

“Has the Council asked English Heritage to Schedule the Ribbon? Given that Scheduling would bring the Council financial compensation would that not be a benefit?”

 

The Council has discussed with English heritage the possibility of scheduling the site. Compensation is only available in limited circumstances. In any event, whether the site is scheduled or not this does not preclude any of the options that will be considered by Cabinet.

 

“Why did the Council press releases imply that a 60m long object had been discovered, when in fact it is a 60m length of something much bigger that has been found so far? If as seems likely the Ribbon is much longer than 60m, is the Council concerned that if the road proceeds the Ribbon can never be viewed in its potential and dramatic entirety? What plans have been made for further investigations?”

The Council’s press release of 4th July includes “The ribbon-shaped feature is not flat, but is three dimensional as it appears to have been deliberately sculpted to undulate throughout the 60 metres of its length which have so far been uncovered.” 

The southernmost part of the Ribbon seems likely to be underneath the Northern part of the Rotherwas Industrial Estate, though this is subject to confirmation. Viewing the Ribbon in its entirety would not therefore be possible even without the road, continuation of which, and in what form, is a matter for Cabinet. We are intending to carry out further investigations in September subject to Cabinet agreement and funding from English Heritage.

 

Questions from Ms S Norman

 

“How much does Herefordshire earn from tourism and how much from heavy industry? Which of these two sectors do the Council believe should have priority in future policy, especially if there is a conflict between the two?”

Answers from Councillor A Blackshaw, Cabinet Member (Economic Development and Community Services)

 

Unfortunately no directly comparable figures are available in respect of how much Herefordshire earns from Tourism and how much it earns from heavy industry.  As a best estimate for earnings in heavy industry we can use the manufacturing sector.  In 2004 Herefordshire’s manufacturing sector was worth approximately £437 million in (Gross Value Added) GVA for the County.  This was approximately 19% of the overall GVA for the County. 

 

In 2004 there was some 11,700 people employed in manufacturing in the County.  It is worth noting that this figure significantly under represents the full value of manufacturing to the County as in addition to this GVA figure there are many service sector businesses in the County that make their living by supporting the manufacturing sector in the County. 

 

It is not possible to identify the GVA figures for tourism, the Government collects these figures, and doesn’t define tourism as an industry sector in its own rights.  Tourism cuts across a number of sectors for example hotels, restaurants, wholesale and the retail trade so it is not possible to provide GVA estimates or employment numbers for tourism.  There was a piece of regional work done in 2002 which looked at the value of tourism to the region.  On this basis of this model the tourism industry was worth approximately £272 million per annum to Herefordshire. 

 

The County’s Economic Development strategy identifies both sectors as being important for the future economy of the County.  There is little evidence to suggest that there will be any conflict between the growth of the two sectors in the County.  Indeed significant parts of the manufacturing sector are a key part of the Counties tourism attraction for example the Scottish and Newcastle cider production and other cider production facilities in the County are a key reason for the retention of orchards in the County and in themselves act as a tourism product with the cider museum in Hereford being a key part of that.

 

“Why is the Council continuing to encourage businesses into Rotherwas if access is so poor, when Leominster Enterprise Park, built at great expense about three years ago, also with AWM money, is huge and virtually empty? It has excellent access to both the A49 and, potentially, to the railway line, as does Moreton Camp, which also has plenty of space.”

 

The Council continues to focus its efforts in providing employment land at Rotherwas, both to support the large number of existing businesses that already operate from the estate and to take advantage of its sustainable location at the heart of the County.  It is important to provide employment opportunities as close to people’s homes as possible to minimise the impact of travel around the County.  Rotherwas is well located to the larger populated centres of the County and the access road that is currently under construction will provide good access to the M50 and the rest of the national motorway network.  The employment land provision in Leominster has been developed to provide employment land supply for the North of the County for a number of years.  Much of the land that was available at the Leominster Enterprise Park has in fact now been committed for development.  A number of developments are under construction including eight single story office units, premises for a local printing company, a number of units are also being developed by Tensing Holdings, and a number of other plots have all been purchased for development.  In addition the new Leominster Police station is currently under construction and is very close to completion and occupancy.

 

Questions from R Clay, Hereford

 

“Why did the Council not tell English Heritage that the Rotherwas  relief road was already highly controversial before the  archaeological find?  Which Councillors, whether in the Cabinet or not, knew about the  Dinedor archaeological Find before it was announced on the BBC  Radio 4 Today Programme?  Please name the distinguished Archaeologists who have been invited to inspect the Dinedor Find and  indicate which ones have now made a visit and which ones still intend to do so?”

 

Answers from Councillor JG Jarvis, Cabinet Member (Environment and Strategic Housing)

 

The Council had no cause to contact English Heritage before the archaeological find. However, had English Heritage wished, they could have found out all about the road from the Council’s website.

All of the Council’s Cabinet knew about the archaeological find prior to the piece broadcast on Radio 4.

 

Questions from Ms U Clay, Hereford

 

“Will the Council make publicly available all correspondence between themselves and English Heritage concerning the Dinedor Archaeological Find?”

 

Answers from Councillor JG Jarvis, Cabinet Member (Environment and Strategic Housing)

 

Subject to freedom of information legislation the council will make all information available.

 

“How many members of the public have asked to view the Find at Dinedor and how many have been accommodated so far?”

 

RR Trips – numbers of people booking

Sat 7^th -                      202

Tues 11^th -                  181

Monday 16^th               188

Tues 17^th                    146

Wed 18^th                    149

Thurs 19^th                   132

TOTAL                       998

Events cancelled because of weather

Fri 20^th                        152

Sat 21st                      177

TOTAL                       329 (hence wanted to see but did not)

 

Tried to arrange a replacement day for Tues 24^th but had to cancel that also.

Not all who booked attended but there were also some that attended who did not book or booked late such that were told to turn up after the lists had been forwarded to those managing the trips on the day. I staffed the tours on two of the days and such just about equalled out. Unfortunately it was not possible to do a head count at all times because of the comings and goings. There were also small party visits of councillors, business people, archaeologists, staff and others so I think the figure of 1,000 would be a very realistic estimate.

 

“Keeping in mind that Dinedor Hill was already known to be rich in matters of Archaeological interest, what contingency plans were made for a circumstance in which a sufficiently important discovery made the continuation of the line of the Rotherwas relief road impossible?”

 

The planning consent given for the constriction of the road was dealt with in accordance with PPG16 (national policy guidelines relating to archaeology) and this included provision for archaeology investigations.  Impossible to predict all